Cross-Categorial Donkeys

Charlow, Simon

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_27

Cited by 5 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The accessibility problem is acknowledged without solution by Hardt (1999) and Charlow (2012), though Charlow does suggest that "VP-meanings are 'constant-y' things." Perhaps, therefore, VP meanings could be treated like names in standard DRT, and thus always be accessible on the top level DRS, as shown in (9).…”

Section: The Problem: Accessibility Of Vp Antecedentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As both Hardt (1994) and Charlow (2012) point out, variable-based theories of VPE, including the dynamic theories adopted by Hardt and Charlow, face a problem of accessibility. Consider (7):…”

Section: The Problem: Accessibility Of Vp Antecedentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In response to such examples, Charlow (2012) loosens the index condition further, requiring a relation of dynamic binding between antecedent and sloppy pronoun. Charlow retains Rooth's discourse condition that requires appropriate contrast.…”

Section: (4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Hardt 1994Hardt , 1999Schwartz 2000;Merchant 2012;Charlow 2012, we adopt the view that sloppy VPEs should be treated as variables, so that both sentences of (5) are analyzed as in (5 ). In this paper we will focus on sloppy VPE examples to argue against a structural account of indexing, and we will propose a process-based approach, in which interpretations arise from the semantics of discourse relations.…”

Section: Sloppy Vpe and Indexingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

VP ellipsis without indices

Hardt

Asher

Hunter

2013

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper compares two views on the status of indices in syntactic and logical representations. On a structural view, indices are syntactic formants on a par with node labels and phrase bracketings, and are thus a part of the logical forms that are derived from syntactic representations. On the process view, an index is not a syntactic object at all, but rather, an indication of the output of a resolution process. In this paper we argue that a recent body of data provides a clear empirical basis for distinguishing between these two views of indices. We argue that cases of sloppy VP ellipsis pose insurmountable problems for the structural view of indices, while these problems do not arise for the process view. Furthermore, we show that this resolution process is constrained by the semantics of various discourse relations.

show abstract

Section: The Problem: Accessibility Of Vp Antecedentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Problem: Accessibility Of Vp Antecedentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sloppy Vpe and Indexingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

VP ellipsis without indices

Hardt

Asher

Hunter

2013

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To satisfy the structural parallelism constraint just proposed, these examples require thinking of these predicates as names of predicate-type variables (cf Hardt 1994Hardt , 1999Charlow 2012Charlow , 2017…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%