| { | |
| "paper_id": "Y16-2028", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:47:02.847493Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Towards a QUD-Based Analysis of Gapping Constructions", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Sang-Hee", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Park", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University at Buffalo", | |
| "location": { | |
| "region": "SUNY" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "sangheep@buffalo.edu" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "In this paper I examine what have often been considered the syntactic properties of Gapping constructions (Ross, 1970) and show that they are in fact discourse-pragmatic in nature. I offer a novel analysis of Gapping constructions by extending recent Question Under Discussion (QUD)-based accounts in Head-Driven", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "Y16-2028", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this paper I examine what have often been considered the syntactic properties of Gapping constructions (Ross, 1970) and show that they are in fact discourse-pragmatic in nature. I offer a novel analysis of Gapping constructions by extending recent Question Under Discussion (QUD)-based accounts in Head-Driven", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "Gapping constructions are characterized by an initial, sentential clause (the source clause) and one or more non-initial gapped clauses in which a verb and, optionally, other material are missing (the gapped clauses). Some examples are given in (1). 1 (1) a. Mary loves apples, and Tom, pears.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 250, | |
| "end": 251, | |
| "text": "1", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "b. On Saturday, John bought a magazine, and on Sunday, a newspaper. c. Kim played the guitar, Ray, the piano, and Sue, the bass.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The missing material in gapped clauses is interpreted as if it were there. In (1a), for example, the gapped clause is interpreted as 'Tom ate pears', receiving the interpretation of the missing material from the source clause. In this paper I provide a novel approach to Gapping constructions that builds on recent QUD-based (Roberts, 1996 (Roberts, /2012 accounts of non-sentential utterances in HPSG. In Section 2, I review three previous proposals and discuss their problems. In Section 3, I examine some widely accepted assumptions that have been used to characterize the syntax of Gapping constructions and show that they are not fully justified by empirical data. After discussing the relevance of Gapping constructions to QUD, I present a novel QUD-based analysis in Section 4. Section 5 concludes the paper.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 325, | |
| "end": 339, | |
| "text": "(Roberts, 1996", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 340, | |
| "end": 355, | |
| "text": "(Roberts, /2012", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Previous approaches to Gapping constructions can be grouped into three types: deletion-based (Ross, 1970; Sag, 1976; Hartmann, 2000; Chaves, 2005) , movement-based (Johnson, 2009; Johnson, 2014) , and construction-based (Culicover and Jackendoff, 2005; Abeill\u00e9 et al., 2013) . A sample analysis is given in (2).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 93, | |
| "end": 105, | |
| "text": "(Ross, 1970;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 106, | |
| "end": 116, | |
| "text": "Sag, 1976;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 117, | |
| "end": 132, | |
| "text": "Hartmann, 2000;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 133, | |
| "end": 146, | |
| "text": "Chaves, 2005)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF28" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 164, | |
| "end": 179, | |
| "text": "(Johnson, 2009;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 180, | |
| "end": 194, | |
| "text": "Johnson, 2014)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 220, | |
| "end": 252, | |
| "text": "(Culicover and Jackendoff, 2005;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF23" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 253, | |
| "end": 274, | |
| "text": "Abeill\u00e9 et al., 2013)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Previous Research", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) a. Tom pears] In the deletion-based approach, shown in (2a), gapped clauses have the same structure as their nongapped counterparts, hence the same meaning. The missing material arises as the result of a deletion under identity with the corresponding material in the source clause. In the movement-based approach, shown in (2b), Gapping constructions are assigned a conjoined VP structure that yields the semantics of complete sentences, and the missing material arises as the result of an ATB-style movement of the verb. In the construction-based approach, shown in (2c), gapped clauses are treated as instances of a nonheaded construction consisting of a set of phrasal remnants linked to an open proposition that contains the non-focused elements of the source clause.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 7, | |
| "end": 17, | |
| "text": "Tom pears]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Previous Research", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Each of these approaches have their own problems, however. According to the deletion-based approach, gapped clauses have the syntactic structure of a sentence that includes no missing material. This predicts that gapped clauses would have the same distribution with their alleged non-gapped counterparts. As noted by Culicover and Jackendoff (2005, p.280) , however, there are instances of gapped clauses that do not have grammatical nongapped counterparts:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 317, | |
| "end": 355, | |
| "text": "Culicover and Jackendoff (2005, p.280)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Previous Research", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(3) a. Paul saw Leslie, but not Leslie (*saw)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Previous Research", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Paul. b. You may have this cake, or him (*may have) that ice cream.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Previous Research", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Note that the gapped clauses in (3a) and (3b) have the properties of non-finite categories: The gapped clause in (3a) is selected by a constituent negation that modifies non-sentential phrases, and the one in (3b) has an accusative subject. This suggests that the syntax of a given gapped clause is not equivalent to the syntax of its non-gapped counterpart. So-called wide-scope readings of scopal operators (Siegel, 1984; McCawley, 1993 ) present a problem to the deletion-based and construction-based approaches alike. The phenomenon is illustrated by the example in (4), which has the two readings in (a) and (b), dubbed as wide-and distributive-scope readings, respectively.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 409, | |
| "end": 423, | |
| "text": "(Siegel, 1984;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF20" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 424, | |
| "end": 438, | |
| "text": "McCawley, 1993", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Previous Research", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(4) Ward can't eat caviar, and Sue, beans.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Previous Research", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Ward can't eat caviar and Sue can't eat beans. (They have different allergies.) b. Wide-scope reading It can't be the case that Ward eats caviar and Sue eats beans. (That's not fair!)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "a. Distributive-scope reading", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The first, distributive-scope reading arises if the negation and modal are each interpreted twice, once within the source clause and once within the gapped clause; the second, wide-scope reading arises if the negation and modal are interpreted only once, taking the entire sentence within their scope.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "a. Distributive-scope reading", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the deletion-based approach, gapped clauses are predicted to be semantically equivalent to their corresponding non-gapped clauses. This follows from the alleged syntactic equivalence between a gapped clause and the corresponding non-gapped clause. In the construction-based approach, the missing material is recovered from the non-focused part of the source clause, and this predicts two possibilities: For example, (4) would be interpreted as Ward can't eat caviar and Sue can't eat beans (if can't is not focused) or as Ward can't eat caviar and Sue eats beans (if can't is focused), which is semantically odd. Thus, the only acceptable readings that these approaches predict are distributive-scope readings; wide-scope readings remain entirely unexplained.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "a. Distributive-scope reading", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The difficulty of explaining wide scope readings is circumvented in the movement-based approach by \"lowering\" the conjunction from where it appears to be located. An example structure is given in (5). But such an advantage comes at the cost of empirical perspicuity: Some instances of Gapping constructions do involve a conjoined TP: 2 (6) a. Yesterday we went to the movies, and last Thursday, to the circus. (Sag, 1976, p.265 ) b. To Robin, Chris gave the book, and to Leslie, the magazine. (Kubota and Levine, 2016) The problem cannot be avoided by simply allowing Gapping constructions to be of two varieties, conjoined VPs or TPs. Consider the example in (7). (7) She can't eat caviar, and he/him, beans. This sentence can be understood to have a widescope reading ('It can't be the case that she eats caviar and he eats beans'), suggesting that the sentence is an instance of a conjoined VP. But the availability of the nominative subject in the gapped clause suggests that a conjoined TP structure is involved. Given this, the fact that (7) can simultaneously have a nominative subject and a wide-scope reading creates a serious problem to the movementbased approach because a single instance of an expression cannot simultaneously be assigned two different structures.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 410, | |
| "end": 427, | |
| "text": "(Sag, 1976, p.265", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 493, | |
| "end": 518, | |
| "text": "(Kubota and Levine, 2016)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF31" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "a. Distributive-scope reading", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Besides, the acceptability of instances of Gapping constructions does not always match that of their corresponding wh-questions, as has previously been noted (Culicover and Jackendoff, 2005, pp.274-275) . Between (8a) and (8b), for example, only the latter incurs a violation of constraints on extraction.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 158, | |
| "end": 202, | |
| "text": "(Culicover and Jackendoff, 2005, pp.274-275)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "a. Distributive-scope reading", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(8) a. Robin believes that everyone pays attention to you when you speak French, and Leslie, German. (Culicover and Jackendoff, 2005 , p.273) b. #Which language does Robin believe that everyone pays attention to you when you speak?", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 101, | |
| "end": 132, | |
| "text": "(Culicover and Jackendoff, 2005", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF23" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "a. Distributive-scope reading", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The contrast in acceptability like the one shown here suggests that the movement operation alleged to be involved in Gapping constructions has little empirical support.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "a. Distributive-scope reading", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "There are some widely held assumptions often used to characterize the syntax of Gapping constructions. In this section I discuss their problems and provide an alternative discourse-pragmatic account.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Problems of some Common Assumptions", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Since Hankamer (1973, p.18) , it has been assumed that the remnants that occur in gapped clauses are syntactically constrained:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 15, | |
| "end": 27, | |
| "text": "(1973, p.18)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Major Constituent Hypothesis", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(9) The Major Constituent Hypothesis: A permissible remnant is either immediately dominated by the root clause or by some verbal head.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Major Constituent Hypothesis", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The Major Constituent Hypothesis is supported by the contrast in acceptability like the one shown by (10a) and (10b) (Examples and judgments are due to McCawley (1988, p.287) ). Under this hypothesis, proud in (10a) does not qualify as a major constituent while proud of it in (10b) does. But a more representative set of data invalidates the Major Constituent Hypothesis. A first type of counterexamples involves remnants that are complements of a preposition, such as (11a-c) (Hudson, 1989, pp.59-64) . Since P-complements do not qualify as major constituents, the acceptability of these sentences is inconsistent with the predictions generated under the Major Constituent Hypothesis.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 152, | |
| "end": 174, | |
| "text": "McCawley (1988, p.287)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 478, | |
| "end": 502, | |
| "text": "(Hudson, 1989, pp.59-64)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Major Constituent Hypothesis", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(11) a. John thought about Jane, and Bill, Betty.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Major Constituent Hypothesis", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "b. Fred has been working on semantics, and Bill, syntax. c. Fred sat on a chair, Mary, a stool, and Bill, a bench.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Major Constituent Hypothesis", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Undoubtedly, there is a tendency for speakers to prefer major constituents as the remnants of Gapping, and some speakers do not fully accept sentences like (11a-c). This tendency is what Hankamer and others have tried to capture under their respective syntactic hypotheses. But instead, there is reason to seek an alternative, processing-oriented account. Steedman (1990) notes that the acceptability of sentences like (11-c) is more readily apparent when considered as an answer to questions such as those in (12).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 356, | |
| "end": 371, | |
| "text": "Steedman (1990)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Major Constituent Hypothesis", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(12) a. Which boy thought about which girl? b. Which student has been studying which specialization? c. Which person sat on where?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Major Constituent Hypothesis", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A second type of problematic data that has been around since McCawley (1993) involves N' remnants. These are are known as determiner Gapping:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 61, | |
| "end": 76, | |
| "text": "McCawley (1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Major Constituent Hypothesis", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(13) a. No dog ate Whiskas, and cat, Alpo (= no cat ate Alpo). b. The duck is dry, and mussels, tough (= the mussels are tough). c. Bob has read many magazines, and Mary, novels (= Mary has read many novels). (Reeve, 2014, p.354) Other material within a noun phrase than a determiner can additionally go missing, as shown by (14) (Small caps indicates pitch accent). Sentences like these are easier to understand if the remnants and their correlates are marked by pitch accent. Again, this suggests that remnants only tend to be phrasal constituents and that there is no hard syntactic constraint on their category.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 209, | |
| "end": 229, | |
| "text": "(Reeve, 2014, p.354)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The Major Constituent Hypothesis", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Many theories assume that Gapping constructions are restricted to coordination (Jackendoff, 1971; Johnson, 2009) :", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 79, | |
| "end": 97, | |
| "text": "(Jackendoff, 1971;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF25" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 98, | |
| "end": 112, | |
| "text": "Johnson, 2009)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Restriction to symmetric coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(15) a. Some had eaten mussels and others shrimp. b. *Some had eaten mussels because others shrimp. (Johnson, 2009, his judgment) In the movement-based approach (Johnson, 2009; Johnson, 2014) , where Gapping constructions are stipulated as conjoined VPs, (15b) is ungrammatical because coordination and subordination are incompatible. But Kehler (2002, Ch.4 ) considers such sentences unacceptable, and provides an explanation based on an independently motivated theory of coherence (Hobbs, 1985) . For Kehler, the (un)acceptability of (15a) and (15b) are correlated with the types of coherence relation involved: While (15a) involves a Resemblance relation, (15b) involves a Cause-Effect relation 4 . He argues that reasoning with Resemblance relations provides a necessary means to recover the missing material. For example, in (15a) inferring a Resemblance relation 3 McCawley judges (14b) as ungrammatical, but many speakers find it acceptable when there is contrastive pitch accent on the remnants and their correlates.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 100, | |
| "end": 129, | |
| "text": "(Johnson, 2009, his judgment)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 161, | |
| "end": 176, | |
| "text": "(Johnson, 2009;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 177, | |
| "end": 191, | |
| "text": "Johnson, 2014)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 339, | |
| "end": 357, | |
| "text": "Kehler (2002, Ch.4", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 483, | |
| "end": 496, | |
| "text": "(Hobbs, 1985)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 869, | |
| "end": 870, | |
| "text": "3", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Restriction to symmetric coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "4 Resemblance relations are a class of coherence relations that hold between sentences in which contrasting entities and properties are highlighted. (Kehler, 2002, pp.15-20) between the source and gapped clauses amounts to equating some with others, mussels with shrimp, and had eaten with the missing material. In (15b), however, inferences leading to Resemblance relations are unavailable because a Cause-Effect relation is targeted.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 149, | |
| "end": 173, | |
| "text": "(Kehler, 2002, pp.15-20)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Restriction to symmetric coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Note, however, that there are instances in which the predictions of these accounts are not observed. Sentences in 16 The speakers I consulted for the judgment of these sentences reported that their acceptability is more obvious if there are pauses as the commas indicate and if the remnants and their correlates are marked by pitch accent. Such improved acceptability in the presence of prosodic cues is unexpected in the movement-based approach, or any theory that relies on any sort of a syntactic assumption. Kehler's analysis is not successful, either. For example, since his explanation for (15b) relies on the incompatibility between a Resemblance relation and a Cause-Effect relation to some degree, it is unclear how sentences like those in (16) would be analyzed. 8 Alternatively, the (un)acceptability of examples considered so far in this section is expected if one assumes (i) that the missing material in a gapped clause is retrieved from the QUD (Roberts, 1996 (Roberts, /2012 evoked by its source clause and (ii) that the ease with which a QUD is evoked and recovered is a function of the ease with which contrastive topics and foci are construed (Hendriks, 2004) .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 773, | |
| "end": 774, | |
| "text": "8", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 960, | |
| "end": 974, | |
| "text": "(Roberts, 1996", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 975, | |
| "end": 990, | |
| "text": "(Roberts, /2012", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1162, | |
| "end": 1178, | |
| "text": "(Hendriks, 2004)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF24" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Restriction to symmetric coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In Section 2 it is noted that Gapping constructions that include missing scopal operators are ambiguous between wide-and distributive-scope readings (Siegel, 1984; McCawley, 1993) . Examples in (4) and (13a) are repeated in (17a) and (17b), respectively.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 149, | |
| "end": 163, | |
| "text": "(Siegel, 1984;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF20" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 164, | |
| "end": 179, | |
| "text": "McCawley, 1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Wide scope interpretations as the consequence of small coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(17) a. Ward can't eat caviar, and Sue, beans. b. No dog ate Whiskas, and cat, Alpo.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Wide scope interpretations as the consequence of small coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "These sentences can be understood to have the same meaning as their respective counterparts in (18) (= distributive-scope readings). But they can also have a reading in which the negation and modal apply to the entire conjunction (= wide-scope readings).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Wide scope interpretations as the consequence of small coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(18) a. Ward can't eat caviar and Sue can't eat beans. b. No boy ate Whiskas and no cat ate Alpo.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Wide scope interpretations as the consequence of small coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In recent studies (Johnson, 2009; Kubota and Levine, 2016) wide-scope interpretations like those of (17a-b) have been identified as a problem in static compositional semantics: In this view, sentences like (17a-b) are problematic because there is a mismatch between the syntactic position of scopal operators and the position in which they receive the appropriate interpretation. For example, the negation and modal in (17a) are embedded within the first conjunct but can nevertheless be interpreted to take scope over the conjunction. Johnson (2009) and Kubota and Levine (2016) propose to explain wide-scope interpretations on the basis of the observation that such interpretations are the result of the structural asymmetry between the source and gapped clauses, the latter containing missing material. 9 But the supposed generalization (i) No dog barked or donkey brayed last night. (Kubota and Levine, 2016, (39b))", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 18, | |
| "end": 33, | |
| "text": "(Johnson, 2009;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 34, | |
| "end": 58, | |
| "text": "Kubota and Levine, 2016)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF31" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 536, | |
| "end": 550, | |
| "text": "Johnson (2009)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 555, | |
| "end": 579, | |
| "text": "Kubota and Levine (2016)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF31" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 887, | |
| "end": 898, | |
| "text": "(Kubota and", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Wide scope interpretations as the consequence of small coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Kubota and Levine instead assume that determiner Gapping is dependent on the presence of a determiner gap only, hence correctly predict the felicity of (i). But they cannot handle data like (20a) as discussed below.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Wide scope interpretations as the consequence of small coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "that the wide-scope phenomenon is bounded to coordinate structures that contain missing material has problems. Chaves (2007, p.89) I argue, contra Johnson and Kubota-Levine, that wide-scope interpretations are the consequence of an asymmetry in the way subsequent conjuncts are interpreted in the discourse they occur in: The first conjunct updates the input context and yields a local context for the second conjunct, but not vice versa. In this dynamic view, it is predicted that the scope of an operator embedded in the first conjunct can reach into the second conjunct but the reverse would not be possible. This prediction is borne out in examples like (21): The scope of the negation in the second conjunct is conjunct-bound. The examples considered so far show that conjunctbound scope-taking is a default case and that it can be overridden by context-dependent processes (Chaves, 2007, p.89) .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 118, | |
| "end": 130, | |
| "text": "(2007, p.89)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 879, | |
| "end": 899, | |
| "text": "(Chaves, 2007, p.89)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Wide scope interpretations as the consequence of small coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In order to allow scopal operators in a conjunct to outscope subsequent conjuncts from where they occur, one needs to adopt a dynamic semantic approach. To see this, consider the example in (22a) and its translation in (22b).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Wide scope interpretations as the consequence of small coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(22) a. Some boy x went to the army and his x girlfriend, the navy. c. \u2203x (boy(x ) \u2227 go-to(x , army))\u2227 \u2203y(girlfriend (y, x ) \u2227 go-to(y, navy))", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Wide scope interpretations as the consequence of small coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In order for the pronoun in (22a) to be anaphorically linked to Some boy in the first conjunct, the existential quantifier must be given a wide scope over the conjunction. In Dynamic Predicate Logic (DPL) (Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1991) , the free variable x in the second conjunct can be interpreted as bound by the co-indexed antecedent in the first conjunct without having to \"raise\" the antecedent. 10 This can be achieved by treating the existential and conjunction as dynamic operators, so that the value assigned to x in the fist conjunct remains available for the second conjunct. 11 The approach proposed here, if fully developed, would provide a simple, uniform treatment for various wide-scope phenomena without unnecessary complications.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 205, | |
| "end": 236, | |
| "text": "(Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1991)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Wide scope interpretations as the consequence of small coordination", | |
| "sec_num": "3.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In 3.1 and 3.2 of Section 3 it was observed that acceptable instances of Gapping constructions are those in which the connections between the remnants and their correlates are easily recognizable. Building on the insights from Levin and Prince (1986) , I argue that such connections provide necessary information to recover a QUD evoked by the source clause of Gapping constructions. I assume that such a QUD is locally available in the pragmatics of the gapped clause in the form of a propositional abstract. I adopt a construction-based HPSG grammar proposed by Ginzburg and Sag (2000) to model Gapping constructions. Informally, the strategy I adopt for the licensing of gapped clauses is to think of them as non-sentential utterances of underspecified category that provide an answer to the QUD introduced by their respective source clauses. To model the discourse context of Gapping constructions, I adopt Ginzburg's (2012) Dialogue Game-Board (DBG), an independently motivated feature used to model discourse. DGB provides a structured view of discourse by keeping track of which question gets introduced at a given point in discourse and which gets downdated. It is an object of type dgb, which specifies information about Maximal Question Under Discussion (MAX-QUD), which itself contains Focus Establishing Constituents (FEC) and Question (Q).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 227, | |
| "end": 250, | |
| "text": "Levin and Prince (1986)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF21" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 564, | |
| "end": 587, | |
| "text": "Ginzburg and Sag (2000)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(23) \u23a1 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a3 dgb MAX-QUD FEC set(SemObj) Q Question ... ... \u23a4 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a6", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Roughly speaking, elements within the FEC set correspond to focal utterances (defined as semantic objects), and the Q feature contains the question currently being discussed. 12 The DGB of a source clause Mary loves Paul (as in Mary loves Paul, and Sue, Bill) is shown in (24).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 175, | |
| "end": 177, | |
| "text": "12", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(24) Uttering(May loves Paul) ; \u23a1 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a3 dgb MAX-QUD \u23a1 \u23a2 \u23a3 FEC SEM m , SEM p Q \u03bby.\u03bbx.love(x, y) \u23a4 \u23a5 \u23a6 \u23a4 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a6", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The AVM in (24) specifies the partial DGB of a discourse to which the sentence Mary loves Paul has just entered. There are two focal elements in the set, m and p introduced by Mary and Paul, respectively. These are recorded as possible correlates that would be matched with the focal elements of the incoming sentence. The value of Q in (24) is an open proposition which basically corresponds to the part of the sentence that is not focused. I assume that source clauses are partial answers, and as such they allow a question to persist into the upcoming discourse. This means that updating a given discourse by introducing a potential source clause to it would not result in downdating the relevant question in Q. Rather, an incoming gapped clause is entering into a context which has been created by its source clause and is still 'alive'.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 337, | |
| "end": 341, | |
| "text": "(24)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Next, in (25) I introduce the constraints characterizing gapped phrase. The key idea here is that gapped clauses are resolved to the variables of the open proposition introduced by the source clause.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(25) gapped phrase:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u23a1 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a3 SYN | HEAD H MAX-QUD \u23a1 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a3 FEC \u23a7 \u23aa \u23a8 \u23aa \u23a9 SEM z 1 ,..., SEM z n , SEM x 1 ,..., SEM x n \u23ab \u23aa \u23ac \u23aa \u23ad Q Q = \u03bby n ...\u03bby 1 .[\u03a6] \u23a4 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a6 SEM Q (x n , ..., x 1 ) DTRS \u23a1 \u23a3 SEM x 1 FEC [SEM x 1 ] \u23a4 \u23a6 ,..., \u23a1 \u23a3 SEM x n FEC [SEM x n ] \u23a4 \u23a6 \u23a4 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a6 (n \u2265 2)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The SYN(TAX) | HEAD value of the mother is underspecified, and this allows gapped clauses to combine with connectives selecting a non-finite category like as well as and and/but not. The constraints on MAX-QUD are partly from the source clauses. The objects in the FEC set correspond to the source clause's focal elements as well as the remnants of the gapped clauses that are also focal elements. Q is an open proposition that corresponds to the unfocused part of the source clause (\u03a6) and a set of lambda variables.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The constraints on SEM ensure that the semantics of a given gapped clause is obtained on the basis of the propositional abstract Q and the semantics of the daughters by applying beta reduction: It is computed by replacing the lambda variables \u03bby 1 ...\u03bby n in Q with the semantics of the daughters x n , ..., x 1 .", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Lastly, the D(AUGH)T(E)RS list contains a list of signs that correspond to the remnants. It is specified that the semantics of the daughters must be structure-shared with the semantics of the objects within FEC, which ensures that there are no remnants are are not focal elements.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The structure in Figure 1 provides an analysis of an instance of gapped phrase, Sue Bill, that is introduced to the context updated by the source clause Mary loves Paul. Here s and b represent the semantics of the daughters, Sue and Bill, respectively. The FEC set contains the semantic objects introduced by the focal elements in the source clause, Mary and Paul. The semantics of the mother love(s, b) is obtained by applying the propositional abstract to the semantics of the daughters.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 17, | |
| "end": 25, | |
| "text": "Figure 1", | |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF3" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u23a1 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a3 MAX-QUD \u23a1 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a2 \u23a3 FEC \u23a7 \u23aa \u23aa \u23a8 \u23aa \u23aa \u23a9 SEM m , SEM p SEM s , SEM b \u23ab \u23aa \u23aa \u23ac \u23aa \u23aa \u23ad Q \u03bby.\u03bbx.love (x, y) \u23a4 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a6 SEM love(s, b) \u23a4 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a5 \u23a6 NP \u23a1 \u23a3 SEM s FEC [SEM s] \u23a4 \u23a6 Sue NP \u23a1 \u23a3 SEM b FEC [SEM b] \u23a4 \u23a6 Bill", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The analysis I have proposed so far has a number of advantages. As is well-known, a given remnant and its correlate must establish contrastive foci (*Mary x loves apples and she x , pears). In my analysis, this is expected because the remnants and their correlates are required to be members of their respective FEC set (See (25)). Furthermore, the precise constraints on contrastive foci are motivated independently by theories of focus (Rooth, 1985; B\u00fcring, 2003) , which allows us to have a simpler theory of Gapping.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 438, | |
| "end": 451, | |
| "text": "(Rooth, 1985;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF27" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 452, | |
| "end": 465, | |
| "text": "B\u00fcring, 2003)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Second, the current analysis does not require that a given remnant-correlate pair must satisfy some sort of structural parallelism: In (25) the head values of the daughters are not required to be identical to the head values of the respective focal elements. Thus, case-mismatch between a remnant and its correlate like the one in (26) is allowed.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(26) You may have this cake, or him, that ice cream. Third, in the analysis I proposed, the semantics of gapped clauses is computed by beta-reducing a propositional abstract that contains lambda variables. Because lambda is order-sensitive, the impossibility of case-mismatch like the one shown in (27) is correctly predicted. One can think of the reason for the oddness of (27) intuitively: The gapped and source clauses are answers to two different questions, Which movie was directed by which director? and Which director directed which movie?, respectively. The proposed QUD-based analysis captures this intuition directly by requiring that the semantics of gapped clauses make reference to the structure of the QUD introduced by their respective source clauses.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A QUD-based analysis", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this work I proposed a QUD-based analysis of Gapping constructions integrated in a more general constraint on fragment utterances, following Ginzburg and Sag (2000) and Ginzburg (2012) . The QUD-based constraint on Gapping constructions I proposed enables the semantics of gapped clauses to be constructed based on the semantics of the expressed information and the information retrieved from a contextually provided question under discussion. This QUD-based account correctly predicts the availability of subordinators and sub-phrasal remnants in certain cases of Gapping constructions, and the possibility of wide scope operators in various contexts, all of which pose serious challenges to previous accounts. Further research is required to investigate the precise effect of prosodic factors on acceptability.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 144, | |
| "end": 167, | |
| "text": "Ginzburg and Sag (2000)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 172, | |
| "end": 187, | |
| "text": "Ginzburg (2012)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Commas are used to indicate a pause throughout this paper.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "30th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 30)Seoul, Republic of Korea, October 28-30, 2016", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This type of data was first noted bySag (1976).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "http://bit.ly/1TUTcx2 6 http://bit.ly/1PUDHZA 7 http://bit.ly/2bm6Ehi 8 In fact, assuming Kehler's definition of Resemblance relations(Kehler, 2002, pp.15-20), nothing in principle prevents understanding (15b) as an instance of a Resemblance relation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Johnson assumes that determiner Gapping like (18b) is dependent on the presence of a verbal \"gap\", but this is problematic, as Kubota and Levine point out:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Nothing hinges on the choice of DPL here, however. Any other type of dynamic semantics would in principle suffice.11 SeePoesio and Zucchi (1992) andWang et al. (2006) for a similar treatment for Telescoping and other similar phenomena.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Cf. FEC is defined as a set of Locutionary Propositions inGinzburg's (2012, pp.234-237) original formulation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "I thank Rui Chaves, Jean-Pierre Koenig, and members of the Syntax-Semantics Research Group at the University at Buffalo for their comments and discussions that contributed to this work. I also thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. All remaining errors are solely mine.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Acknowledgments", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Andrew", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kehler", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2002, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Andrew Kehler. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "A Romance perspective on Gapping constructions", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Anne", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Abeill\u00e9", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Gabriela", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "B\u00eelb\u00eeie", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Francois", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mouret", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2013, | |
| "venue": "Romance in Construction Grammar", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Anne Abeill\u00e9, Gabriela B\u00eelb\u00eeie, and Francois Mouret. 2013. A Romance perspective on Gapping construc- tions. In Romance in Construction Grammar, ed. H. Boas and F. Gonzalvez Garcia. Amsterdam: John Ben- jamins.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Craige", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Roberts", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1996, | |
| "venue": "Semantics & Pragmatics", | |
| "volume": "5", | |
| "issue": "6", | |
| "pages": "1--69", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Craige Roberts. 1996/2012. Information structure in dis- course: towards an integrated formal theory of prag- matics. Semantics & Pragmatics 5(6): 1-69.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "On D-trees, beans and B-accents", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Daniel", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "B\u00fcring", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2003, | |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", | |
| "volume": "26", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "511--545", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Daniel B\u00fcring. 2003. On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26:511-545.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Deletion and logical form", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ivan", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sag", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1976, | |
| "venue": "Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Ivan A. Sag. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "The Syntactic Phenomena of English", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "D", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "James", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mccawley", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1988, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "1", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "James D. McCawley. 1988. The Syntactic Phenomena of English, Vol. 1. University of Chicago Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "Gapping with shared operators", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "D", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "James", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mccawley", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1993, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "245--253", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "James D. McCawley. 1993. Gapping with shared op- erators. In D. A. Peterson (ed.), Berkeley Linguistics Society, 245-253. University of California, Berkeley, California.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "Fragments and Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jason", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Merchant", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2004, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "27", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "661--738", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jason Merchant. 2004. Fragments and Ellipsis. Linguis- tics and Philosophy, 27:661-738.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jerry", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hobbs", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jerry Hobbs. 1985. On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse. CSLI-85-37.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Dynamic Predicate Logic", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jeroen", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Groenendijk", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Martin", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Stokhof", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", | |
| "volume": "14", | |
| "issue": "1", | |
| "pages": "39--100", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1): 39-100.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "Gapping and the order of constituents", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "John", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ross", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1970, | |
| "venue": "Progress in Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "249--259", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "John R. Ross. 1970. Gapping and the order of con- stituents. In M. Bierwisch and K. Heidolph (eds.), Progress in Linguistics, 249-259. The Hague: Mou- ton.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "Interrogative investigations: the form, meaning and use of English interrogatives", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jonathan", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ginzburg", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ivan", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "A" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Sag", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2000, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jonathan Ginzburg and Ivan A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative investigations: the form, meaning and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "The Interactive Stance: meaning for conversation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jonathan", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ginzburg", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1973, | |
| "venue": "Unacceptable Ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "4", | |
| "issue": "1", | |
| "pages": "17--68", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jonathan Ginzburg. 2012. The Interactive Stance: mean- ing for conversation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jorge Hankamer. 1973. Unacceptable Ambiguity. Lin- guistic Inquiry, 4(1):17-68.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "Right Node Raising and Gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Katharina", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hartmann", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2000, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Katharina Hartmann. 2000. Right Node Raising and Gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. John Benjamins Publishing.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF14": { | |
| "ref_id": "b14", | |
| "title": "Gapping is not (vP-) ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Kyle", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Johnson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2009, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "40", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "289--328", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kyle Johnson. 2009. Gapping is not (vP-) ellipsis. Lin- guistic Inquiry, 40(2):289-328.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF15": { | |
| "ref_id": "b15", | |
| "title": "Gapping. Ms., University of Massachusetts", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Kyle", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Johnson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2014, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kyle Johnson. 2014. Gapping. Ms., University of Mas- sachusetts, Amherst.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF16": { | |
| "ref_id": "b16", | |
| "title": "Information dependency in Quantificational Subordination", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Linton", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Wang", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Eric", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mccready", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Nicholas", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Asher", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2006, | |
| "venue": "Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "267--304", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Linton Wang, Eric McCready, and Nicholas Asher. 2006. Information dependency in Quantificational Subordi- nation. Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier, 267-304.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF17": { | |
| "ref_id": "b17", | |
| "title": "Gapping as constituent coordination", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "J", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mark", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Steedman", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", | |
| "volume": "13", | |
| "issue": "2", | |
| "pages": "207--263", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Mark J. Steedman. 1990. Gapping as constituent coordi- nation. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2):207-263.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF18": { | |
| "ref_id": "b18", | |
| "title": "On Telescoping. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theoty", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Massimo", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Poesio", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Alessandro", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Zucchi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "2", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Massimo Poesio and Alessandro Zucchi. 1992. On Telescoping. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theoty 2.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF19": { | |
| "ref_id": "b19", | |
| "title": "If there's anything cleft-ellipsis resembles, it's (pseudo)gapping", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Matthew", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Reeve", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2014, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "351--360", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Matthew Reeve. 2014. If there's anything cleft-ellipsis resembles, it's (pseudo)gapping. In R. E. Santana- LaBarge (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 351-360.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF20": { | |
| "ref_id": "b20", | |
| "title": "Gapping and interpretation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "E", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "A" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Muffy", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Siegel", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1984, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "15", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "523--530", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Muffy E. A. Siegel. 1984. Gapping and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry, 15:523-530.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF21": { | |
| "ref_id": "b21", | |
| "title": "Gapping and causal implicature", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Nancy", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Levin", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ellen", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Prince", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1986, | |
| "venue": "Papers in Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "19", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "351--364", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Nancy Levin and Ellen Prince. 1986. Gapping and causal implicature. Papers in Linguistics, 19, 351- 364.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF22": { | |
| "ref_id": "b22", | |
| "title": "Deriving wide-scoping operators in an associative Lambek categorial grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Neal", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Whitman", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2010, | |
| "venue": "LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Neal Whitman. 2010. Deriving wide-scoping operators in an associative Lambek categorial grammar. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF23": { | |
| "ref_id": "b23", | |
| "title": "Simpler Syntax", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Peter", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Culicover", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ray", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Jackendoff", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2005, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Peter Culicover and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syn- tax. Oxford University Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF24": { | |
| "ref_id": "b24", | |
| "title": "Coherence relations, ellipsis and contrastive topics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Petra", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hendriks", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2004, | |
| "venue": "Journal of Semantics", | |
| "volume": "21", | |
| "issue": "2", | |
| "pages": "133--153", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Petra Hendriks. 2004. Coherence relations, ellipsis and contrastive topics. Journal of Semantics, 21(2): 133- 153.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF25": { | |
| "ref_id": "b25", | |
| "title": "Gapping and related rules", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ray", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "S" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Jackendoff", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1971, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "2", | |
| "issue": "1", | |
| "pages": "21--35", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Ray S. Jackendoff. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2(1):21-35.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF26": { | |
| "ref_id": "b26", | |
| "title": "Gapping and grammatical relations", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Richard", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "A" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Hudson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1989, | |
| "venue": "Journal of Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "25", | |
| "issue": "1", | |
| "pages": "57--94", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Richard A. Hudson. 1989. Gapping and grammatical relations. Journal of Linguistics, 25(1):57-94.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF27": { | |
| "ref_id": "b27", | |
| "title": "Association with Focus", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "E", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mats", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rooth", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Mats E. Rooth. 1985. Association with Focus. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF28": { | |
| "ref_id": "b28", | |
| "title": "A linearization-based approach to gapping", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "P", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rui", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chaves", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2005, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Formal Grammar and the 9th Meeting on Mathematics of Language", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "1--14", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Rui P. Chaves. 2005. A linearization-based approach to gapping. Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Formal Grammar and the 9th Meeting on Mathematics of Language, 1-14. CSLI.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF29": { | |
| "ref_id": "b29", | |
| "title": "Coordinate Structures: constraintbased syntax-semantics processing", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "P", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rui", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chaves", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2007, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Rui P. Chaves. 2007. Coordinate Structures: constraint- based syntax-semantics processing. Ph.D. Disserta- tion. University of Lisbon.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF30": { | |
| "ref_id": "b30", | |
| "title": "The scope anomaly of Gapping", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Yusuke", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kubota", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Robert", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Levine", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2014, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of NELS", | |
| "volume": "44", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "247--260", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Yusuke Kubota and Robert Levine. 2014. The scope anomaly of Gapping. In Proceedings of NELS, 44: 247-260.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF31": { | |
| "ref_id": "b31", | |
| "title": "Gapping as hypothetical reasoning. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Yusuke", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kubota", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Robert", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Levine", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2016, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "34", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "107--156", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Yusuke Kubota and Robert Levine. 2016. Gapping as hypothetical reasoning. Natural Language and Lin- guistic Theory, 34(1):107-156.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "text": "Ward x can't eat y [ VP [ VP t x t y caviar] and [ VP Sue t y beans]]", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF1": { | |
| "text": "10) a. ??George became ashamed of the Washington family's past and Martha, proud. (= Martha became proud of the Washington family's past) b. George became ashamed of the Washington family's past and Martha, proud of it.", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF2": { | |
| "text": "Syntax is governed by rules of well-formedness which specify [which combinations are permissible and which not].", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF3": { | |
| "text": "Gapped clause Sue Bill", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF4": { | |
| "text": "27) #Casablanca was directed by Michael Curtiz, and Roman Polanski, Chinatown. (= Roman Polanski directed Chinatown)", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF0": { | |
| "html": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "content": "<table/>", | |
| "text": "[ S Mary ate apples] and [ S Tom ate pears] b. Mary x ate y [ VP t x t y apples] and [ VP Tom t y pears] c. [ S Mary ate apples] and [ XP", | |
| "type_str": "table" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |