Sameness, Ellipsis and Anaphora

Hardt, Daniel; Mikkelsen, Line; Ørsnes, Bjarne

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_35

Cited by 6 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The contrast between (9b) and (9c) is also observed in Hardt et al (2012), whereas the contrast between (9b) and (9a) is to the best of our knowledge a novel observation. To account for the infelicity of (9b), Hardt et al (2012) propose that same carries a True Antecedent requirement, which requires its antecedent eventuality to be true in context.…”

Section: Negated Antecedentmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…We propose this reformulation because it shows that the effect is a consequence of the fact that same imposes the Parallel condition on the containing and the antecedent eventuality; if the antecedent eventuality is not accessible, the drs would be ill-formed. Thus while Hardt et al (2012) posit True Antecedent as an independent constraint, we show that it is a consequence of the parallelism requirement associated with same. 1 Since different does not impose parallelism, it does not require a True Antecedentthis is something Hardt et al (2012) Since we have explained these effects in terms of accessibility of the antecedent eventuality, these effects should also appear in other environments.…”

Section: Negated Antecedentmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Thus while Hardt et al (2012) posit True Antecedent as an independent constraint, we show that it is a consequence of the parallelism requirement associated with same. 1 Since different does not impose parallelism, it does not require a True Antecedentthis is something Hardt et al (2012) Since we have explained these effects in terms of accessibility of the antecedent eventuality, these effects should also appear in other environments. For example, modals like might also block accessibility, as in the following example:…”

Section: Negated Antecedentmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…To account for the infelicity of (9b), Hardt et al (2012) propose that same carries a True Antecedent requirement, which requires its antecedent eventuality to be true in context. The antecedent eventuality for same in (9b) is that of John reading War and Peace.…”

Section: Negated Antecedentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this respect same is like pronouns, definite descriptions and ellipsis, all of which must be identified with an antecedent. Hardt et al (2012) compare expressions with same to pronouns and ellipsis and argue that same is sensitive to the structure of eventualities in a way that pronouns and ellipsis are not. In this paper, we show that different patterns with pronouns and ellipsis in not being sensitive to eventualities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Same but different

Hardt

Mikkelsen

2015

Linguist and Philos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we argue that same is fundamentally different from different, in that same imposes a discourse condition on eventualities, while different compares individuals. This difference has not been noted in previous literature. Furthermore, in the literature on same, there has been a persistent puzzle about the contribution of the definite article with which same must co-occur. We show that this puzzle is resolved once the contribution of same is adjusted to apply to eventualities: then the definite article can be interpreted in the usual way, as generating a presupposition about individuals.

show abstract

Section: Negated Antecedentmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Negated Antecedentmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Negated Antecedentmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Negated Antecedentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Same but different

Hardt

Mikkelsen

2015

Linguist and Philos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Same and different are additive presupposition triggers

Mikkelsen,

Hardt

2024

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose an account of interpretive effects involving same and different, relying on two claims: the first is that same and different are able to take scope, and the second is that they are presuppositional. On this account, same and different are decomposed into two parts: an additive operator TOO and a (non-)identity predicate. We argue that this account provides a more parsimonious account of well-known properties of same and different, such as the distinction between internal and external readings, as well as the parallelism effects discovered by Hardt and Mikkelsen (Linguist Philos 38:289–314, 2015). We also present a solution to a previously unexplained puzzle involving comparatives.

show abstract

Gather/numerous as a mass/count opposition

Kuhn

2020

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predicates like gather and be numerous have both been described as 'collective predicates,' since they predicate something of a plurality. The two classes of predicates differ, however, with respect to plural quantifiers (e.g. all), which are grammatical with gather-type predicates but ungrammatical with numerous-type predicates. Here, I show that the gather/numerous opposition derives from mereological properties that are familiar from the domains of telicity and mass/count. I address problems of undergeneration and overgeneration with two technical innovations: first, I weaken the property of divisibility to Champollion's (2015) property of stratified reference; second, I provide mechanisms to rule out accidental satisfaction of the logical property. From a broader perspective, we place collective predication in a larger context by building empirical connections to mass/count and collectivity across semantic domains.

show abstract

Sameness, Ellipsis and Anaphora

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

Same but different

Same but different

Same and different are additive presupposition triggers

Gather/numerous as a mass/count opposition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About