Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-pmcks Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-19T12:38:50.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Same-Except: A Domain-General Cognitive Relation and How Language Expresses It

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Peter W. Culicover  and
Ray Jackendoff
Peter W. Culicover*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Ray Jackendoff*
Affiliation:
Tufts University
*
Culicover, Department of Linguistics, 222 Oxley Hall, 1712 Neil Ave., The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 [culicover.1@osu.edu]
Jackendoff, Center for Cognitive Studies, 11 Miner Hall, Tufts University Medford, MA 02155 [Ray.Jackendoff@tufts.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Same-except is a fundamental, domain-general cognitive relation in which entities in proximity to one another are judged to be the Same, Except for some part or property where they differ. This relation can be attested in nonlinguistic modalities such as vision, audition, and taste, and it plays an important role in nonlinguistic categorization. We show that this relation is expressed linguistically by means of a wide range of devices, including (a) lexical expressions such as same and except, (b) contrastive stress, (c) anaphora (e.g. definite and indefinite NP anaphora and VP anaphora), (d) ellipsis (e.g. bare argument ellipsis, sluicing, gapping, and VP ellipsis), and (e) fixed expressions such as vice versa and that goes for. Our approach thereby unifies the semantics of all of these phenomena under a common account that is based on a domain-general cognitive principle. We compare our approach with accounts of ellipsis based on syntactic copying or deletion, showing that although both approaches have their difficulties, the challenges to the copying/deletion approach are more severe.

Keywords

contrastive stressanaphoraVP anaphoraellipsisgappingsluicing

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 305 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by 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

Akmajian, Adrian. 1973. The role of focus in the interpretation of anaphoric expressions. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. and Kiparsky, Paul, 215–26. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. Semantics, ed. by Steinberg, Danny and Jacobovits, Leon, 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William; and McCloskey, James. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3. 239–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1994. Managing problems in speaking. Speech Communication 15. 243–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 1995. Something else for the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 249–75. [Revised version published in Culicover & Jackendoff 2005, Ch. 11.]Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Osten. 1973. On so-called ‘sloppy identity’. Synthese 26. 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Shieber, Stuart; and Pereira, Fernando. 1991. Ellipsis and higherorder unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 1994. Economy, scope and semantic interpretation—Evidence from VP ellipsis. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 25. 143–57.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Vice versa. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 277–78.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, and Sage, Eyal 2006. Does ‘different’ imply a difference? A comparison of two tasks. Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. by Sun, Ron and Miyake, Naomi, 261–66. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, Jackendoff, Ray, Rosen, Nicole; and Russell, Kevin. 2004. Contrastive focus reduplication in English (the salad-salad paper). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 307–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1992. Questions, queries and facts: A semantics and pragmatics for interrogatives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Grinder, John, and Postal, Paul. 1971. Missing antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 269–312.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 391–426.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1987. The logic of exception. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL ’87) 4. 100–113.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1990. Exploring exception phrases. Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, 165–90. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, William. 1890. The principles of psychology, vol. 1. New York: Henry Holt and Co. [Reprinted, Mineola, NY: Dover Books, 1950.]Google Scholar
Johnson, David E., and Lappin, Shalom. 1999. Local constraints vs. economy. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah, and Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 87. 771–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1989. Contextual operators: Respective, respectively, and vice versa. Berkeley Linguistics Society 15. 181–92.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kraak, Albert. 1967. Presuppositions and the analysis of adverbs. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1971. The role of deduction in grammar. Studies in linguistic semantics, ed. by Fillmore, Charles J. and Langendoen, D. Terence, 62–70. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Lappin, Shalom. 2005. A sequenced model of anaphora and ellipsis resolution. Anaphora processing: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational modelling, ed. by Branco, Antonio, McEnery, Tony, and Mitkov, Ruslan, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 2000. Same, models and representation. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 10. 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, Arthur B., and Yamauchi, Takashi. 1998. Boundary conditions and the need for multiple forms of representation. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 21. 477–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, David. 1982. Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1970. On the applicability of vice versa. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 278–80.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2006. A sententialist perspective. In Progovac et al. 2006a, 73–91.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2007. Three kinds of ellipsis: Syntactic, semantic, pragmatic? Semantics workshop, Rutgers University, October 4-5, 2008.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. Topics in ellipsis, ed. by Johnson, Kyle, 132–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 37–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana, Paesani, Kate, Casielles, Eugenia; and Barton, Ellen (eds.) 2006a. The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana, Paesani, Kate, Casielles, Eugenia; and Barton, Ellen. 2006b. Epilogue: Wherefrom and whereto? In Progovac et al. 2006a, 323-53.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats E. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who. Chicago Linguistic Society 5. 252–86.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1979. Deletion and logical form. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Shopen, Tim. 1972. A generative theory of ellipsis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Simmons, James A. 1967. Echolocation: Resolution of target range by bats. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 42.1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stainton, Robert J. 2006. Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1993. Exceptive constructions. Natural Language Semantics 1. 123–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1979. Anaphora in generative grammar. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, Bonnie L. 1978. A formal approach to discourse anaphora. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Yamauchi, Nobuyuki. 2006. Some properties of vice versa: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Culture and Information Science 1. 9–15.Google Scholar