Anaphora Resolution

Author	Title	Year	Journal/Proceedings	Reftype	DOI/URL
Abrusán, M.	On the focus-sensitive presupposition triggers too, again, also, even Márta ABRUSÁN — CNRS, IRIT Toulouse [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Vol. 18Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, pp. 6-23	inproceedings
Abstract: This paper proposes to derive the presupposition of additive particles too, as well, also and the temporal particle again. It argues that the presuppositions of these particles can be predicted by the same presupposition triggering mechanism that was proposed for so-called soft triggers in Abrusán (2011). It is shown that presupposition suspension facts, characteristic of soft triggers, do not arise with additive particles because of their anaphoric and focus-sensitive nature. Finally, the paper proposes that the soft-hard presupposition distinction can be explained not in terms of differences in the nature of the presupposition but rather as a consequence of the anaphoric/focus-sensitive nature of various triggers.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Abrusan2014, author = {Márta Abrusán}, title = {On the focus-sensitive presupposition triggers too, again, also, even Márta ABRUSÁN — CNRS, IRIT Toulouse}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung}, year = {2014}, volume = {18}, pages = {6-23} }
Anderbois, S.	Sluicing as anaphora to issues [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2010	Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 20	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: Since Merchant 2001, it has been widely agreed that the licensing condition on Sluicing is at least partly semantic in nature. This paper argues that the relevant semantic condition is one of symmetric entailment over a semantics which includes not only truth-conditional information, but also issues in the sense of Groenendijk & Roelofsen 2009. One kind of evidence for the proposal comes from expressions like doubly-negated inde?nites and implicit passive agents which do not license Sluicing despite truth-conditional equivalence to overt inde?nites. In addition to these facts, the paper examines novel data which show that Sluicing is not licensed by even overt inde?nites inside of appositive relative clauses, arguing that these facts (and related facts regarding VP-Ellipsis) follow from the account together with an independently motivated semantics for appositives.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Anderbois2010, author = {Scott Anderbois}, title = {Sluicing as anaphora to issues}, booktitle = {Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 20}, publisher = {CLC Publications}, year = {2010}, url = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2574} }
AnderBois, S.	Issues and Alternatives [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	School: University of California, Santa Cruz	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: The central topic this dissertation is the semantic relationship between disjunctions, indefinites, and other instances of existential quantification on the one hand and questions on the other. I argue that the former have more in common with the latter than is generally acknowledged and, in particular, that their compositional semantics includes not only truth-conditional information, but also an issue-raising or inquisitive capacity. For example, a simple assertion like “Someone left.” not only proposes to rule out the possibility that no one left, it also presents the issue of ‘Who left?’ as a possible direction for future discussion. This dissertation presents several empirical arguments for this inquisitive capacity and for particular interactions with other elements in the sentence. The most direct argument comes from novel fieldwork on wh- and alternative questions in Yucatec Maya (an indigenous language of Mexico), which consist of focused disjunctions and focused indefinite wh-words respectively. I argue that both patterns can be accounted for under a semantics where disjunctions and indefinite wh-words — across all their uses — make a contribution that is both inquisitive and potentially informative. The (contextually restricted) presupposition of focus is responsible for isolating this inquisitive capacity in questions, thus distinguishing them from assertions. This Yucatec Maya-based semantics for disjunctions and indefinites sheds light on several puzzles regarding these elements more generally, and in particular, in English. The first of these is the ellipsis process known as Sluicing, which I analyze as the anaphoric retrieval of an issue introduced by prior inquisitive elements. Second, I provide an analysis of subtle differences between positive, negative, and alternative polar questions with or not, which makes use of a more structured ‘two-tiered’ semantics for issues. Finally, I provide a semantic/pragmatic account of polar questions with preposed negation in which (double) negation plays the pivotal semantic role, suppressing inquisitive content within the question itself, thereby providing added emphasis on the truth-conditional information of the proposition itself (i.e. Verum Focus).
BibTeX: @phdthesis{AnderBois2011, author = {Scott AnderBois}, title = {Issues and Alternatives}, school = {University of California, Santa Cruz}, year = {2011}, url = {https://research.clps.brown.edu/anderbois/PDFs/AnderBois_Diss_Web.pdf} }
AnderBois, S.	The semantics of sluicing: Beyond truth conditions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Language Vol. 90(4), pp. 887-926	article	DOI
Abstract: Since Merchant 2001, it has been widely agreed that the licensing condition on sluicing is at least partially semantic in nature. This article argues that the semantics this condition operates on must include not only truth conditions, but also the issues introduced by existential quantification and disjunction. In the account presented here, the special role these elements play in antecedents for sluicing derives from the deep semantic connections between these elements and questions. In addition to accounting for well-known facts about sluicing in a natural way, this article also analyzes novel facts such as the interaction of sluicing with appositives and double negation, and handles recalcitrant cases such as disjunctive antecedents. The account can readily be extended to so-called ‘sprouting’ cases where the crucial material in the antecedent is an implicit argument or is missing altogether.
BibTeX: @article{AnderBois2014, author = {Scott AnderBois}, title = {The semantics of sluicing: Beyond truth conditions}, journal = {Language}, year = {2014}, volume = {90}, number = {4}, pages = {887--926}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0110} }
AnderBois, S.	Ellipsis in Inquisitive Semantics [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis	incollection	DOI
Abstract: Work in inquisitive semantics has developed an alternative-rich notion of semantic content which is uniform across questions and assertions. This chapter explores the ramifications of this view for the theory of ellipsis. It examines these issues primarily by focusing on the analysis of a particular ellipsis process in English: sluicing. Empirically, it reviews a number of arguments in favor of an account of sluicing incorporating inquisitive semantics, most notably cases where truth-conditionally equivalent sentences have differential behavior for sluicing. Theoretically, the chapter demonstrates how a theory of ellipsis building on Merchant (2001) but based on an inquisitive semantics helps address this data. Beyond this, it briefly discusses motivations for extending this sort of approach to other ellipsis processes and compares the proposed account with other potential ways of incorporating inquisitive semantics into a theory of ellipsis.
BibTeX: @incollection{AnderBois2018, author = {Scott AnderBois}, title = {Ellipsis in Inquisitive Semantics}, booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2018}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.10} }
AnderBois, S. and Jacobson, P.	Answering implicit questions the case of namely [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	Proceedings of SALT 28	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: Though several prior works use English namely as evidence for the semantics of other elements, its own syntax and semantics have been mostly unexamined. In this paper, we focus on two central questions which we claim to be interrelated. First, what is the semantic contribution of namely? Second, how does namely combine with the surrounding material compositionally to produce appropriate overall sentence meanings? Given the apparent similarity of namely to fragments and Sluicing, one answer suggested in previous literature (e.g. Onea & Volodina (2011), Weir (2014), Ott (2016)) is that an example like Someone coughed, namely Bill. involves deletion of silent linguistic material . . . Bill coughed. Here, we argue against this idea, arguing that namely introduces an answer to an implicit specificational question combining with its complement (i.e. Bill in the above example) directly, similar to Qu-Ans analysis of fragments (Groenendijk & Stokhof (1984), Jacobson (2016)).
BibTeX: @inproceedings{AnderBois2018a, author = {Scott AnderBois and Pauline Jacobson}, title = {Answering implicit questions the case of namely}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 28}, year = {2018}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v28i0.4428} }
Barros, M.	Sluicing and Identity in Ellipsis [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	School: Rutgers	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: This thesis is concerned with sluicing, the ellipsis of TP in a Wh-question leaving a Wh- phrase “remnant” overt. Sluicing is subject to an identity condition that must hold between the sluiced question and its antecedent. There is currently no consensus on whether this condition should be characterized as syntactic or semantic in nature, or whether a hybrid condition that makes reference to both semantic and syntactic identity is needed (Merchant 2005, Chung 2013, Barker 2013). I provide a new identity condition that captures extant syntactic generalizations while allowing for enough wiggle room to let in detectible mismatches between the antecedent and sluice. The identity condition I propose is “split” between two sub-conditions, one that pertains to the relationship between the sluiced Wh-phrase and its correlate in the antecedent (the Remnant Condition), and one that pertains to the sluiced question as a whole (the Sluice Condition). The Split Identity hypothesis counts as a hybrid identity condition. The Remnant Condition is novel, and requires that the remnant have a syntactic correlate in the antecedent with which it matches semantically. Split Identity is shown to capture the data motivating extant syntactic generalizations. The Sluice Condition requires that the sluiced question and the Question under Discussion (QuD) that the antecedent makes salient seek the same answers, and is an implementation of QuD-based approaches to the semantic condition on sluicing, such as recently proposed in AnderBois 2011. The Split identity condition also lets in “pseudosluices” alongside isomorphic sluices, where the sluiced question is a cleft or a copular question while the antecedent is not. Pseudosluicing has often been proposed as a last resort mechanism, only available when an isomorphic structure is independently ruled out (Rodrigues et al. 2009, Vicente 2008, van Craenenbroeck 2010). I defend a view where pseudosluicing is not a special case of sluicing, so that the identity condition should not distinguish between copular and non- copular clauses in the determination of identity. Split Identity achieves this in making no reference to the syntactic content of the ellipsis site.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Barros2014, author = {Matthew Barros}, title = {Sluicing and Identity in Ellipsis}, school = {Rutgers}, year = {2014}, url = {https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/sluicing-identity-ellipsis/docview/1654751961/se-2?accountid=9783} }
Barros, M. and Kotek, H.	Ellipsis licensing and redundancy reduction: A focus-based approach [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	Glossa: a journal of general linguistics Vol. 4(1)	article	DOI
Abstract: The focus of this paper is the characterization of the identity condition on sluicing. While the formulation of this condition remains an open issue, recent work suggests that sluices are anaphoric to an implicit question or issue that the antecedent raises in the discourse (Q-equivalence approaches, Ginzburg & Sag 2000; AnderBois 2011; 2014; 2016; Barros 2014; Weir 2014; Kotek & Barros 2018). We highlight several challenges to Q-equivalence accounts, and argue instead for a return to focus-based accounts (Rooth 1992a; Romero 1998; Fox 2000; Merchant 2001). Under such an approach, antecedents are importantly not responsible for raising any particular issue/question themselves, a point we show to be a critical challenge to Q-equivalence accounts. We propose instead that sluicing is possible provided that the antecedent and sluice have the same focus-theoretic propositional content. We show that this account is similar to, but improves upon, Merchant’s (2001) influential e-GIVENness account. We extend this account to cases of VP ellipsis, and moreover argue in support of the idea that the theory of ellipsis licensing should be integrated into a more general theory of redundancy reduction. In other words, that the semantic condition on identity in ellipsis is the same as the semantic condition on deaccenting (Rooth 1992a; Tancredi 1992). We propose a generalized condition on redundancy reduction, which may replace Schwarzschild’s (1999) GIVENness condition.
BibTeX: @article{Barros2019, author = {Matthew Barros and Hadas Kotek}, title = {Ellipsis licensing and redundancy reduction: A focus-based approach}, journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics}, publisher = {Open Library of the Humanities}, year = {2019}, volume = {4}, number = {1}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.811} }
Beaver, D. and Clark, B.	Always and Only: Why not all focus sensitive operators are alike [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2003	Natural Language Semantics Vol. 11, pp. 323-362	article	DOI
Abstract: We discuss focus sensitivity in English, the phenomenon whereby interpretation of some expressions is affected by placement of intonational focus. We concentrate in particular on the interpretation of always and only, both of which are interpreted as universal quantifiers, and both of which are focus sensitive. Using both naturally occurring and constructed data we explore the interaction of these operators with negative polarity items, with presupposition, with prosodically reduced elements, and with syntactic extraction. On the basis of this data we show that while only lexically encodes a dependency on the placement of focus, always does not. Rather, the focus sensitivity of always results from its dependency on context, and from the fact that focus also reflects what is given in the context. We account for this split using an analysis couched in event semantics.
BibTeX: @article{Beaver2003, author = {David Beaver and Brady Clark}, title = {Always and Only: Why not all focus sensitive operators are alike}, journal = {Natural Language Semantics}, year = {2003}, volume = {11}, pages = {323-362}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025542629721} }
Beaver, D. and Clark, B.	Sense and Sensitivity: How focus determines meaning [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2008		book
Abstract: Sense and Sensitivity advances a novel research proposal in the nascent field of formal pragmatics, exploring in detail the semantics and pragmatics of focus in natural language discourse. The authors develop a new account of focus sensitivity, and show that what has hitherto been regarded as a uniform phenomenon in fact results from three different mechanisms. The book makes a major contribution to ongoing research in the area of focus sensitivity – a field exploring interactions between sound and meaning, specifically the dependency some words have on the effects of focus, such as "she only LIKES me" (i.e. nothing deeper) compared to "she only likes ME" (i.e. nobody else). Discusses the features of the QFC theory (Quasi association, Free association, and Conventional association), a new account of focus implying a tripartite typology of focus-sensitive expressions. Presents novel cross-linguistic data on focus and focus sensitivity that will be relevant across a range of linguistic sub-fields: semantics and pragmatics, syntax, and intonational phonology. Concludes with a case study of exclusives (like “only”), arguing that the entire existing literature has missed crucial generalizations, and for the first time explaining the focus sensitivity of these expressions in terms of their meaning and discourse function
BibTeX: @book{Beaver2008, author = {David Beaver and Brady Clark}, title = {Sense and Sensitivity: How focus determines meaning}, publisher = {Blackwell}, year = {2008} }
Botteri, D.	Ellipsis in Italian split questions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Research in Generative Grammar Vol. 37, pp. 35-54	article	URL
Abstract: The goal of this paper is to investigate the syntax of split questions in Italian. Split questions are interrogative structures formed by two parts: a wh-part which corresponds to a standard wh-question and a tag which constitutes a possible answer for that wh-question. Building on previous work by Arregi (2010) I propose that these structures are actually formed by two distinct interrogatives, one of which undergoes ellipsis. This proposal has implications which go beyond the domain of split questions. First, it contributes to a better understanding of ellipsis phenomena. Second, it allows us to deepen our knowledge of the interrogative system in different varieties. Third, it enables us to reconsider some aspects of the interaction between interrogative structures and focus fronting.
BibTeX: @article{Botteri2015, author = {Botteri, Daniele}, title = {Ellipsis in Italian split questions}, journal = {Research in Generative Grammar}, publisher = {Venice: Center for Language Sciences}, year = {2015}, volume = {37}, pages = {35-54}, url = {http://hdl.handle.net/11707/5270} }
Carlson, K.	Predicting contrast in sentences with and without focus marking [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Lingua Vol. 150, pp. 78-91	article	DOI
Abstract: How do we know when a contrast is coming? This study explores the prediction of parallel contrastive phrases, especially NPs, in sentences with and without overt focus marking. A written sentence-completion questionnaire with clauses followed by the conjunction “but” compared unmarked initial clauses to ones with the focus marker “only” on the subject or object. Both conditions with “only” elicited more contrasts overall than the condition without focus marking, and many of the contrasts were with the focus-marked NP. While the baseline (no-only) condition had full clauses for half of the completions, subject focus increased clausal completions and object focus increased negative ellipsis completions (“not” + NP structures), both changes in syntax which make a contrast with the marked NP easy. The production of negative ellipsis sentences primarily in the object-focus condition suggests that the object bias of these sentences in comprehension could relate to their being used more frequently with this meaning. Finally, the overall pattern of results shows that overt marking of contrastive focus increases continuations with contrasts, and the conjunction “but” does not reliably predict explicitly-stated contrasts within a sentence without overt focus marking.
BibTeX: @article{Carlson2014, author = {Katy Carlson}, title = {Predicting contrast in sentences with and without focus marking}, journal = {Lingua}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2014}, volume = {150}, pages = {78--91}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.008} }
Chow, K.F.	Inferential patterns of generalized quantifiers and their applications to scalar reasoning [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	School: Hong Kong Polytechnic University	phdthesis
Abstract: This thesis studies the inferential patterns of generalized quantifiers (GQs) and their applications to scalar reasoning. In Chapter 1, I introduce the basic notions of Generalized Quantifier Theory (GQT) and survey the major types of right-oriented GQs traditionally studied under GQT (including both monadic and iterated GQs). I also expand the scope of this theory to the analysis of left-oriented GQs (including left conservative GQs such as "only" and left-iterated GQs manifested as quantified statements with relative clauses). In Chapter 2, I introduce the major aspects of scalar reasoning to be studied in this thesis and summarize the major findings in the literature. After reviewing different notions of scales, I introduce other essential concepts and review the various theories and schools on the two main types of scalar reasoning, i.e. scalar entailments (SEs) and scalar implicatures (SIs). I then introduce four types of scalar lexical items studied under the Scalar Model Theory and Chinese grammar and discuss how their semantics / pragmatics are related to SEs and/or SIs. These include scalar operators (SOs), climax construction connectives (CCCs), subjective quantity operators (SQOs) and lexical items denoting extreme values. In the final part of this chapter, some outstanding problems in the studies on scalar reasoning are identified. In Chapter 3, I study four main types of quantifier inferences. They are monotonicity inferences, argument structure inferences, opposition inferences and (non-classical) syllogistic inferences. The major findings are summarized in tables and theorems. Special emphasis is put on devising general principles and methods that enable us to derive valid inferential patterns of iterated GQs from the inferential properties of their constituent monadic GQs. In Chapter 4, I apply the major findings worked out in the previous chapter to resolve the outstanding problems identified in Chapter 2. I first develop a basic formal framework that is based on the notions of generalized fractions and I-function. This basic framework can deal with the various aspects of scalar reasoning in a uniform way. I then enrich the basic framework by adding specific ingredients to deal with the phenomena of SEs and SIs. To deal with SEs, I add a relation connecting the I-function and SEs to the basic framework, so that the derivation of SEs is reduced to comparison between the I-function values of propositions. Moreover, by capitalizing on a parallelism between SEs and monotonicity inferences, I combine findings of the two types of inferences and discover new inferential patterns, such as Proportionality Calculus and scalar syllogisms. To deal with SIs, I add the ingredients of question under discussion (QUD) foci, answer exhaustification and opposition inferences to the basic framework, so that it can account for the various types of SIs and related phenomena introduced in Chapter 2 in a uniform way. I then use the framework to conduct a cross-linguistic study on the English and Chinese scalar lexical items introduced in Chapter 2. The I-function is used to formulate the conditions of use for these lexical items. The association of SEs and SIs with different types of scalar lexical items is also explored. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the significance of the major findings of this thesis and possible extensions of the study.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Chow2012, author = {Ka Fat Chow}, title = {Inferential patterns of generalized quantifiers and their applications to scalar reasoning}, school = {Hong Kong Polytechnic University}, year = {2012} }
Coppock, E. and Beaver, D.	Sole Sisters [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Proceedings of SALT 21	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: We propose a unified analysis of exclusives, taking into account NP- and VP-modifying 'only' and 'just' and the adjectival exclusives 'mere', 'sole', 'only', 'single', and 'exclusive'. We use paraphrases with 'at most' and 'at least' to argue that exclusives uniformly signify a presupposed lower bound and an ordinary content upper bound on the true alternative answers to the current question under discussion, thus extending Beaver and Clark (2008). According to our analysis, exclusives vary along two parameters: (i) the ontological type of their arguments; (ii) constraints on the question under discussion. Due to variation in the type parameter, exclusives exhibit different scopes, leading to different NPI licensing properties. To formalize our analysis, we introduce a dynamic semantics that treats questions under discussion as part of the context and allows for binding into these questions.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Coppock2011, author = {Elizabeth Coppock and David Beaver}, title = {Sole Sisters}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 21}, year = {2011}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v21i0.2615} }
Coppock, E. and Beaver, D.	Exclusive Updates [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Logic, Language and Meaning	incollection	DOI
Abstract: This paper develops a type of dynamic semantics in which contexts include not only information, but also questions, whose answers are ranked by strength. The questions can be local to the restrictor of a quantifier, and the quantifier can bind into them. The proposed framework satisfies several desiderata arising from quantificational expressions involving exclusives (e.g. only, just, mere and sole), allowing: (i) presupposed questions; (ii) presuppositional constraints on the strength ranking over the answers to the question under discussion; (iii) quantificational binding into such presupposed questions; and (iv) compositional derivation of logical forms for sentences.
BibTeX: @incollection{Coppock2012, author = {Elizabeth Coppock and David Beaver}, title = {Exclusive Updates}, booktitle = {Logic, Language and Meaning}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2012}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_30} }
Coppock, E. and Beaver, D.	Exclusivity, uniqueness and definiteness [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Empirical issues in syntax and semantics Vol. 9, pp. 59-66	article	URL
Abstract: This paper deals with two puzzles concerning the interaction between definiteness and exclusives. The exclusives in question are sole and only, and the puzzles are as follow
BibTeX: @article{Coppock2012a, author = {Coppock, Elisabeth and Beaver, David}, title = {Exclusivity, uniqueness and definiteness}, journal = {Empirical issues in syntax and semantics}, year = {2012}, volume = {9}, pages = {59--66}, url = {http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9/eiss9_coppock-and-beaver.pdf} }
Coppock, E. and Beaver, D.	Mere-ology [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Alternatives in Semantics, pp. 150-173	incollection	DOI
Abstract: At least 28 different lexical entries for the word only have been given in the literature.1 This one little word has attracted so much attention presumably because it serves to illuminate a number of issues pertaining to the interplay between semantics and pragmatics: how focus affects interpretation, types of meaning (presupposition, implicature, etc.), how scalar implicatures are computed, and, of particular interest for this volume, the nature, origin, and role of alternatives in semantics.
BibTeX: @incollection{Coppock2013, author = {Elizabeth Coppock and David Beaver}, title = {Mere-ology}, booktitle = {Alternatives in Semantics}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, year = {2013}, pages = {150-173}, note = {Talk at the Workshop on Alternative Semantics, Lund, France}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137317247_6} }
Coppock, E. and Beaver, D.I.	Principles of the Exclusive Muddle [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Journal of Semantics Vol. 31(3), pp. 371-432	article	DOI URL
Abstract: This paper provides a lexical entry schema for exclusives covering the adverbs only, just, exclusively, merely, purely, solely, simply, and the adjectives only, sole, pure, exclusive and alone. We argue, on the basis of inter-paraphrasability relations among these exclusives and entailments involving at least and at most, that all of these items make an at-issue contribution of an upper bound on the viable answers to the current question under discussion (expressible with at most), and signal that a lower bound on those answers (expressible with at least) is taken for granted. The lexical entry schema accommodates two main points of variation, which makes it possible to capture the differences in meaning among these terms: (i) semantic type (restricted to the class of modifiers), and (ii) constraints on the current question under discussion or the strength ranking over its alternative possible answers. We propose 22 different specific instantiations of the schema for exclusives in English.
BibTeX: @article{Coppock2014, author = {Coppock, Elizabeth and Beaver, David I.}, title = {Principles of the Exclusive Muddle}, journal = {Journal of Semantics}, year = {2014}, volume = {31}, number = {3}, pages = {371-432}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft007}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft007} }
Cumming, S.	Variabilism [BibTeX]	2008	Philosophical Review Vol. 117(4), pp. 525-554	article	DOI
BibTeX: @article{Cumming2008, author = {Samuel Cumming}, title = {Variabilism}, journal = {Philosophical Review}, year = {2008}, volume = {117}, number = {4}, pages = {525-554}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2008-015} }
Elbourne, P.D.	Situations and Individuals [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2005		book
Abstract: In Situations and Individuals, Paul Elbourne argues that the natural language expressions that have been taken to refer to individuals—pronouns, proper names, and definite descriptions—have a common syntax and semantics, roughly that of definite descriptions as construed in the tradition of Frege. In the course of his argument, Elbourne shows that proper names have previously undetected donkey anaphoric readings.This is contrary to previous theorizing and, if true, would undermine what philosophers call the direct reference theory (which holds that the sole contribution of a proper name to the truth conditions of a sentence is an individual) as well as the related doctrine that proper names are rigid designators. Elbourne begins by addressing donkey anaphora, relating other concerns about pronouns to the solution of this notorious problem. His subsequent argumentation provides a unified semantics for the donkey anaphoric and bound and referential uses of pronouns and discusses the prospect of unifying the syntax and semantics of pronouns with the syntax and semantics of normal definite descriptions. Elbourne's aim is not only to advance his proposal of a unified syntax and semantics but also to urge linguists and philosophers dealing with pronoun interpretation to consider a wider range of theories than they do at present, and to test the competing claims of description-based theories and dynamic semantics against the data.
BibTeX: @book{Elbourne2005, author = {Paul D. Elbourne}, title = {Situations and Individuals}, publisher = {MIT Press}, year = {2005} }
Elbourne, P.D.	Demonstratives as individual concepts [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2008	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 31(4), pp. 409-466	article	DOI
Abstract: Using a version of situation semantics, this article argues that bare and complex demonstratives are interpreted as individual concepts
BibTeX: @article{Elbourne2008, author = {Paul D. Elbourne}, title = {Demonstratives as individual concepts}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {2008}, volume = {31}, number = {4}, pages = {409-466}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9043-0} }
Elliott, P.D., Nicolae, A. and Sudo, Y.	VP ellipsis without parallel binding: towards a QuD approach [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Proceedings of SALT 24	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: Abstract VP Ellipsis (VPE) whose antecedent VP contains a pronoun famously gives rise to an ambiguity between strict and sloppy readings. Since Sag's (1976) seminal work, it is generally assumed that the strict reading involves free pronouns in both the elided VP and its antecedent, whereas the sloppy reading involves bound pronouns. The majority of current approaches to VPE are tailored to derive this parallel binding requirement, ruling out mixed readings where one of the VPs involves a bound pronoun and the other a free pronoun in parallel positions. Contrary to this assumption, it is observed that there are cases of VPE where the antecedent VP contains a bound pronoun but the elided VP contains a free E-type pronoun anchored to the quantifier, in violation of parallel binding. We dub this the 'sticky reading' of VPE. To account for it, we propose a new identity condition on VPE which is less stringent than is standardly assumed. We formalize this using an extension of Roberts's (2012) Question under Discussion (QuD) theory of information structure.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Elliott2014, author = {Elliott, Patrick D. and Nicolae, Andreea and Sudo, Yasutada}, title = {VP ellipsis without parallel binding: towards a QuD approach}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 24}, year = {2014}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v24i0.3639} }
von Fintel, K.	Restrictions on quantifier domains [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1994	School: UMass/Amherst	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: This dissertation investigates the ways in which natural language restricts the domains of quantifiers. Adverbs of quantification are analyzed as quantifying over situations (instead of being unselective quantifiers). The domain of quantifiers is pragmatically constrained: apparent processes of “semantic partition” are treated as pragmatic epiphenomena. The introductory Chapter 1 sketches some of the background of work on natural language quantification and begins the analysis of adverbial quantification over situations. Chapter 2 develops the central picture of “semantic partition” as a side-effect of pragmatic processes of anaphora resolution. I argue that the apparent effects of topic/focus articulation and presuppositional information on the interpretation of quantifiers are not the result of a direct and local mechanism of sentence grammar. Instead, I develop an analysis where the link is established via the anaphoric dependence of quantifier domains on the discourse context. Chapter 3 discusses the analysis of conditional clauses as quantifier restrictors, concentrating on the question whether conditional clauses restrict quantifiers directly (like common noun phrases restrict determiner-quantifiers) or indirectly (like topic/focus restrict quantifiers). A treatment is explored which has if-clauses constrain the value of the hidden domain variable of the restricted quantifier. Chapter 4, on unlessclauses, and Chapter 5, on only if- and even if-clauses, present some issues in the compositional analysis of complex conditional clauses. These chapters significantly expand the data coverage of the theory of A-quantification. Building on previous work of mine on exceptives, I analyze unless-clauses as exceptive operators on A-quantifiers. The analysis of only if-clauses, treated as conditional clauses that combine if with the focus adverb only, unearthes some interesting new properties. Chapter 6, finally, examines the phenomenon of donkeyanaphora in the light of the results of the previous chapters. I show that a solution to the proportion problem may become possible once we combine the situation-semantic approach to adverbial quantification with the pragmatic theory developed in Chapter 2 and further elaborated in the analysis of donkey anaphora in complex conditionals.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Fintel1994, author = {Kai von Fintel}, title = {Restrictions on quantifier domains}, school = {UMass/Amherst}, year = {1994}, url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jA3N2IwN/fintel-1994-thesis.pdf} }
Frazier, L. and Clifton, C.	The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2005	Syntax Vol. 8(2), pp. 121-174	article	DOI
Abstract: VP-ellipsis and sluicing are forms of ellipsis that can cross a sentence boundary. We present a series of comprehension studies on these forms of ellipsis to elucidate their processing and the relation of syntactic and discourse processing. One set of studies examines the hypothesis that the representation of elided material is syntactically structured. We present evidence supporting the hypothesis and tentatively attribute the effects to sharing of the structure of the antecedent constituent, with structure building or substitution of a variable for a constituent permitted if it is licensed by the syntactic principles of the language. Another set of studies tests the hypothesis that a new utterance is preferentially related to the main assertion of the preceding utterance, which is typically a constituent high in the syntactic tree. The results suggest that discourse processing differs from syntactic processing, where the most accessible material is recent material found low in the syntactic tree. A final set of studies examines the interplay of the syntactic processor, which may not violate “islands,” and the discourse processor, which may, in the processing of ellipsis sentences involving islands. A novel explanation is offered for the observation (Ross 1967) that sluicing out of relative-clause islands is grammatical except when sprouting is required.
BibTeX: @article{Frazier2005, author = {Lyn Frazier and Charles Clifton}, title = {The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis}, journal = {Syntax}, year = {2005}, volume = {8}, number = {2}, pages = {121-174}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00077.x} }
Frazier, L. and Clifton, C.	Ellipsis and discourse coherence [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2006	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 29(3), pp. 315-346	article	DOI
Abstract: VP ellipsis generally requires a syntactically matching antecedent. However, many documented examples exist where the antecedent is not appropriate. Kehler (2000, Linguistics and philosophy 23(6), 533–575. 2002, Coherence, Reference and the Theory of Grammer, CSLI Publications. Stanford.) proposed an elegant theory which predicts a syntactic antecedent for an elided VP is required only for a certain discourse coherence relation (resemblance), not for cause-effect relations. Most of the data Kehler used to motivate his theory come from corpus studies and thus do not consist of true minimal pairs. We report five experiments testing predictions of the coherence theory, using standard minimal pair materials. The results raise questions about the empirical basis for coherence theory because a syntactically-matching antecedent is preferred for all coherence relations, not just resemblance relations. Further, strict identity readings, which should not be available when a syntactic antecedent is required, are influenced by parallelism per se, holding the discourse coherence relation constant. This draws into question the causal role of coherence relations in processing VP ellipsis.
BibTeX: @article{Frazier2006, author = {Lyn Frazier and Charles Clifton}, title = {Ellipsis and discourse coherence}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {2006}, volume = {29}, number = {3}, pages = {315-346}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-0002-3} }
Frazier, L. and Clifton, C.	Imperfect Ellipsis: Antecedents beyond syntax? [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2010	Syntax Vol. 13(4), pp. 279-297	article	DOI
Abstract: Ellipsis is subject to both syntactic conditions and discourse conditions. Here we explore the discourse condition that favors antecedents that are part of the main assertion of an utterance. We argue that the main assertion tendency is best captured in the processor, not the grammar. Two experiments test verb phrase ellipsis examples with antecedents in a conditional. One suggests that, because of the main assertion tendency, a reader considers full conditional antecedents and not just verb phrase antecedents. However, when the antecedent of the conditional expresses already given information and essentially becomes redundant, fewer full conditional antecedents are chosen for the verb phrase ellipsis, as if the consequent clause has become the assertion of the conditional sentence with the if-clause essentially cancelling out. The second experiment explores examples where a modal is added inside the if-clause, rendering the conditional counterfactual. As in other examples of flawed or imperfect ellipsis, the non-actuality entailment/implicature improves the acceptability of such examples.
BibTeX: @article{Frazier2010, author = {Lyn Frazier and Charles Clifton}, title = {Imperfect Ellipsis: Antecedents beyond syntax?}, journal = {Syntax}, year = {2010}, volume = {13}, number = {4}, pages = {279-297}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2010.00142.x} }
Gawron, J.M.	Quantification, quantificational domains, and dynamic logic [BibTeX]	1996	The Handbook of Contemporary Semantics	incollection
BibTeX: @incollection{Gawron1996, author = {Jean Marc Gawron}, title = {Quantification, quantificational domains, and dynamic logic}, booktitle = {The Handbook of Contemporary Semantics}, publisher = {Blackwell}, year = {1996} }
Ginzburg, J. and Cooper, R.	Resolving Ellipsis in Clarification [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2001	Proceedings of the 39th meeting of the Assocation for Computational Linguistics	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: We offer a computational analysis of the resolution of ellipsis in certain cases of dialogue clarification. We show that this goes beyond standard techniques used in anaphora and ellipsis resolution and requires operations on highly structured, linguistically heterogeneous representations. We characterize these operations and the representations on which they operate. We offer an analysis couched in a version of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar combined with a theory of information states (IS) in dialogue. We sketch an algorithm for the process of utterance integration in ISs which leads to grounding or clarification.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Ginzburg2001, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Robin Cooper}, title = {Resolving Ellipsis in Clarification}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 39th meeting of the Assocation for Computational Linguistics}, year = {2001}, url = {https://sites.google.com/site/jonathanginzburgswebsite/publications/acl2001.pdf?attredirects=0} }
Ginzburg, J. and Cooper, R.	Clarification, Ellipsis, and the Nature of Contextual Updates [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	2004	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 27(3), pp. 297-366	article	URL
Abstract: The paper investigates an elliptical construction, Clarification Ellipsis, that occurs in dialogue. We suggest that this provides data that demonstrates that updates resulting from utterances cannot be defined in purely semantic terms, contrary to the prevailing assumptions of existing approaches to dynamic semantics. We offer a computationally oriented analysis of the resolution of ellipsis in certain cases of dialogue clarification. We show that this goes beyond standard techniques used in anaphora and ellipsis resolution and requires operations on highly structured, linguistically heterogeneous representations. We characterize these operations and the representations on which they operate. We offer an analysis couched in a version of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar combined with a theory of information states (IS) in dialogue. We sketch an algorithm for the process of utterance integration in IS which leads to grounding or clarification. The account proposed here has direct applications to the theory of attitude reports, an issue which is explored briefly in the concluding remarks of the paper.
Comment: A detailed analysis of Clarification Ellipsis and its implications for dynamic semantics.
BibTeX: @article{Ginzburg2004, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Robin Cooper}, title = {Clarification, Ellipsis, and the Nature of Contextual Updates}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {2004}, volume = {27}, number = {3}, pages = {297-366}, url = {https://sites.google.com/site/jonathanginzburgswebsite/publications/gc02.pdf?attredirects=0} }
Ginzburg, J.	The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012		book	DOI
Abstract: This book presents one of the first attempts at developing a precise, grammatically rooted, theory of conversation motivated by data from real conversations. The theory has descriptive reach from the micro-conversational -- e.g. self-repair at the word level -- to macro-level phenomena such as multi-party conversation and the characterization of distinct conversational genres. It draws on extensive corpus studies of the British National Corpus, on evidence from language acquisition, and on computer simulations of language evolution. The theory provides accounts of the opening, middle game, and closing stages of conversation. It also offers a new perspective on traditional semantic concerns such as quantification and anaphora. The Interactive Stance challenges orthodox views of grammar by arguing that, unless we wish to exclude from analysis a large body of frequently occurring words and constructions, the right way to construe grammar is as a system that characterizes types of talk in interaction.
BibTeX: @book{Ginzburg2012, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2012}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001} }
Grant, M., Clifton, C. and Frazier, L.	The role of Non-Actuality Implicatures in processing elided constituents [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Journal of Memory and Language Vol. 66(1), pp. 326-343	article	DOI
Abstract: When an elided constituent and its antecedent do not match syntactically, the presence of a word implying the non-actuality of the state of affairs described in the antecedent seems to improve the example. (This information should be released but Gorbachev didn’t. vs. This information was released but Gorbachev didn’t.) We model this effect in terms of Non-Actuality Implicatures (NAIs) conveyed by non-epistemic modals like should and other words such as want to and be eager to that imply non-actuality. We report three studies. A rating and interpretation study showed that such implicatures are drawn and that they improve the acceptability of mismatch ellipsis examples. An interpretation study showed that adding a NAI trigger to ambiguous examples increases the likelihood of choosing an antecedent from the NAI clause. An eye movement study shows that a NAI trigger also speeds on-line reading of the ellipsis clause. By introducing alternatives (the desired state of affairs vs. the actual state of affairs), the NAI trigger introduces a potential Question Under Discussion (QUD). Processing an ellipsis clause is easier, the processor is more confident of its analysis, when the ellipsis clause comments on the QUD.
BibTeX: @article{Grant2012, author = {Margaret Grant and Charles Clifton and Lyn Frazier}, title = {The role of Non-Actuality Implicatures in processing elided constituents}, journal = {Journal of Memory and Language}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2012}, volume = {66}, number = {1}, pages = {326--343}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.003} }
Gualmini, A., Hulsey, S., Hacquard, V. and Fox, D.	The Question-Answer Requirement for scope assignment [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2008	Natural Language Semantics Vol. 16, pp. 205-237	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper focuses on children’s interpretation of sentences containing negation and a quantifier (e.g., The detective didn’t find some guys). Recent studies suggest that, although children are capable of accessing inverse scope interpretations of such sentences, they resort to surface scope to a larger extent than adults. To account for children’s behavioral pattern, we propose a new factor at play in Truth Value Judgment tasks: the Question–Answer Requirement (QAR). According to the QAR, children (and adults) must interpret the target sentence that they evaluate as an answer to a question that is made salient by the discourse.
BibTeX: @article{Gualmini2008, author = {Andrea Gualmini and Sarah Hulsey and Valentine Hacquard and Danny Fox}, title = {The Question-Answer Requirement for scope assignment}, journal = {Natural Language Semantics}, year = {2008}, volume = {16}, pages = {205-237}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9029-z} }
Horn, L.R.	Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing [BibTeX]	2002	Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Volume 38, Part Two: The Panels	inproceedings	URL
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Horn2002, author = {Laurence R. Horn}, title = {Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Volume 38, Part Two: The Panels}, publisher = {University of Chicago Press}, year = {2002}, url = {https://ling.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/horn/horn02_inertia.pdf} }
Ippolito, M.	On the meaning of Only [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2008	Journal of Semantics Vol. 25, pp. 45-91	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper investigates the semantics of the focus particle only and is primarily concerned with the relation between the exclusive proposition and the proposition expressed by the prejacent (the only-less sentence). We argue that, in a sentence of the form only A is B, only triggers the conditional presupposition that if something is B, A is B. We show that in a positive-only sentence, the prejacent is a conversational implicature and therefore it is cancellable. Instead, in a negative-only sentence the prejacent is shown to be entailed by any context that satisfies the conditional presupposition and to which the (negative) assertion is added. Hence, the prejacent of a negative-only sentence is not cancellable. The entailment analyses, the strong presupposition analyses and the weak presupposition analyses of only are discussed, together with the problems that each type of theories faces.
BibTeX: @article{Ippolito2008, author = {Michela Ippolito}, title = {On the meaning of Only}, journal = {Journal of Semantics}, year = {2008}, volume = {25}, pages = {45-91}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm010} }
Kehler, A.	On QUD-based licensing of strict and sloppy ambiguities [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2016	Proceedings of SALT	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: According to standard theories of VP-ellipsis, possible readings are determined by constraints (syntactic, semantic, discoursal) that apply jointly to the antecedent and ellipsis clauses. Drawing on insights from a number of previous authors, I present two arguments for a model in which VP-ellipsis meanings are crucially dependent on the operative (and often implicitly resolved) question-under-discussion (QUD; Roberts 1998/2012), specifically requiring that the meaning of an ellipsis clause be a member of the QUD's alternative set.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Kehler2016, author = {Andrew Kehler}, title = {On QUD-based licensing of strict and sloppy ambiguities}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT}, year = {2016}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3071} }
Keshet, E.	Sloppy identity unbound [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Proceedings of SALT 23	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: Reinhart (1983) claims that only pronouns whose antecedents c-command them may give rise to sloppy identity readings. This paper presents counterexamples to this claim; for instance, referring to the famous 1960 televised presidential debate, it is acceptable to say: "Kennedy looked good. People voted for him. Nixon looked bad. People didn't." Despite the fact that the antecedent "Kennedy" for the pronoun "him" is in a previous sentence, this pronoun allows a sloppy identity reading wherein the fourth sentence ("People didn't.") means that people didn't vote for Nixon. To analyze such cases, I first propose an extension to the focus operator due to Rooth (1992), allowing this operator to alter the assignment function used to interpret pronouns. One construction where Rooth places is in the answers to questions. My new meaning for explains why pronouns are so constrained in answers, e.g., "Who does John like? He[=John] likes Mary." Next, I argue for the Question-Under-Discussion (QUD) model of discourse described in Roberts (1996), which theorizes that every sentence is the answer to an explicit or implicit question. Finally, I show that unbound sloppy identity can be analyzed as cases where pronouns are constrained by antecedents in implicit questions. Along the way, I argue that the QUD model is compatible with the coherence relation model of discourse due to Hobbs (1979), explaining how coherence can constrain pronoun reference as well.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Keshet2013, author = {Ezra Keshet}, title = {Sloppy identity unbound}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 23}, year = {2013}, doi = {doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2678} }
King, J.C.	Complex Demonstratives: A quantificational approach [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2001		book
Abstract: Since the late 1970s, the orthodox view of complex 'that' phrases (e.g., 'that woman eating a granola bar') has been that they are contextually sensitive devices of direct reference. In Complex Demonstratives, Jeffrey King challenges that orthodoxy, showing that quantificational accounts not only are as effective as direct reference accounts but also handle a wider range of data. After providing arguments against direct reference accounts of 'that' phrases and developing a quantificational theory of them, King looks at the interaction of 'that' phrases with modal operators, negation, and verbs of propositional attitude. He argues for evidence of scope interaction between 'that' phrases and other scoped elements. King also addresses semantic properties of 'that' and other determiners, and the possibility of extending the semantics of 'that' phrases to 'that' as a syntactically simple demonstrative. Finally, he argues against what he calls ambiguity approaches, theories that hold that the various uses of 'that' phrases cannot be treated by a single semantical theory.
BibTeX: @book{King2001, author = {Jeffrey C. King}, title = {Complex Demonstratives: A quantificational approach}, publisher = {MIT Press}, year = {2001} }
Kotek, H. and Barros, M.	Multiple Sluicing, Scope, and Superiority: Consequences for Ellipsis Identity [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	Linguistic Inquiry Vol. 49(4), pp. 781-812	article	DOI
Abstract: This article defends a semantic identity account of ellipsis licensing. The argument comes from examples of multiple sluicing, especially from Russian. Concentrating on antecedents that contain two quantified statements, we uncover a surprising asymmetry: surface scope antecedents can license a multiple sluice, but inverse scope antecedents cannot. We explain this finding in terms of semantic accounts of ellipsis licensing, where ellipsis is licensed when the sluice corresponds to an (implicit) question under discussion. We show that QUDs cannot be computed from the truth-conditional content of the antecedents alone; instead, they must be computed only after (scalar) implicatures have been calculated and added to the common ground, along with the context of utterance. We further discuss the commitments required of syntactic/LF identity accounts of ellipsis licensing in order to accommodate multiple sluicing with quantified antecedents, and argue that such accounts are practically untenable.
BibTeX: @article{Kotek2018, author = {Kotek, Hadas and Barros, Matthew}, title = {Multiple Sluicing, Scope, and Superiority: Consequences for Ellipsis Identity}, journal = {Linguistic Inquiry}, year = {2018}, volume = {49}, number = {4}, pages = {781-812}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00289} }
Miller, P., Hemforth, B., Amsili, P. and Flambard, G.	Missing Antecedents Found [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2020	Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Vol. 5(1), pp. 822	article	DOI
Abstract: Numerous papers have used so-called 'missing antecedent phenomena' as a criterion for distinguishing deep and surface anaphora. Specifically, only the latter are claimed to licence pronouns with missing antecedents. These papers also argue that missing antecedent phenomena provide evidence that surface anaphora involve unpronounced syntactic structure in the ellipsis site. The present paper suggests that the acceptability judgments on which the argument is based exhibit a confound because they do not take discourse conditions on VPE (a surface anaphor) and VPA (a deep anaphor) into account. Two acceptability experiments provide evidence that what is relevant to the judgments are the discourse conditions and not the presence of deep vs. surface anaphors, casting doubt on the reliability of missing antecedent phenomena as a criterion for deep vs. surface status.
BibTeX: @article{Miller2020, author = {Philip Miller and Barbara Hemforth and Pascal Amsili and Gabriel Flambard}, title = {Missing Antecedents Found}, journal = {Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2020}, volume = {5}, number = {1}, pages = {822}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v5i1.4795} }
Mori, Y. and Hirayama, H.	Bare plurals in the left periphery in German and Italian [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: Chierchia’s comparative analysis of nominals based on the two features [± arg] and [± pred] has lead to many discussions on the semantics of nominals in argument positions and predicate positions. On the other hand, many syntactic results about left dislocation and topicalization have been accumulated. In this paper, we will try to elucidate possibilities of bare plurals in the left periphery and differentiate their readings. By examining data from Italian and German we claim that different demands on foregoing contexts are organized as constructions, as far as the left periphery is concerned. In addition, those constructions also reflect an organization of discourse.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Mori2014, author = {Yoshiki Mori and Hitomi Hirayama}, title = {Bare plurals in the left periphery in German and Italian}, booktitle = {New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence}, publisher = {Springer International Publishing}, year = {2014}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10061-6} }
Bekki, D. and McCready, E.	CI via DTS [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence JSAI-isAI 2014	incollection	DOI
Abstract: It has been observed that conventionally implicated content interacts with at-issue content in a number of different ways. This paper focuses on the existence of anaphoric links between content of these two types, something disallowed by the system of Potts (2005), the original locus of work on these issues. The problem of characterizing this interaction has been considered by a number of authors. This paper proposes a new system for understanding it in the framework of Dependent Type Semantics. It is shown that the resulting system provides a good characterization of how “cross-dimensional” anaphoric links can be supported from a proof-theoretic perspective.
BibTeX: @incollection{Murata2015, author = {Daisuke Bekki and Elin McCready}, title = {CI via DTS}, booktitle = {New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence JSAI-isAI 2014}, publisher = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg}, year = {2015}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48119-6} }
Onea, E. and Volodina, A.	Between Specification and Explanation: About a German Discourse Particle [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	International Review of Pragmatics Vol. 3, pp. 3-32	article	DOI
Abstract: Th is paper provides a unified semantic and discourse pragmatic analysis of the German particle nämlich , traditionally described as having a specificational and an explanative reading. Our claim is that nämlich is a discourse marker which signals that the expression it is attached to is a short (elliptic) answer to a salient implicit question about the previous utterance. We show how both the explanative and the specifi cational reading can be derived from this more general semantic contribution. In addition we discuss some cross linguistic consequences of our analysis.
BibTeX: @article{Onea2011, author = {Edgar Onea and Anna Volodina}, title = {Between Specification and Explanation: About a German Discourse Particle}, journal = {International Review of Pragmatics}, year = {2011}, volume = {3}, pages = {3-32}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/187731011X561036} }
Overfelt, J.	Having space to sprout: Failed sprouting in sub-clausal ellipses [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2021	Proceedings of WCCFL 39	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: This paper presents and accounts for an under-explored constraint against sprouting from sub-clausal ellipses. The account begins fromthe claimthat antecedents for ellipsis can in principle be recovered from the syntax or an implicit question meaning. Different kinds of ellipses, however, may be subject to limits on this flexibility for antecedent recovery. I argue that these limits can conspire to block the licensing of ellipsis, specifically in the case of sprouting from an elided predicate. Moreover, I propose that these are expected consequences of the model of focus-based semantic redundancy that is found in Rooth 1992a,b. The remainder of the paper explores the diagnostic utility of sprouting in determining the size of an elided constituent. Case studies from Stripping in English and Modal Complement Ellipsis in Catalan and French are presented.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Overfelt2021, author = {Jason Overfelt}, title = {Having space to sprout: Failed sprouting in sub-clausal ellipses}, booktitle = {Proceedings of WCCFL 39}, year = {2021}, url = {https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/006056/current.pdf?_s=7DbGNZWb22vuQVzl} }
Roberts, C.	Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse [Comment] [BibTeX]	1989	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 12(6), pp. 683-721	article	DOI
Comment: Reprinted in Javier Gutierrez-Rexach (ed.) Semantics: Critical concepts in linguistics, Routledge, 2003.
BibTeX: @article{Roberts1989, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {1989}, volume = {12}, number = {6}, pages = {683-721}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00632602} }
Roberts, C.	Domain Selection in Dynamic Semantics [BibTeX]	1995	Quantification in Natural Languages	incollection
BibTeX: @incollection{Roberts1995, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Domain Selection in Dynamic Semantics}, booktitle = {Quantification in Natural Languages}, publisher = {Springer Netherlands}, year = {1995} }
Roberts, C.	Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	1996	Vol. 49Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics	incollection	DOI
Abstract: A framework for pragmatic analysis is proposed which treats discourse as a game, with context as a scoreboard organized around the questions under discussion by the interlocutors. The framework is intended to be coordinated with a dynamic compositional semantics. Accordingly, the context of utterance is modeled as a tuple of different types of information, and the questions therein— modeled, as is usual in formal semantics, as alternative sets of propositions — constrain the felicitous flow of discourse. A requirement of Relevance is satisfied by an utterance (whether an assertion, a question or a suggestion) iff it addresses the question under discussion. Finally, it is argued that the prosodic focus of an utterance canonically serves to reflect the question under discussion (at least in English), placing additional constraints on felicity in context.
Comment: The updated version is 2012 in Semantics and Pragmatics.
BibTeX: @incollection{Roberts1996, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics}, booktitle = {Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics}, publisher = {Ohio State University}, year = {1996}, volume = {49}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6} }
Roberts, C.	Anaphora in intensional contexts [BibTeX]	1996	The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 215-246	incollection
BibTeX: @incollection{Roberts1996b, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Anaphora in intensional contexts}, booktitle = {The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory}, publisher = {Basil Blackwell}, year = {1996}, pages = {215-246} }
Roberts, C.	Demonstratives as definites [BibTeX]	2002	Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation	incollection	URL
BibTeX: @incollection{Roberts2002, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Demonstratives as definites}, booktitle = {Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation}, publisher = {CSLI Press}, year = {2002}, url = {https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/demonstratives.pdf} }
Roberts, C.	Uniqueness in definite noun phrases [BibTeX]	2003	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 26, pp. 287-350	article	DOI
BibTeX: @article{Roberts2003, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Uniqueness in definite noun phrases}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {2003}, volume = {26}, pages = {287-350}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393} }
Roberts, C.	Pronouns as definites [BibTeX]	2005	Descriptions and Beyond, pp. 503-543	incollection
BibTeX: @incollection{Roberts2005, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Pronouns as definites}, booktitle = {Descriptions and Beyond}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2005}, pages = {503-543} }
Roberts, C.	only: A Case Study in Projective Meaning [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2010	Vol. 6Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context, and Models	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: I offer an integrated theory of meaning of only in which the prejacent, while not prsupposed, is both entailed and backgrounded, hence tends to project (following a general proposal about projection due to Simons et al. 2020). Moreover, I argue, contra Beaver & Brady (2008), that only is not conventionally associated with focus, the focus effects arising instead pragmatically. But I do adopt aspects of their semantics for only, including the presupposition of a pre-order over the elements of its domain.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Roberts2010a, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {only: A Case Study in Projective Meaning}, booktitle = {Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context, and Models}, publisher = {The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication}, year = {2010}, volume = {6}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1581} }
Roberts, C.	Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	2012	Semantics & Pragmatics Vol. 5, pp. 1-69	article	DOI
Abstract: A framework for pragmatic analysis is proposed which treats discourse as a game, with context as a scoreboard organized around the questions under discussion by the interlocutors. The framework is intended to be coordinated with a dynamic compositional semantics. Accordingly, the context of utterance is modeled as a tuple of different types of information, and the questions therein— modeled, as is usual in formal semantics, as alternative sets of propositions — constrain the felicitous flow of discourse. A requirement of Relevance is satisfied by an utterance (whether an assertion, a question or a suggestion) iff it addresses the question under discussion. Finally, it is argued that the prosodic focus of an utterance canonically serves to reflect the question under discussion (at least in English), placing additional constraints on felicity in context.
Comment: Originally published in (1996) Jae-Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol (eds.) Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 49. Published in the revised form in (1998) in Semantics and Pragmatics. This (2012) is a re-issue of the (1998) version and was followed with an afterword. A translation into Japanese was published in the Journal of the Institute of Language Research (2020) by Wataru Okubo and Hiroki Nomoto. Link here: http://www.tufs.ac.jp/common/fs/ilr/contents/ronshuu/25/jilr25_Translateion_Roberts2012-jpn.pdf
BibTeX: @article{Roberts2012, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics}, journal = {Semantics & Pragmatics}, year = {2012}, volume = {5}, pages = {1-69}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6} }
Roberts, C.	Ellipsis and Retrievability [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012		unpublished
Abstract: Can't find a link, is there a published version?
BibTeX: @unpublished{Roberts2012b, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Ellipsis and Retrievability}, year = {2012}, note = {In prep at time of 1st bib.} }
Roberts, C.	Linguistic Convention and the Architecture of Interpretation [BibTeX]	2017	Analytic Philosophy Vol. 58(4), pp. 418-439	article	DOI
BibTeX: @article{Roberts2017, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Linguistic Convention and the Architecture of Interpretation}, journal = {Analytic Philosophy}, year = {2017}, volume = {58}, number = {4}, pages = {418-439}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12113} }
van Rooij, R. and Schulz, K.	Only: Meaning and Implicatures [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2007	Questions in Dynamic Semantics, pp. 193-223	incollection	DOI
Abstract: This chapter argues that there is a way to approach the meaning of 'only' that can deal with some of its well-known challenges but still is faithful to classical ideas. It starts discussion by introducing the traditional and predominant view on the meaning of 'only'. Intuitively, it seems to be quite clear what 'only' contributes to the meaning of a sentence. Countless proposals on how to capture this intuition have been brought forward since the nineteen-sixties. One of the most influential is a focus alternative approach. The chapter provides a minimal model analysis of the semantic part, based on Groenendijk & Stokhof's (1984) rule of exhaustive interpretation. It is shown that the resulting analysis makes some appealing predictions, especially if a notion of 'relevance· is taken into account. Finally, the authors argued that the pragmatic inference from 'Only' should be thought of as a conversational implicature.
BibTeX: @incollection{Rooij2007a, author = {Robert van Rooij and Katrin Schulz}, title = {Only: Meaning and Implicatures}, booktitle = {Questions in Dynamic Semantics}, publisher = {Brill}, year = {2007}, pages = {193-223}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080470993_010} }
Schoubye, A.J.	Descriptions, truth value intuitions, and questions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2009	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 32, pp. 583-617	article	DOI
Abstract: Since the famous debate between Russell (Mind 14: 479–493, 1905, Mind 66: 385–389, 1957) and Strawson (Mind 59: 320–344, 1950; Introduction to logical theory, 1952; Theoria, 30: 96–118, 1964) linguistic intuitions about truth values have been considered notoriously unreliable as a guide to the semantics of definite descriptions. As a result, most existing semantic analyses of definites leave a large number of intuitions unexplained. In this paper, I explore the nature of the relationship between truth value intuitions and non-referring definites. Inspired by comments in Strawson (Introduction to logical theory, 1964), I argue that given certain systematic considerations, one can provide a structured explanation of conflicting intuitions. I show that the intuitions of falsity, which proponents of a Russellian analysis often appeal to, result from evaluating sentences in relation to specific questions in context. This is shown by developing a method for predicting when sentences containing non-referring definites elicit intuitions of falsity. My proposed analysis draws importantly on Roberts (in: Yoon & Kathol (eds.) OSU working papers in Linguistics: vol. 49: Papers in Semantics 1998; in: Horn & Ward (eds.) Handbook of pragmatics, 2004) and recent research in the semantics and pragmatics of focus.
BibTeX: @article{Schoubye2009, author = {Anders J. Schoubye}, title = {Descriptions, truth value intuitions, and questions}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {2009}, volume = {32}, pages = {583-617}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9069-y} }
Schoubye, A.J.	On Describing [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	School: University of St Andrews	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: The overarching topic of this dissertation is the semantics and pragmatics of definite descriptions. It focuses on the question whether sentences such as ‘the king of France is bald’ literally assert the existence of a unique king (and therefore are false) or simply presuppose the existence of such a king (and thus fail to express propositions). One immediate obstacle to resolving this question is that immediate truth value judgments about such sentences (sentences with non-denoting descriptions) are particularly unstable; some elicit a clear intuition of falsity whereas others simply seem awkward or strange. Because of these variations, truth value judgments are generally considered unreliable. In the first chapter of the dissertation, an explanation of this phenomenon is developed. It is observed that when these types of sentences are considered in the context of a discourse, a systematic pattern in judgments emerges. This pattern, it is argued, should be explained in terms of certain pragmatic factors, e.g. whether a speaker’s utterance is interpreted as cooperative. A detailed and general explanation of the phenomenon is then presented which draws importantly on recent research in the semantics and pragmatics of questions and focus. It is shown that the behavior of these judgments can be systematically explained, that truth value judgments are not as unreliable as standardly assumed, and that the proposed explanation best supports the conclusion that definite descriptions presuppose rather than assert existence. In the second chapter, the following problem is investigated. If definite descriptions are assumed to literally assert existence, a sentence such as ‘Hans wants the ghost in his attic to be quiet’ is incorrectly predicted to be true only if Hans wants there to be a (unique) ghost in his attic. This prediction is often considered evidence against Russell’s quantificational analysis and evidence in favor of the referential analysis of Frege and Strawson. Against this claim, it is demonstrated that this problem is a general problem about the existence commitments of natural language determiners, i.e. not an argument in favor of a referential analysis. It is shown that in order to avoid these undesirable predictions, quite radical changes to the semantic framework are required. For example, it must be assumed that a sentence of the form ‘The F is G’ has the open sentence ‘x is G’ as its asserted content. A uniform quantificational and presuppositional analysis of definites and indefinites is outlined which by exploiting certain features of so-called dynamic semantics unproblematically assumes that the asserted contents indeed are open sentences. In view of the proposed quantificational/presuppositional analysis, the dissertation is concluded by a rejection of the argument put forward by Reimer (1998) and Devitt (2004) that definite descriptions are ambiguous between attributive (quantificational) and referential (indexical) uses. Reimer and Devitt’s argument is (in contrast to Donnellan, 1966) based primarily on the assumption that definite descriptions are conventionally used to communicate singular thoughts and that the conventional meaning of a definite description therefore must be fundamentally indexical/directly referential. I argue that this argument relies crucially on tacit assumptions about semantic processing for which no empirical evidence is provided. I also argue that the argument is too general; if sound, it would be an argument for an indexical treatment of most, if not all, other determiners. I then conclude by demonstrating that the view does not explain any new data and thus has no clear motivation. In short, this dissertation provides a detailed pragmatic explanation of a long-standing puzzle about truth value judgments and then outlines a novel dynamic semantic analysis of definites and indefinites. This analysis solves a significant problem about existence commitments — a problem that neither Russell’s nor the Frege/Strawson analysis are equipped to handle. This analysis is then defended against the claim that definite descriptions are ambiguous.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Schoubye2011, author = {Anders J. Schoubye}, title = {On Describing}, school = {University of St Andrews}, year = {2011}, url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10023/2468} }
Schoubye, A.J.	Ghosts, Murderers, and the Semantics of Descriptions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Noûs Vol. 47(3), pp. 496-533	article	DOI
Abstract: It is widely agreed that sentences containing a non-denoting description embedded in the scope of a propositional attitude verb have true de dicto interpretations, and Russell’s (1905) analysis of definite descriptions is often praised for its simple analysis of such cases, cf. e.g. Neale (1990). However, several people, incl. Elbourne (2005, 2010), Heim (1991), and Kripke (2005), have contested this by arguing that Russell’s analysis yields incorrect predictions in non-doxastic attitude contexts. Heim and Elbourne have subsequently argued that once certain facts about presupposition projection are fully appreciated, the Frege/Strawson analysis of definite descriptions has an explanatory advantage. In this paper, I argue that both Russell’s analysis and the Frege/Strawson analysis face a serious problem when it comes to the interaction of attitude verbs and deĕnite descriptions. I argue that the problem observed by Elbourne, Heim, and Kripke is much more general than standardly assumed and that a solution requires a revision of the semantics of deĕnite and indeĕnite descriptions. I outline the conditions that are required to solve the problem and present an analysis couched in dynamic semantics which can provide a solution. I conclude by discussing some further issues related to propositional attitude verbs that complicate a fully general solution to the problem.
BibTeX: @article{Schoubye2013, author = {Anders J Schoubye}, title = {Ghosts, Murderers, and the Semantics of Descriptions}, journal = {Noûs}, year = {2013}, volume = {47}, number = {3}, pages = {496-533}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2011.00836.x} }
Soares, E.C.	Anaphors in discourse : anaphoric subjects in Brazilian Portuguese [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2017	School: Université Sorbonne Paris Cité	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: The present dissertation is concerned with the use and interpretation of null and pronominal subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. This investigation examines these phenomena in an attempt to disentangle the semantic and discursive factors that can be relevant for choice between these anaphoric expressions in Brazilian Portuguese and the way in which this choice is articulated with the general theory of anaphora resolution. The starting point of this dissertation was the research looking into null and overt subjects from the perspective of Generative Grammar, specially the Parametric Theory. Throughout the present work, however, the analyses proposed in this perspective were shown not to account for the data at stake. The generalization that poor verbal morphology is directly related to the absence or reduced frequency of null subjects, for example, is challenged through experimental data and an investigation of the relative frequency of null subjects across discourse persons in corpora. An alternative explanation presented in the previous literature, namely the importance of the antecedents’ features of Animacy and Specificity, seems to better account for the attested distribution. However, this explanation is not sufficient for understanding the choice between null and overt subjects in Brazilian Portuguese, since the number of animate and specific null subjects is still relatively higher than in languages with obligatory expression of subjects. Therefore, it is argued that discourse factors seem to play a crucial role in the use of null and overt subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. The main factors identified here are Obviousness and Contrast. The first is a standard feature in the literature about anaphora resolution (expressed by a variety of terms, such as Salience, Familiarity, Accessibility, etc.), which is part of the reverse mapping hypothesis according to which the more obvious the subject is, the less explicit the co-referential form is allowed to be. The second factor, Contrast, is the main finding of the present dissertation: as is the case for other levels of linguistic analyses and other phenomena in language, the choice of anaphoric expression in Brazilian Portuguese seems to be driven by efficiency. In the present case, this means that, when the backgrounded information and the asserted (focused) in- formation in an utterance contrast the most, it is more likely that a null subject will be used. The design of a grammar that deals with these multiple features is sketched, specifically, a multi-layered scalar probabilistic grammar is proposed, whose semantic and discourse constraints act in parallel through a probabilistic mapping. It is, thus, shown that null subjects are likely in discursive co- reference, since in these contexts their antecedents are more obvious and the focused information contrasts the most with the background. An apparent counter-example to the proposal sketched here is analyzed: the generic interpretation of null subjects. However, it is shown that the same semantic constraints cross-linguistically applied to other generic constructions can produce generic null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese, given the failure to be grounded predicted by the approach proposed here. Finally, on-line evidence for the analysis of the use and interpretation of null and pronominal subjects is provided. The results found in three eye-tracking while reading experiments provide striking evidence in favor of the proposal put forward here, according to which null and overt subjects and their interpretation can be accounted for in terms of constraints on interpretation rather than licensing.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Soares2017, author = {Eduardo Correa Soares}, title = {Anaphors in discourse : anaphoric subjects in Brazilian Portuguese}, school = {Université Sorbonne Paris Cité}, year = {2017}, url = {https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01984623} }
Stevens, J. and Light, C.	The Pragmatics of Direct Object Fronting in Historical English [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Vol. 19(1)University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: Speyer (2008) finds an overall decline in the rate of topicalization in historical English, which we refer to pre-theoretically as direct object fronting. He attributes it to two separate phenomena: 1) the early loss of unaccented pronominal and demonstrative fronting, and 2) a gradient decline in the use of accented, contrastive fronting due to prosodic well-formedness conditions imposed by the loss of the V2 constraint. In this paper we present a prima facie problem with Speyer's account. While personal pronouns exhibit the expected behavior, the rate at which demonstrative pronouns front is more stable. We propose that, contrary to expectation, unaccented demonstratives in Old English behaved syntactically as if they were contrastive. The reason for this lies in a special information-structural function for demonstrative pronouns across Germanic, for which our corpus study provides independent evidence. Specifically, demonstratives in Germanic tend to refer anaphorically to elements whose meanings, like the meanings of contrastive elements, are not in every possible answer to the Question Under Discussion (see Roberts 1996, Buring 2003 and Schwarz to appear).
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Stevens2013, author = {Jon Stevens and Caitlin Light}, title = {The Pragmatics of Direct Object Fronting in Historical English}, booktitle = {University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics}, year = {2013}, volume = {19}, number = {1}, url = {https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol19/iss1/23} }
Toosarvandani, M.D.	Association with Foci [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2010	School: University of California at Berkeley	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: Association with focus has, since Jackendoff’s (1972) dissertation, been the object of intense study. Most researchers, however, have concentrated on explaining the semantic variability of only and even, whose truth conditions vary with the position of focus. I take as my starting point another property of associating expressions. Both only and even restrict the distribution of focus, a property that, I argue, they share with a range of other lexical items. But, while only and even take a single argument and require there to be a focus somewhere inside that argument, expressions like adversative but and let alone take two arguments, thereby associating with two foci. Associating expressions, of both the one- and two-place varieties, have two things in common. First, they are crosscategorial in their syntax, taking arguments of a variety of different types. Second, they evoke multiple alternatives—different possible answer to a question. Together, these two independent properties of associating expressions interact with the question under discussion (Roberts 1996, 2004) to give rise to the restriction on the distribution of focus. My approach to association with focus departs from previous ones in important ways. Associating expressions neither make reference to focus in their lexical entry (Rooth 1985, 1992, 1996b) nor to the question under discussion (Beaver and Clark 2008), providing a more satisfying answer to the question of why only some expressions associate with focus.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Toosarvandani2010, author = {Maziar Doustdar Toosarvandani}, title = {Association with Foci}, school = {University of California at Berkeley}, year = {2010}, url = {https://escholarship.org/uc/item/99g807bq} }
Hawthorne, J. and Manley, D.	The Reference Book [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012		book
Abstract: This book critically examines some widespread views about the semantic phenomenon of reference and the cognitive phenomenon of singular thought. It begins by denying that either is tied to a special relation of causal or epistemic acquaintance. It goes on to challenge the alleged semantic rift between definite and indefinite descriptions on the one hand, and names and demonstratives on the other—a division that has been motivated in part by appeals to considerations of acquaintance. Drawing on recent work in semantics, a more unified account of all four types of expression is explored, according to which none of them paradigmatically fits the profile of a referential term. The authors argue that all four involve existential quantification but admit of uses that exhibit many of the traits associated with reference—a phenomenon that is due to the presence of what we call a ‘singular restriction’ on the existentially quantified domain. The Afterword draws out some implications of the proposed semantic picture for the traditional categories of reference and singular thought.
BibTeX: @book{, author = {John Hawthorne and David Manley}, title = {The Reference Book}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2012} }
Romoli, J., Santorio, P. and Wittenberg, E.	Alternatives in counterfactuals: What is right and what is not [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2021		unpublished	URL
Abstract: Classical semantics for counterfactuals is based on a notion of comparative similarity and minimal change: If A, would C says that the most similar A-worlds are C-worlds. This semantics suffers from a well-known difficulty with disjunctive antecedents, which has generated a number of proposals combining the semantics of counterfactuals with alternatives (see e.g. Alonso-Ovalle 2009, Willer 2018, Santorio 2018, a.o.). In a recent study, Ciardelli, Zhang, and Champollion (2018b; henceforth, CZC) present new, related difficulties for the classical approach having to do with unpredicted differences between counterfactuals with De Morgan-equivalent antecedents, and related pattern of inferences. They propose a new semantics for counterfactuals, which builds on inquisitive semantics (see Ciardelli et al. 2018a) and gives up on comparative similarity and minimal change. We report a series of experiments extending their investigation. Our results replicate CZC's main effects, but they also indicate that those effects are linked to the presence of overt negation. We propose a novel account, based on three key assumptions: (i) the semantics for counterfactuals is standard; (ii) the meanings of disjunction and negation are associated with alternatives, which interact with the meaning of counterfactuals; (iii) the alternatives generated by negation are partially determined by the question under discussion (QUD).
BibTeX: @unpublished{, author = {Jacopo Romoli and Paolo Santorio and Eva Wittenberg}, title = {Alternatives in counterfactuals: What is right and what is not}, year = {2021}, url = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351283192_Alternatives_in_counterfactuals_What_is_right_and_what_is_not} }