Language and Logos 2010
DOI: 10.1524/9783050062365.129
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spurious Ambiguities and the Parentheticals Debate

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Rather, a different, but ultimately comparable scenario can play out at the interface between the grammatical subcomponents and the semantic interface. In a phenomenon called spurious ambiguity (Karttunen 1989;Steedman 1991;Pankau et al 2010), the syntax supplies two structures, but the semantic component will not reflect this syntactic difference. Consider the two analyses of the following sentences: = extraction…”
Section: Previous Work On Similar Questionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rather, a different, but ultimately comparable scenario can play out at the interface between the grammatical subcomponents and the semantic interface. In a phenomenon called spurious ambiguity (Karttunen 1989;Steedman 1991;Pankau et al 2010), the syntax supplies two structures, but the semantic component will not reflect this syntactic difference. Consider the two analyses of the following sentences: = extraction…”
Section: Previous Work On Similar Questionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For more recent discussion of VIPs, seeBayer and Salzmann 2013, Pankau, Thiersch, and Würzner 2010, and Viesel 2011, and for experimental explorations, seeKiziak 2010. …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%