Discourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguity

Condition B effects in two simple steps

“…8 In the meantime, the theories of Sag and Williams have been criticized and refined significantly (cf. Dalrymple et al 1991;Rooth 1992;Tancredi 1992;Hardt 1993;Prüst et al 1994;Fiengo and May 1994;Heim 1997;Tomioka 1997;Fox 1999;Schwarzschild 1999;Asher et al 2001;Merchant 2001;Kehler 2002;Hardt and Romero 2004;Elbourne 2008;Johnson 2008). However, most of these refined accounts, at least in as far as they assume a distinction between bound and referential pronouns, are still incompatible with Reinhart's Coreference Rule.…”

Proceedings of the 11th Linguistic Annotation Workshop

“…Another phenomenon that also presents the notion of segment deletion, although in a very different setting, is ellipsis. In the case of an ellipsis, the deleted segment can be reconstructed given a discourse antecedent in the same document, be it observed or idealized (Asher et al, 2001;Merchant, 2016). In the case of omission, a reference and a target version of a statement are involved, the deleted segment in one version having an antecedent in the other version of the statement, in another document, as a result of editorial choices.…”

Toward a Discourse Structure Account of Speech and Attitude Reports

“…The contrast introduced by but is however coherent, partially because it is supported by the isomorphic structures of the reported speech and the non-reported one. SDRT treatment of contrast as a scalar relation, following [2,3] provides such an analysis, assuming that the structure of the embedded speech is accessible.…”