Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T13:14:54.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wh-gap Binding and Ellipsis — a Grammar for an Input System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Ruth Kempson
Ruth Kempson
Affiliation:
Linguistics Department, School of Oriental and African Studies, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square. London. WCIH OXG.
Get access

Abstract

This paper argues that pragmatic processes and syntactic constraints interact, that we can nevertheless retain the assumption that the natural language faculty is fully encapsulated, and that the problems posed by the phenomenon of gapping (bare argument ellipsis) can be resolved by analysing gapping as an instance of such interaction. A new model of language is sketched out, a model which is a formal reconstruction of assumptions about the language faculty and its relation to central cognitive processes made by Fodor. and Sperber and Wilson. A fragment is defined to cover pronominal anaphoric dependency and quantifier binding, and a new analysis of bare argument ellipsis (gapping) is presented.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , June 1991 , pp. 41 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chao, W. 1987. On Ellipsis. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1988. Some Reflections on Unaccusativity. Talk at Tilburg conference on Logical Form.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, L. 1988 Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1983. Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 223–251.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. 1988. Logical Form: The Interface Between Language and Cognition. Journal of Linguistics 24, 393–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (forthcoming a). Input Systems, Anaphora, Ellipsis and Operator Binding. In Reuland, E. (ed.), Knowledge and Language.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (forthcoming b). Language and Cognition: A Licensing Grammar. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, P. 1985. Connectedness, Scope, and C-command. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 163–192.Google Scholar
May, R. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1982 Paths and Categories. MIT PhD.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1983. Coreference and Bound Anaphora: A Restatement of the Anaphora Question. Linguistics & Philosophy 6, 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1988. The Center and Periphery in the Grammar of Anaphora. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora, Vol. 1, pp. 123–50. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1989 Nonquantificational LF. In Kasher, (ed.), The Chomskian Turn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. & Rooth, M. 1989. Bare Argument Ellipsis. Ms.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986 Relevance: Communication & Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar