The short answer: Implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa)

Abstract:This article is concerned with the analysis of ‘short’ or ‘fragment’ answers to questions, and the relationship between these and the hypothesis of direct compositionality (DC) (e.g. Montague 1970). DC claims that the syntax and semantics work ‘in tandem’ to prove expressions well formed, while at the same time assigning them a meaning (a model-theoretic object). DC makes it difficult to state any kind of identity condition for ‘ellipsis’ and would hence lead one to suspect that short answers do not contain hidden linguistic material. This article argues that they indeed do not. Rather, as proposed in Groenendijk & Stokhof 1984, the question and short answer together form a linguistic unit, which I call a Qu-Ans, whose semantics gives the proposition that is understood as following from the pair. Three new arguments are adduced for the Qu-Ans analysis over one making use of silent linguistic material, and a core class of traditional arguments for silent linguistic material are answered. Moreover, it is shown that many of the traditional arguments for silent linguistic material themselves presuppose a non-DC architecture. If (as is claimed) these arguments do not hold, the Qu-Ans analysis of short answers actually supports the DC view, under which no use is made of logical form, and no use is made of representational constraints on structure.

[1]  P. Postal,et al.  Underlying and Superficial Linguistic Structure , 1964 .

[2]  Pauline Jacobson.  Towards a Variable-Free Semantics , 1999 .

[3]  P. Schlenker.  Clausal Equations (A Note on the Connectivity Problem) , 2002 .

[4]  Mats Rooth.  Association with focus , 1985 .

[5]  Pauline Jacobson,et al.  Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences , 1994 .

[6]  F. R. Higgins,et al.  The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English , 2015 .

[7]  G. Murphy.  Processes of understanding anaphora , 1985 .

[8]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar , 1985 .

[9]  Howard K. Wettstein,et al.  Themes from Kaplan , 1989 .

[10]  Geert-Jan M. Kruijff,et al.  resource sensitivity, binding, and anaphora , 2003 .

[11]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[12]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[13]  Anne Zribi-Hertz.  Anaphor Binding and Narrative Point of View: English Reflexive Pronouns in Sentence and Discourse , 1989 .

[14]  C. L. Hamblin.  QUESTIONS IN MONTAGUE ENGLISH , 1976 .

[15]  Ruth Kempson.  Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality , 1990, Language.

[16]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Toward a theory of anaphoric processing , 1984 .

[17]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps , 1987 .

[18]  E. Engdahl.  Constituent Questions: The Syntax and Semantics of Questions with Special Reference to Swedish , 1985 .

[19]  Daphna Heller,et al.  On The Relation of Connectivity and Specificational Pseudoclefts , 2002 .

[20]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  The nature of syntactic representation , 1982 .

[21]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Implicating Uncertainty: The Pragmatics of Fall-Rise Intonation , 1985 .

[22]  Peter Steven Rosenbaum,et al.  The grammar of English predicate complement constructions , 1967 .

[23]  Jason Merchant,et al.  The syntax of silence : sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis , 2001 .

[24]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Quantifying into Question Acts , 1999 .

[25]  Jonathan Ginzburg,et al.  Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives , 2001 .

[26]  Z. Szabó.  Semantics versus Pragmatics , 2005 .

[27]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  See Blockindiscussions, Blockinstats, Blockinand Blockinauthor Blockinprofiles Blockinfor Blockinthis Blockinpublication the Blockinsyntax-discourse Blockindivide: Processing Blockinellipsis , 2022 .

[28]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Deletion And Logical Form , 1976 .

[29]  Howard Lasnik,et al.  On the Distribution of Null Complementizers , 2003, Linguistic Inquiry.

[30]  S. Anderbois.  The semantics of sluicing: Beyond truth conditions , 2014 .

[31]  Braj B. Kachru,et al.  Issues in linguistics : papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane , 1973 .

[32]  R. May.  Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation , 1985 .

[33]  H. Rullmann,et al.  A Flexible Approach to Exhaustivity in Questions , 1999 .

[34]  E. Williams,et al.  Indices and identity , 1994 .

[35]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Surface structure and interpretation , 1996, Linguistic inquiry.

[36]  Robert van Rooij,et al.  Pragmatic Meaning and Non-monotonic Reasoning: The Case of Exhaustive Interpretation , 2006 .

[37]  Jason Merchant,et al.  Fragments and ellipsis , 2005 .

[38]  Emmon W. Bach,et al.  Control in Montague Grammar , 1979 .

[39]  Yael Sharvit,et al.  Connectivity in Specificational Sentences , 1999 .

[40]  C. Pollard.  Anhaphors in English and the scope of binding theory , 1992 .

[41]  Pauline Jacobson.  Paycheck Pronouns, Bach-Peters Sentences, and Variable-Free Semantics , 2000 .

[42]  L. Karttunen.  Syntax and Semantics of Questions , 1977 .

[43]  Leon A. Jakobovits,et al.  Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology , 1971 .