Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-bmrcd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-02T05:18:27.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The shortanswer: Implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Pauline Jacobson
Pauline Jacobson*
Affiliation:
Brown University
*
Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University [pauline_jacobson@brown.edu]
Get access

Abstract

This article is concerned with the analysis of ‘short’ or ‘fragment’ answers to questions, and the relationship between these and the hypothesis of DIRECT COMPOSITIONALITY (DC) (e.g. Montague 1970). DC claims that the syntax and semantics work ‘in tandem’ to prove expressions well formed, while at the same time assigning them a meaning (a model-theoretic object). DC makes it difficult to state any kind of identity condition for ‘ellipsis’ and would hence lead one to suspect that short answers do not contain hidden linguistic material. This article argues that they indeed do not. Rather, as proposed in Groenendijk & Stokhof 1984, the question and short answer together form a linguistic unit, which I call a Qu-Ans, whose semantics gives the proposition that is understood as following from the pair. Three new arguments are adduced for the Qu-Ans analysis over one making use of silent linguistic material, and a core class of traditional arguments for silent linguistic material are answered. Moreover, it is shown that many of the traditional arguments for silent linguistic material themselves presuppose a non-DC architecture. If (as is claimed) these arguments do not hold, the Qu-Ans analysis of short answers actually supports the DC view, under which no use is made of logical form, and no use is made of representational constraints on structure.

Keywords

direct compositionalityfragment answersellipsiscase matchingbinding

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 92 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 331 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

AnderBois, Scott. 2014. The semantics of sluicing: Beyond truth conditions. Language 90. 887–926. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2014.0110.10.1353/lan.2014.0110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1979. Control in Montague grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 515–31. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178132.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid, and Rullmann, Hotze. 1999. A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics 7. 249–97. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008373224343.10.1023/A:1008373224343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Želko, and Lasnik, Howard. 2003. On the distribution of null complementizers. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 527–46. DOI: 10.1162/002438903322520142.10.1162/002438903322520142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures in government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1982. Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. The nature of syntactic representation, ed. by Jacobson, Pauline and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 79–130. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-7707-5_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1986. Constituent questions: The syntax and semantics of questions with special reference to Swedish. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1988. Relational interpretation. Mental representations: The interface between language and reality, ed. by Kempson, Ruth, 63–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Charles Clifton, Jr. 2005. The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax 8. 121–74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00077.x.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00077.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Sag, Ivan. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell, and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. Grammatical relations and subcategorization. Subjects and other subjects: Proceedings of the Harvard conference on grammatical relations, ed. by Zaenen, Annie, 35–55. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1984. Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1989. Type shifting rules and the semantics of interrogatives. Properties, types and meaning, vol. 2: Semantic issues, ed. by Chierchia, Gennaro, Partee, Barbara, and Turner, Raymond, 21–68. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-009-2723-0_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10. 41–53. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25000703.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Sag, Ivan. 1984. Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy 7. 325–45. DOI: 10.1007/BF00627709.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heller, Daphna. 2002. On the relation of connectivity and specificational pseudoclefts. Natural Language Semantics 10. 243–84. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022152007523.10.1023/A:1022152007523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Roger. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Reprinted, Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1976.].Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 1994. Binding connectivity in copular sentences. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 4. 161–78. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v4i0.2456.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 1999. Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22. 117–85. DOI: 10.1023/A:1005464228727.10.1023/A:1005464228727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2000. Paycheck pronouns, Bach-Peters sentences, and variable-free semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8. 77–155. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026517717879.10.1023/A:1026517717879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2003. Binding without pronouns (and pronouns without binding). Resource-sensitivity, binding, and anaphora, ed. by Kruiff, Geert-Jan and Oehrle, Richard, 57–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-010-0037-6_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2007. Direct compositionality and variable-free semantics: The case of ‘principle B’ effects. Direct compositionality, ed. by Barker, Chris and Jacobson, Pauline, 191–236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199204373.003.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2009. The short answer. And what it answers. Paper presented at the 16th annual HPSG Conference, Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives. Themes from Kaplan, ed. by Almog, Joseph, Perry, John, and Wettstein, Howard, 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy. 1. 3–44. DOI: 10.1007/BF00351935.10.1007/BF00351935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1971. Names, quantifiers, and a solution to the sloppy identity problem. Papers in Linguistics 4. 211–32. DOI: 10.1080/08351817109370257.10.1080/08351817109370257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics. 9. 1–40. DOI: 10.1023/A:1017903702063.10.1023/A:1017903702063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1975. Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society (Parasession on functionalism) 11. 276–336.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1971. Presupposition and relative well-formedness. Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology, ed. by Steinberg, Danny and Jakobovits, Leon, 329–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3.10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason, Frazier, Lyn, Clifton, Charles Jr.; and Weskott, Thomas. 2013. Fragment answers to questions: A case of inaudible syntax. Brevity, ed. by Goldstein, Laurence, 21–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1970. English as a formal language. Linguaggi nella Società e nella Tecnica, ed. by Visentini, Bruno, 189–224. Milan: Edizioni di Comunità.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. 1973. Sentence fragments and the notion ‘sentence’. Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, ed. by Kachru, Braj, Lees, Robert, Malkiel, Yakov, Pietrangeli, Angelina, and Saporta, Sol, 719–51. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 1985. Processes of understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 24. 290–303. DOI: 10.1016/0749-596X(85)90029-4.10.1016/0749-596X(85)90029-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara, and Bach, Emmon. 1981. Quantification, pronouns, and VP anaphora. Formal methods in the study of language: Proceedings of the 8th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen, Jannsen, Theo M. V., and Stokhof, Martin, 445–81. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Mathematical Center.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 261–303. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178768.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1964. Underlying and superficial linguistic structure. Harvard Educational Review 34. 246–66. DOI: 10.17763/haer.34.2.jxp438774xp522k7.10.17763/haer.34.2.jxp438774xp522k7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. Proceedings of the Stuttgart ellipsis workshop, ed. by Berman, Steven and Hestvik, Arild. Heidelberg: IBM.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1985. The source of pseudocleft sentences. Handout from New York University colloquium talk.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, and Nykiel, Joanna. 2011. Remarks on sluicing. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2011), 188— 208. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2011/sag-nykiel.pdf.10.21248/hpsg.2011.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem). Natural Language Semantics 21. 157–214. DOI: 10.1023/A:1021843427276.Google Scholar
Schulz, Katrin, and Rooij, Robert van. 2006. Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29.20550. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-005-3760-4.10.1007/s10988-005-3760-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 1999. Connectivity in specificational sentences. Natural Language Semantics 7. 299–339. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008390623435.10.1023/A:1008390623435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snider, Neal, and Runner, Jeffrey T.. 2011. Phonological structure if reactivated in VP ellipsis: Evidence from eye movements. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Stainton, Robert. 2005. In defense of non-sentential assertion. Semantics versus pragmatics, ed. by Szabó, Zoltán Gendler, 383–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251520.003.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1987. Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 403–39. DOI: 10.1007/BF00134555.10.1007/BF00134555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface structure and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1987. Bound variables in syntax (are there any?). Proceedings of the 6th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen, Veltman, Frank, and Stokhof, Martin, 331–53. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Mathematical Center.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, and Hirschberg, Julia. 1985. Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language 61. 747–76. DOI: 10.2307/414489.10.2307/414489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1989. Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65. 695–727. DOI: 10.2307/414931.10.2307/414931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jacobson supplementary material

Jacobson supplementary material
Download Jacobson supplementary material(File)
File 399.4 KB