In defense of an HPSG-based theory of non-constituent coordination: a reply to Kubota and Levine

Yatabe, Shûichi; Tam, Wai Lok

doi:10.1007/s10988-019-09283-6

Cited by 3 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Incidentally, in Yatabe & Tam (2021), we note the existence of examples like (9), but do not go on to present a concrete analysis of such examples. This shortcoming, however, is easy to fix.…”

Section: Two Other Theories Of Respectively Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In Appendix D of Yatabe & Tam (2021), we present a theory of respectively interpretation that is capable of assigning appropriate truth conditions not only to a sentence like (1) but also to sentences that involve non-constituent coordination, such as (2) and (3).…”

Section: Yatabe and Tam (2021)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Assuming this analysis of distributive interpretation, the initial semantic representation for sentence ( 15) is constructed as in ( 27), disregarding the presence of the word respectively. The semantic coordinators that are to be given respectively interpretation are assigned a subscript here, in accordance with the theory of Yatabe & Tam (2021). ( 27)…”

Section: Reformulating Binding Condition Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, I am going to examine the interaction between respectively interpretation and binding conditions. I will first describe the theory of respectively interpretation that is presented in Yatabe & Tam (2021), and argue that it is the best theory of respectively interpretation currently available. Then I am going to show what consequences that theory has about binding theory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Respectively interpretation and Binding Conditions A and B

Yatabe

2022

hpsg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The theory of respectively interpretation proposed in Yatabe and Tam (2021) "In defense of an HPSG-based theory of non-constituent coordination" (Linguistics and Philosophy 44, pp. 1-77) entails that Binding Conditions A and B need to be formulated as constraints on the form of semantic representations. It is possible to formulate the two binding conditions as such constraints if anaphoric relations are encoded in semantic representations in a way analogous to the way they are encoded in Discourse Representation Theory.

show abstract

Section: Two Other Theories Of Respectively Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Yatabe and Tam (2021)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reformulating Binding Condition Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Respectively interpretation and Binding Conditions A and B

Yatabe

2022

hpsg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this paper, we assume that the HPSG-based analysis of right-node raising advocated in works such as Yatabe & Tam (2017) is on the right track; in other words, we assume that a sentence like this involves coordination of two normal constituents out of which something is dislocated. Even on that assumption, there remain several possibilities as to what types of syntactic constituent are coordinated in a sentence like (1), and that is the question that will be addressed in this paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The fine structure of clausal right-node raising constructions in Japanese

Yatabe¹,

Tanigawa²

2018

hpsg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the fine structure of clausal right-node raising constructions in Japanese, and argue that there are sentences in which a tensed verb is right-node-raised out of coordinated tensed clauses as well as sentences in which a verb stem is right-node-raised out of coordinated tenseless phrases. In the latter case, the tense morpheme has to be assumed to take a tenseless complement clause, and we note that the existence of such a structure contradicts the so-called lexicalist hypothesis, according to which a verb stem and the tense morpheme immediately following it always form a morphosyntactic constituent.

show abstract

Further evidence for an HPSG-based theory of the semantics of different and the same

Yatabe

2023

hpsg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Yatabe (2021) presents a theory according to which the meaning of a word like different in a sentence like Anna and Bill like different films contains the meaning of a reciprocal pronoun. Since the postulated reciprocal meaning inside the meaning of a word like different requires the presence of a semantic antecedent, the theory entails that the apparent internal reading of a sentence like John saw and reviewed different films, which does not contain a plural DP that could serve as the semantic antecedent of the postulated reciprocal meaning, must be licensed in a way that is entirely different from the way in which the internal reading of a sentence like Anna and Bill like different films is licensed. In the present paper, I adduce additional pieces of evidence for this theory. In order to enhance the plausibility of the proposed theory, I also show how the collective interpretation of reciprocals and the interaction of reciprocals and cumulative interpretation can be accounted for within the theory.

show abstract

In defense of an HPSG-based theory of non-constituent coordination: a reply to Kubota and Levine

Cited by 3 publications

References 22 publications

Respectively interpretation and Binding Conditions A and B

Respectively interpretation and Binding Conditions A and B

The fine structure of clausal right-node raising constructions in Japanese

Further evidence for an HPSG-based theory of the semantics of different and the same

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About