Skip to main content

Semantically-Based Ellipsis Resolution with Syntactic Presuppositions

  • Chapter
Computing Meaning

Part of the book series: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy ((SLAP,volume 73))

Abstract

A central issue since the late 1960’s has been the issue of whether ellipsis resolution processes are syntactic or semantic in nature.1 Recently, works that take a more generalized discourse view (Prüst et al, 1993; Asher, 1993; Kehler, 1994) have suggested the need for an approach which eschews a purely syntactic or semantic approach, but rather is conditioned by discourse structure. Kehler, for instance, has modified the approach of Hankamer and Sag (1976, 1984) so that whether the resolution arises from syntactic copying or is semantic i.e. dermis from material already integrated in the discourse model, is determined by whether the coherence relation between clauses is parallel or not;. Thus, on the Sag/Hankamer/Kehler view, syntactic parallelism is not expected indeed not possible in resolution where the source has been integrated in the discourse model. In this chapter, I show that short answers as they occur in extended dialogue involve a resolution process that is perplexing for current models of ellipsis, both purely syntactic or semantic, and mixed ones such as Kehler’s. In particular, I demonstrate that elliptical options are possible

  • at essentially unbounded distance from the original source,

  • long after integration of material must have taken place in the discourse model, and yet,

  • (partial) syntactic parallelism obtains.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Asher, N. (1993), Reference to Abstract Objects in English: a Philosophical Semantics for Natural Language Metaphysics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1997) Human Memory: Theory and Practice. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J. and R. Cooper (1991) Simple Situation Theory and its graphical representation. In: J. Seligman (ed.) DYANA Report R2.1.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. (1992) Computational Situation Theory. PhD Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. (1997) Memory in the Real World. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremers, C. (1983) One the form and interpretation of Ellipsis. In: A. ter Meulen (ed.) Studies in Modeltheoretic Semantics. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. (1991) Three lectures on Situation Theoretic Grammar. In: M. Filgueiras et al. (eds.) Natural Language Processing: Proceedings of EAIA 90, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence no. 476, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 101–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. (1993) Integrating different information sources in linguistic interpretation. In: Y.H. Lee (ed.) Proceedings of Chosun University Linguistic Seminar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corblin, F. (1994) Multiple Negation Processing. University of Edinburgh HCRC Research Paper, RP-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawron, M. and Peters, S. (1990) Anaphora and Quantification in Situation Semantics. CSLI publications, Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, J. (1994) An Update Semantics for Dialogue. In: H. Bunt, R. Muskens, G. Rentier (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Computational Semantics. Tilburg: ITK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg J. (1995a) Resolving Questions, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 5:359–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, J. (1995b) Interrogatives: questions, facts and dialogue. In: S. Lappin (ed.) Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, J. (forthcoming) Moving on the Dialogue Gameboard: a Semantics for interaction in Dialogue. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hankamer, J and I. Sag (1976) Deep and Surface Anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausser, R. and D. Zaefferer (1979) Questions and Answers in a Context Dependent Montague Grammar. In: Guenthner J. and Schmidt J. (eds.) Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull R. (1975) A semantics for superficial and embedded questions in natural language. In: E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehler, A. (1994) Common topics and coherent situations: interpreting ellipsis in the context of discourse inference. ACL 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1971) Presupposition and relative well-formedness. In: D. Steinberg et al (eds.) Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. (1973.) Sentence fragments and the notion ‘sentence’. In: B. Kachru et al (eds.) Issues in Linguistics: papers in honour of Henry and Rene Kahane. Urbana: University of Indiana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. (1989) Sentence Fragments Revisited. CLS 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C. and I. Sag (1994) Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prüst, H, R. Scha, and M. van den Berg (1994) Discourse grammar and Verb Phrase Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1992 A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sag, I. and J. Hankamer (1984) Towards a Theory of Anaphoric Processing. Linguistics and Philosophy 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sher, G. (1991) The Bounds of Logic. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, M. (1990) Gapping as Constituent Coordination, Linguistics and Philosophy 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallduví, E and E. Engdahl (1996) Information Packaging in HPSG. In: C. Grover and E. Vallduví (eds.) Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science: Studies in HPSG. Centre of Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Stechow, A. (1991) Focusing and Background Operators. In: W. Abraham (ed.) Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerståhl, D. (1993) Branching Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language. In: P. Gärdenfors (ed.) Generalized Quantifiers, Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ginzburg, J. (1999). Semantically-Based Ellipsis Resolution with Syntactic Presuppositions. In: Bunt, H., Muskens, R. (eds) Computing Meaning. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 73. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4231-1_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4231-1_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-0290-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-4231-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics