<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="J97-3005">
  <Title>Squibs and Discussions Anaphoric Dependencies in Ellipsis</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="458" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2. Source-Determined Analyses
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The conventional approaches to recovering the elided property in VP ellipsis have been source-determined (Sag 1976; Williams 1977; Gawron and Peters 1990; Priest, Scha, and van den Berg 1991; Dalrymple, Shieber, and Pereira 1991; Kehler 1993; Crouch 1995).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Common to these approaches is the idea that at some level of representation (surface syntactic, deep syntactic, or semantic) the anaphoric relationships for the source are marked, and that the target is interpreted as if it were constructed with relationships determined in some uniform manner by those of the source clause at that level of representation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> In this paper, we will use the equational analysis of Dalrymple, Shieber, and Pereira (1991, henceforth DSP) as the exemplar of these approaches. In this account, the uniformity is specified by the solving of a certain equation in which, roughly speaking, the meaning of the source sentence as a whole is equated with the meaning of the target VP as applied to the meanings of the elements in the source that are parallel to overt elements in the target. For sentence (2a), this identity is captured by equation (4a), which under suitable assumptions has one solution for the meaning P of the elided VP, namely that in (4b). For sentence (3a), this identity is captured by equation (4c), which under suitable assumptions has two solutions for the meaning P of the elided VP, namely those in (4d) and (4e). In the equational account, the dependency between anaphoric relationships in source and target follows immediately from the mechanism used for constructing and solving the equations. More generally for source-determined analyses, the dependency follows from the method for determining anaphoric or coreference relationships in the target uniformly from those in the source.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3">  (4) a. love(ivan, mother(kris) ) = P(ivan)</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> As noted by DSP, the equational analysis applies not only to VP ellipsis but also to the recovery of predicates for interpreting other forms such as do it and do so anaphora, gapping, stripping, and related constructions. These constructions form a natural class of expressions whose use is licensed by a predicate being available, or given, in context. 2 One can think of the equational analysis, then, as a source-determined method for computing the given predicates made available by a clause in a discourse.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6">  Computational Linguistics Volume 23, Number 3 Both Ivan and James are salient enough that the referent of his in the target is ambiguous in exactly the manner required to yield both the strict and sloppy interpretations. To summarize thus far, a purely discourse-determined analysis predicts that a sentence with ellipsis should display the same readings in a given context that the unelided form would in the same context. Examples such as those above appear to demonstrate that a discourse-determined theory may account for at least some cases of dependencies between anaphoric relationships in source and target clauses.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="458" end_page="464" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4. Analysis of Discourse-Determined Analyses
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In order to counterexemplify a discourse-determined analysis, it would suffice to provide an elliptical sentence whose pronominal reference possibilities are different for its corresponding unelided form. Some care must be taken in clearly defining what is meant by &amp;quot;corresponding unelided form,&amp;quot; in particular, with respect to whether or not any of the deleted elements in the elided form can receive accent in the unelided form. Though the issue should not be prejudged, it would be reasonable to disallow such accent, as an elided VP by its very nature has no possibility for exhibiting accent.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> By examining pairs of elided and unelided forms, we will show that, at a minimum, discourse-determined analyses must make this accent restriction; otherwise, sentence pairs that counterexemplify them can be constructed. We are forced to a view that discourse-determined analyses must reduce the issue of VP ellipsis meaning to deaccented VP meaning. We will then argue that this is not so much a discovery, as a restatement of the problem.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="458" end_page="460" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.1 Accent and Sloppiness
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> In general, discourse principles for normal pronominal reference are more flexible than is consistent with the reference behavior exhibited by elliptical reconstructions because, for instance, overt pronouns allow for accent and accompanying deictic gestures. Consider example (8), but with exaggerated accent on the second pronoun and simultaneous pointing to, say, Kris.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> (8) Ivan/loves his/mother, and Jamesj loves HISk mother.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Such extra accent and deictic gesturing are capable of forcing a reading in which the second pronoun refers to Kris, not Ivan or James. However, as discussed in Section 1, its elliptical counterpart has no such reading. We would then have to require, as Hardt's account in fact does, that the discourse principles be applied as if no strong accent or deictic gestures were applied.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> Furthermore, allowing even light accent in the unelided form is enough to falsify a discourse-determined analysis. For example, consider the nonelliptical example (9a). This sequence of sentences is felicitous under the anaphoric relationships indicated, when the target clause pronoun is given even light accent. Its elliptical counterpart (9b), however, cannot be taken as having the meaning of (9a). 4  Kehler and Shieber Anaphoric Dependencies in Ellipsis b. # Mike Tyson will always be considered one of the greats of professional boxing. After one round with Spinksi, Tysonj beat him/.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Now people think that no one can.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> Example (9) demonstrates that pronouns within copied VPs are not as free to seek extrasentential referents as their unelided VP counterparts. Example (10), a variant of an example that Hardt (1992a) provides to argue against source-determined analyses (see Section 5.1), shows that this is also the case for intrasentential referents. The reading where Mary asked out Bob at Bob's party, while readily available with light accent on the pronoun in example (10a), is not available in its elided counterpart (10b).  (10) a.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> b.# Every boyi was hoping that Mary would ask himi out, but the waiting is over. Last night at Bob'sj party, she asked himj out.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> Every boyi was hoping that Mary would ask him/ out, but the waiting is over. Last night at Bob'sj party, she did.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> Rooth (1993) gives a similar example, shown in (11a-b).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> (11) a. John/s coach thinks he/has a chance, and Jamesj thinks hey has a chance too.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> b. # John/s coach thinks hei has a chance, and Jamesj does too.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11">  Rooth claims that whereas the unelided form in example (11a), even without accent, gives rise to a sloppy reading, the elided form in example (11b) does not. However, like the cases discussed above, some speakers find the target clause pronoun in example (11a) to require light accent under this interpretation.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="12"> These examples serve to further restrict the assumptions needed to support a discourse-determined approach--elided VPs exhibit the discourse behavior of deaccented VPs. Making this (quite reasonable) assumption, discourse-determined analyses are to be seen as reducing VP ellipsis not to general discourse principles for pronominal reference (as they generally have been presented), but to a more specific construction. null</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="460" end_page="461" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.2 Deaccented VP Behavior
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Recall from Section 2 that VP ellipsis, do it, do that, do so, and related constructions form a natural class of expressions. Although these forms differ with respect to their syntactic and some of their referential properties, all have one property in common: their meaning depends on information that is given in, and therefore recoverable from, the existing discourse state. Consequently, all exhibit the same range of strict and sloppy readings. Deaccenting is also a well-established indicator that material is given information in the discourse (Terken and Nooteboom 1987, inter alia), and therefore it falls in this same class. As with the various forms of event reference, a VP thus requires an &amp;quot;antecedent&amp;quot; to license deaccenting that either exists in the discourse or is inferrable from it. 5 5 Rooth (1993) also posits the equivalence of &amp;quot;semantic redundancy&amp;quot; (that is, givenness) constraints for deaccented VPs and VP ellipsis, but ultimately cites the differing readings in examples like (11) as potential counterevidence. If examples like (11) do in fact differ in readings, then discourse-determined analyses are falsified outright. However, if even slight accent is required on the pronoun in the  Kehler and Shieber Anaphoric Dependencies in Ellipsis Sentence (12a) is adapted from a central example that Hardt gives (example (2) in Hardt \[1992a\]), which has a preferred reading that can be paraphrased as (12b). s (12) a. John hoped Mary would ask him out, but Bill actually knew that she would.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> b. John/hoped Maryk would ask himi out, but Billj actually knew that shek would ask himj out.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Note that relative to the anaphoric relationships in the portion of the source clause &amp;quot;Mary would ask himi out&amp;quot;, the relationships in the corresponding target clause &amp;quot;Shek would ask himj out&amp;quot; involve &amp;quot;switching reference&amp;quot; of him from i to j. Hardt claims that (what we are calling) a source-determined account cannot model this switching of reference, because the sloppy reading cannot be generated assuming that only Mary and she are parallel elements. Of course, this particular choice of parallelism between the two clauses is not the only one, nor is it the most natural one. While the elements John and Bill are not within the minimal clauses, they are parallel within the main clauses. By recognizing the full parallelism, as manifested in the equation askout(mary, john)= P~ohn, mary), the equational analysis straightforwardly generates the sloppy reading. 9 Viewed in light of the parallelism between the main clause subjects, the sentence does not involve &amp;quot;switching of reference&amp;quot; any more than any other sloppy reading of an elliptical clause does. Thus, while examples such as (12) were not directly addressed in work on the equational method, their analysis within the framework is straightforward.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="3" start_page="461" end_page="463" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
5.2 Arguments on the Basis of Switching Reference with Structural Nonidentity
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Hardt presents further examples, such as (13), of &amp;quot;switching reference&amp;quot; in which the source and target are structurally different.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> (13) Every boy in Mrs. Smith's class hoped she would pass him. In John's case, I think she will.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Hardt argues, again, that an approach predicated on determining parallelism between source and target would be unable to account for the natural reading of this sentence. Of course, the approach of DSP does not require syntactic parallelism in setting up the equation for resolving ellipsis; many examples of nonsyntactic parallelisms are provided in that work. (See especially their Section 5.1.1.) Thus, the parallelism argument, per se, does not distinguish a source-determined analysis such as the equational analysis from a discourse-determined analysis.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> Nonetheless, it is our sense that something quite different is happening in this particular case. The preposed phrase in John's case serves a special function here, in a 8 To simplify the discussion, the quantifiers in Hardt's original example have been replaced by proper nouns. The arguments apply to this example just as well. 9 Hardt may be alluding to this when he says that &amp;quot;an extended notion of parallelism might solve the problem&amp;quot; (Hardt, 1992a, p. 307). In later work (Hardt 1993), he notes that the absence of this reading &amp;quot;assumes that the parallel elements are the subject of the antecedent VP and the elliptical VP, although this is not required in the equational approach&amp;quot; (p. 67). However, he states that allowing other parallel elements &amp;quot;would represent a radical departure for the equational approach, since the solution to the equation would no longer represent merely the elided material&amp;quot; (p. 67). As it has never been possible to construe the solutions of ellipsis equations as representing merely the elided material (see, for instance, the solution to example (30b) given by DSP), it is not clear why this would constitute a &amp;quot;departure,&amp;quot; much less a radical one.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4">  Computational Linguistics Volume 23, Number 3 way that the prepositional phrase at Bob's party in sentence (10b) does not. Specifically, like phrases such as regarding John, as for John, and with respect to John, the phrase in John's case crucially depends on context for its interpretation. It refers to a previously evoked state or event, meant to exemplify or contrast John with respect to some other parallel object or group of objects (in this case, every other boy in Mrs. Smith's class).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> Therefore, before the ellipsis is resolved, the meaning of in John's case must be resolved.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> This resolution results in a (non-asserted) representation for Johnj hoped she would pass himj, which serves as the source for the subsequent ellipsis, on analogy with cases of cascaded ellipsis discussed by DSP, Section 3.3. The meaning of the target of sentence (13) is then simply the strict reading, derivable by source-determined algorithms. The example is thus not a counterexample for source-determined approaches. We should note that while the parallel elements for the ellipsis resolution are determinable from semantic role parallelism, the process of identifying the parallel elements in resolving an expression like in John's case is clearly a pragmatic one.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="4" start_page="463" end_page="463" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
5.3 Arguments on the Basis of Multiple Parallel Elements
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> There are other cases that do appear to be problematic for source-determined analyses proposed to date. Example (14) is adapted from one cited by Kitagawa (1991).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> (14) John told Mary to hand in his paper before Bill does.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Some (although not all) speakers find the sloppy reading, in which Bill hands in his own paper, to be acceptable. As we would expect, the unelided version shown in (15) also appears to allow this reading without requiring any accent on the target pronoun.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> (15) John told Mary to hand in his paper before Bill hands in his paper.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Assuming example (14) has this reading, it appears that the source clause makes available the necessary relation to license either the deaccenting or the eliding of the VP in the target. This would be problematic for most source-determined analyses because recovering this relation necessitates that Bill be parallel to both John and Mary, a possible but unattractive prospect.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="5" start_page="463" end_page="464" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
5.4 Arguments on the Basis of Parallelism in Coordinate Structures
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Finally, we note an additional problematic case that to our knowledge has gone unnoticed in the literature. The case involves coordination, in which the coordinated constituents each contain a pronoun, as in example (16).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> (16) Ivan/likes hisi mother and his/father, and Jamesj does too.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Sentence (16) has the two readings corresponding to whether James likes Ivan's mother and father or his own mother and father. However, current source-determined analyses predict four readings, also including the two in which James likes one of Ivan's parents and one of his own parents. That is, the readings in which the pronouns in the two coordinated constituents refer to different entities are derivable, but do not exist for example (16).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> As expected, only the first two of these readings are available for the unelided version of sentence (16), shown in example (17), again assuming that the VP is deaccented. null  Kehler and Shieber Anaphoric Dependencies in Ellipsis (17) Ivan/likes his/mother and hisi father, and Jamesj likes his mother and his father too.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> How such examples are to be handled within source-determined analyses is a subject for future study.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>