Gapping and VP ellipsis in a unification-based grammar
The object of this thesis is to investigate the linguistic phenomena of gapping and VP ellipsis. These phenomena have been approached from a variety of perspectives in the literature: syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and computational. The aim of this thesis is to examine gapping and VP ellipsis from all these perspectives, and to attempt to develop an analysis which integrates syntactic, semantic and pragmatic information in a framework that is at least in principle computationally tractable. At the syntactic level, a usual assumption about eliptical constructs is that they are characterised by an incomplete syntax. This raises a first question: how is the incomplete syntax licensed by the grammar? Another fact to be accounted for is that VP ellipsis, and more markedly gapping, are subject to strong syntactic constraints. This in turn raises a second question: how is the elliptical clause licensed? I show how the unification-based categorial framework provided by Unification Categorial Grammar (UCG) can be extended to answer these two questions. At the semantic level, the following questions arise. First, how is the missing semantics of the ellipsis to be licensed? - this is the resolution problem. Second,
Gardent, Claire
Gapping and VP ellipsis in a unification-based grammar. The object of this thesis is to investigate the linguistic phenomena of gapping and VP ellipsis. These phenomena have been approached from a variety of perspectives in the literature: syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and computational. The aim of this thesis is to examine gapping and VP ellipsis from all these perspectives, and to attempt to develop an analysis which integrates syntactic, semantic and pragmatic information in a framework that is at least in principle computationally tractable. At the syntactic level, a usual assumption about eliptical constructs is that they are characterised by an incomplete syntax. This raises a first question: how is the incomplete syntax licensed by the grammar? Another fact to be accounted for is that VP ellipsis, and more markedly gapping, are subject to strong syntactic constraints. This in turn raises a second question: how is the elliptical clause licensed? I show how the unification-based categorial framework provided by Unification Categorial Grammar (UCG) can be extended to answer these two questions. At the semantic level, the following questions arise. First, how is the missing semantics of the ellipsis to be licensed? - this is the resolution problem. Second,
ellipsis unification based grammar object investigate linguistic_phenomenon gap ellipsis phenomenon approach variety_perspective literature syntactic_semantic pragmatic computational aim_examine gap ellipsis perspective attempt_develop analysis integrates syntactic_semantic pragmatic information framework least principle computationally syntactic level usual assumption construct characterise incomplete syntax raise first question incomplete syntax license grammar another fact account ellipsis markedly gap subject strong syntactic constraint turn raise second question elliptical clause license show unification based categorial framework provide unification categorial_grammar extend answer_two question semantic_level follow_question arise first miss semantics ellipsis license resolution problem second