Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Free versus bound variables and the taxonomy of gaps

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Potts (Nat Lang Linguist Theory 20:623–689, 2002a) et seq. presents an analysis of gap-containing supplements (primarily, as-parentheticals) where the gap is modelled as a variable over the semantic type of the constituent that the as-clause adjoins to (the anchor). This much allows the meaning of the gap to be resolved purely compositionally, by defining as as a function that allows the anchor to bind the gap variable. This article presents a class of as-clauses where Potts’s analysis seems to break down, in that the gap cannot be modelled as a variable over the semantic type of the anchor. I propose that these cases can be unified with those in Potts’s work, as well as a larger class of ellipsis phenomena, by assuming that, under certain conditions, surface gaps are composite entities, containing a bound variable and a free variable that are resolved independently of each other. The bound variable is bound by the anchor (just as in Potts’s account), and the free variable is resolved by anaphora to a salient discourse object.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amaral P., Roberts C., Allyn Smith E. (2007) Review of Chris Potts, ‘The logic of conventional implicatures’. Linguistics & Philosophy 30: 707–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AnderBois S. (2014) The semantics of sluicing: beyond truth conditions. Language 90(4): 887–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AnderBois, S., A. Brasoveanu, and R. Henderson. 2010. Crossing the appositive/at-issue meaning boundary. In Proceedings of SALT 20, ed. N. Li and D. Lutz, 328–346. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Barker C. (2013) Scopability and sluicing. Linguistics & Philosophy 36(3): 187–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barros, M. 2014. Pseudosluicing and identity in ellipsis. PhD diss., Rutgers University.

  • Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics & Philosophy 4: 159–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt R., Takahashi S. (2011) Review of Winfried Lechner’s ‘Ellipsis in comparatives’. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 14: 139–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan J. (1973) Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 589–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlow, S. 2014. On the semantics of exceptional scope. PhD diss,. New York University.

  • Chung S. (2013) Syntactic identity in sluicing: how much and why. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1): 1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung S., Ladusaw W., McCloskey J. (1995) Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3(3): 239–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, S., W. Ladusaw, and J. McCloskey. 2011. Sluicing (:) between structure and inference. In Representing language: Essays in honor of Judith Aissen, ed. R. Gutiérrez-Bravo, L. Mikkelsen, and E. Potsdam, 31–50. Santa Cruz: Linguistic Research Center, University of California.

  • Citko, B. 2003. ATB wh-movement and the nature of Merge. In Proceedings of NELS 33, ed. M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara, 87–102. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • Collins, C. 1988. Conjunction adverbs. Ms., MIT.

  • Collins, J.N., D. Popova, I.A. Sag, and T. Wasow. 2014. Sluicing and the inquisitive potential of appositives. In Parenthesis and ellipsis, ed. M. Kluck, D. Ott, and M. de Vries, 47–73. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  • Corver, N. 2007. Freezing effects. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. II, ed. M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, 383–406. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Cresti D. (2002) Extraction and reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics 3: 79–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Gobbo, F. 2003. Appositives at the interface. PhD diss., University of California, Irvine.

  • Elbourne, P. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

  • Elbourne P. (2008) Ellipsis sites as definite descriptions. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 191–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosz P. (2015) Movement and agreement in Right Node Raising constructions. Syntax 18(1): 1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutzmann, D. 2012. Use-conditional meaning: studies in multidimensional semantics. PhD diss., Goethe-Universität Frankfurt.

  • Hardt, D. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: form, meaning, and processing. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.

  • Hardt D. (1999) Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistics & Philosophy 22(2): 187–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehler, A. 2015. On QUD-based licensing of strict and sloppy ambiguities. In Proceedings of SALT 25, ed. S. D’Antonio, M. Moroney, and C. Rose Little, 512–532. Washington DC: Linguistic Society of America and Cornell Linguistics Circle.

  • Kennedy C. (2002) Comparative deletion and optimality in syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20(3): 553–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C., and J. Merchant. 2000. The case of the “missing CP” and the secret Case. In The Jorge Hankamer Webfest, ed. S. Chung, J. McCloskey, and N. Sanders. Santa Cruz: University of California.

  • LaCara, N. 2013. The syntax of as-parentheticals: A comparative deletion approach. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • LaCara, N. to appear. Evidence for deletion in as-parentheticals. The Linguistic Review.

  • Lechner, W. 2004. Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  • Lechner, W. 2007. Interpretive effects of head movement. Ms., Universität Tü http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000178.

  • Levine R.D. (2001) The extraction riddle: just what are we missing. Journal of Linguistics 37: 145–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCready E. (2010) Varieties of conventional implicature. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(8): 1–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, J. 2001. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Merchant, Jason. 2010. Three kinds of ellipsis. In Context-dependence, perspective, and relativity, ed. F. Recanati, I. Stojanović, and N. Villanueva, 141–192. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Merchant, J. 2013a. Diagnosing ellipsis. In Diagnosing syntax, ed. L. Cheng and N. Corver, 537–542. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Merchant, Jason. 2013b. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 77–108.

  • Messick, T., A. Saab, and L. Vicente. 2016. Deep properties of a surface anaphor: on the contextual restriction of sluicing sites. Ms., University of Connecticut (Storrs), CONICET/Universidad de Buenos Aires, and Universitäam. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002507.

  • Miller, P. 2011. The choice between verbal anaphors in discourse. In Anaphora processing and applications, ed. I. Hendricks, S. Lalitha Devi, A. Branco, and R. Mitkov, 82–95. Berlin: Springer.

  • Miller, P., and G.K. Pullum. 2012. Exophoric VP ellipsis. In The core and the periphery: data-driven perspectives in syntax inspired by Ivan A. Sag, ed. P. Hofmeister and E. Norcliffe, 5–32. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • Munn, A. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park.

  • Nouwen R. (2007) On appositives and dynamic binding. Journal of Research on Language and Computation 5(1): 87–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postal P.M. (1994) Parasitic and pseudo-parasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 63–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Postal, P.M. 1998. Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Potts, C. 2002a The syntax and semantics of as parentheticals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 623–689.

  • Potts, C. 2002b. The lexical semantics of parenthetical as and appositive which. Syntax 5: 55–88.

  • Potts, C. 2003 The logic of conventional implicatures. PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz.

  • Potts C. (2005) The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts, C. 2008. Interpretive economy, Schelling points, and evolutionary stability. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Rooth, M. 1992. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart ellipsis workshop, eds. Steve Berman and Arild Hestvik. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 Nr. 29. Heidelberg: IBM Germany.

  • Ross, J.R. 1969. Guess who? In Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. R. Binnick, A. Davidson, G. Green, and J. Morgan, 252–286. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • Schein, B. 1992. Conjunction reduction redux. Ms., University of Southern California.

  • Schwarzschild R. (1999) GIVENness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stowell T. (1987) As so, not so as. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. 2014. Beyond deep and surface: explorations in the typology of anaphora. PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz.

  • Tomioka S. (1999) A sloppy identity puzzle. Natural Language Semantics 7: 217–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toosarvandani M. (2009) Ellipsis in Farsi complex predicates. Syntax 12(1): 60–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ura H. (2000) Checking theory and grammatical functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter Y. (2001) Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Yatabe, S. 2003. A linearization-based theory of summative agreement in Peripheral-Node Raising constructions. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on HPSG, ed. J.-B. Kim and S. Wechsler, 391–413. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Linguistik, Universität Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 24-25, 14476, Golm, Germany

    Luis Vicente

Authors
  1. Luis Vicente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis Vicente.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vicente, L. Free versus bound variables and the taxonomy of gaps. Nat Lang Semantics 24, 203–245 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9123-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9123-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation