<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P92-1036">
  <Title>SOME PROBLEMATIC CASES OF VP ELLIPSIS</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="276" end_page="276" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
AUX =~ P
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> where P e DMi,,.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> That is, an auxiliary verb is replaced by some property P stored in the input discourse model. Secondly, properties are introduced into the discourse model by the following rule: Upon encountering a property-denoting semantic object of the form: P(-, al) that is, a predicate with the first argument slot empty, we have: DMout = DMin U {P(-, at)} This indicates that the property is added to the output discourse model. Typically, the property-denoting expression is associated with a VP, although other types of expressions can also introduce properties into the discourse model.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> I have argued elsewhere (Hardt 91, 91a) that such a system has certain important advantages over alternative approaches, such as those of Sag (76) and Williams (77). 2  In what follows, I will briefly examine the phenomena listed above, which present fundamental problems for all accounts of VP ellipsis of which I am aware a. For each problem, I will suggest that the current approach provides a solution.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="276" end_page="276" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
COMBINED ANTECEDENTS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> There are cases of VP ellipsis in which the antecedent is combined from two or more separate VP's. This presents a problem for most accounts of VP ellipsis, since there is no syntactic object consisting of the combination of two separate VP's. If antecedents are stored in the discourse model, as I am suggesting, this is not surprising. For example, it is well known that combinations of entities can become the antecedent for a plural pronoun. Consider the following example: After the symmetry between left-handed particles and right-handed anti- particles was broken by the kaons in the 1960s, a new symmetry was introduced which everybody swears is unbreakable. This is between left-handed particles moving forwards in time, and right-handed anti-particles moving backwards in time (none do, in any practical sense, but that does not worry theorists too much).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> From: The Economist, ~ August 1990, p.69.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Bonnie Webber, p.c.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The meaning of the elided VP (&amp;quot;none do&amp;quot;) is, I take it, &amp;quot;none do move forwards or move back. wards in time&amp;quot;. So the antecedent must consists of a combination of properties associated with two VP's: &amp;quot;moving forwards in time&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;moving backwards in time&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Such an example indicates the necessity for a rule allowing the set of properties in the discourse model to be expanded, as follows: {P...Q...} :~ {P...Q...\[P OP Q\]} That is, if the discourse model contains two properties P and Q, it may also contain the property resulting from a combination of P and Q by some operator (I assume that the operators include AND and OR).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Another example is the following: So I say to the conspiracy fans: leave him alone. Leave us alone. But they won't.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> From: The Welcomat, 5 Feb 92, p.25 Here the meaning of the elliptical VP is: &amp;quot;they won't leave him alone or leave us alone&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> plicates the Sag/Williams approach in DRT. Of particulax relevance here is Klein's requirement that the antecedent be a DRT-representation of a syntactic VP. 3The recent account of Dadrymple, Shieber and Pereira (91) does treat the &amp;quot;Passive Antecedent&amp;quot; problem. However, no treatment of the &amp;quot;Combined Antecedent&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;NP Antecedent&amp;quot; problems is given. 277 This phenomenon has been noted in the literature, in particular by Webber (?8), in which the following examples were given: I can walk, and I can chew gum. Gerry can too, but not at the same time.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> Wendy is eager to sail around the world and Bruce is eager to climb KiHmanjaro, but neither of them can because money is too tight.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> By the rule given above, this example could be given the interpretation &amp;quot;neither of them can sail around the world or climb Kilimanjaro&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> It is clear that the combining operation is highly constrained. In all the examples mentioned, either P and Q have the same subject, or the subject of the elliptical VP refers to the two subjects of P and Q. In future work, I will attempt to formulate constraints on this operation.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="276" end_page="276" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
PASSIVE ANTECEDENTS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The next problem is illustrated by the following example, cited by Dalrymple, Shieber and Pereira (91): A lot of this material can be presented in a fairly informal and accessible fashion, and often I do.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> From: Noam Chow_sky on the Generative Enterprise, Foris Publications, Dordrecht. 1982. The antecedent for the elliptical VP is &amp;quot;present a lot of this material in a fairly informal and accessible fashion&amp;quot;. This is not associated with a VP, although the active counterpart of the sentence would contain such a VP. This is not surprising from a semantic point of view, since it is traditionally held that a 'passive transformation' preserves semantic equivalence.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Another example of this is following: Business has to be developed and defended differently than we have in the past.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> From: NPR interview, 24 May 91 The most straightforward treatment of such phenomena in the current framework is to assume that the syntactic derivation of a passive antecedent such as &amp;quot;this material can be presented&amp;quot; corresponds to a semantic object present(_, this material) More generally, for a syntactic expression SUBJ be VP+en the corresponding semantic object is</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="7" start_page="276" end_page="276" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
VP'(-, SUB:V)
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> That is, the denotation of the &amp;quot;surface subject&amp;quot; becomes the second argument of the VP-denotation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> This semantic object, then, satisfies the condition on the rule for introducing properties given above.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Thus, under such a treatment of the passive, these examples are accommodated in the present system without further stipulations.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="8" start_page="276" end_page="276" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
NP ANTECEDENTS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In many casgs~ the antecedent property is introduced by a NP rather than a VP. This would be difficult to explain for a syntactic or logical form theory. From a semantic point of view, it is not surprising, since many NP's contain a common noun which is standardly analyzed semantically as denoting a property. Consider the following (naturally occurring) example: We should suggest to her that she officially appoint us as a committee and invite faculty participation/input. They won't, of course,...</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> From: email message. (Bonnie Webber, p.c.) In this example, the meaning of the elided VP is '%hey won't participate&amp;quot;. The source is the NP &amp;quot;faculty participation&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Another example is the following: \[Many Chicago-area cabdrivers\] say their business is foundering because the riders they depend on - business people, downtown workers and the elderly - are opting for the bus and the elevated train, or are on the unemployment line. Meanwhile, they sense a drop in visitors to the city. Those who do, they say, are not taking cabs.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> From: Chicago Tribune front page, ~/6/92.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Gregory Ward, p.c.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Here, the meaning of the elided VP is %hose who do visit&amp;quot;, where the source is the NP &amp;quot;visitors&amp;quot;. In the current framework, such examples could be treated as follows. Assume, following Chierchia (84), that there is a class of nouns that are semantically correlated with properties. For any such noun, the associated property can be added to the discourse model, just as is done for verbs.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>