Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora

Prüst, Hub; Scha, Remko; Berg, Martin van den

doi:10.1007/bf00985038

Cited by 55 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…8 In the meantime, the theories of Sag and Williams have been criticized and refined significantly (cf. Dalrymple et al 1991;Rooth 1992;Tancredi 1992;Hardt 1993;Prüst et al 1994;Fiengo and May 1994;Heim 1997;Tomioka 1997;Fox 1999;Schwarzschild 1999;Asher et al 2001;Merchant 2001;Kehler 2002;Hardt and Romero 2004;Elbourne 2008;Johnson 2008). However, most of these refined accounts, at least in as far as they assume a distinction between bound and referential pronouns, are still incompatible with Reinhart's Coreference Rule.…”

Section: Def 2: Coreference Rulementioning

confidence: 99%

Condition B effects in two simple steps

Roelofsen

2010

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is concerned with constraints on the interpretation of pronominal anaphora, in particular Condition B effects. It aims to contribute to a particular approach, initiated by Reinhart (Anaphora and semantic interpretation, 1983) and further developed elsewhere. It proposes a modification of Reinhart's Interface Rule, and argues that the resulting theory compares favorably with others, while being compatible with independently motivated general hypotheses about the interaction between different interpretive mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Def 2: Coreference Rulementioning

confidence: 99%

Condition B effects in two simple steps

Roelofsen

2010

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, none of these approaches successfully account for the wide scope puzzle. There are also discourse accounts, such as that of ( Prust et al , 1987), which are similar in spirit to ours. But it is not clear how an approach like Prust's would apply to the data examined in this paper.…”

Section: Related Approachesmentioning

confidence: 90%

Discourse Parallelism, Scope, and Ellipsis

Asher

Hardt

Busquets

1997

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has frequently been observed that structural ambiguity does not multiply in contexts involving ellipsis: ! that is, if there is an ambiguity associated with the antecedent of an ellipsis occurrence, that ambiguity must be resolved in the same way in both the antecedent and at the ellipsis site. The following example (Dalrymple et aI., 1991) illustrates this with a case of quantifier scope ambiguity:

show abstract

“…Even all the nonoverlapping segments must be contentfully related to each other. See, e.g., Prüst (1993); Prüst et al (1994); Kehler (1994) for details.…”

Section: Valence and Co-ordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What can constructions do?

Kálmán

2014

Theoretical Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora

Cited by 55 publications

References 16 publications

Condition B effects in two simple steps

Condition B effects in two simple steps

Discourse Parallelism, Scope, and Ellipsis

What can constructions do?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About