解释无身份省略*

IF 0.7 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Till Poppels
{"title":"解释无身份省略*","authors":"Till Poppels","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ellipsis is a pervasive phenomenon across the world’s languages, and it is easy to see why: it allows speakers to omit certain parts of their utterances while nonetheless conveying their full meaning, which contributes to making linguistic communication highly efficient. While there is broad consensus that elliptical utterances depend on the context in some way, the nature of this dependency remains controversial. In this paper, I re-evaluate the merits of two classes of ellipsis theories: identity theories, which posit that material can be elided only if it is identical to a linguistic antecedent; and referential theories, which assume that ellipsis is enabled by the same underlying mechanism that governs other forms of discourse reference. I argue that both empirical and theoretical considerations favor referential theories in this comparison, and in doing so I outline new adequacy criteria for linguistic theories aimed at explaining the nature of the linguistic and non-linguistic context and how it interfaces with context-dependent linguistic devices.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"341 - 400"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Explaining ellipsis without identity*\",\"authors\":\"Till Poppels\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/tlr-2022-2091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Ellipsis is a pervasive phenomenon across the world’s languages, and it is easy to see why: it allows speakers to omit certain parts of their utterances while nonetheless conveying their full meaning, which contributes to making linguistic communication highly efficient. While there is broad consensus that elliptical utterances depend on the context in some way, the nature of this dependency remains controversial. In this paper, I re-evaluate the merits of two classes of ellipsis theories: identity theories, which posit that material can be elided only if it is identical to a linguistic antecedent; and referential theories, which assume that ellipsis is enabled by the same underlying mechanism that governs other forms of discourse reference. I argue that both empirical and theoretical considerations favor referential theories in this comparison, and in doing so I outline new adequacy criteria for linguistic theories aimed at explaining the nature of the linguistic and non-linguistic context and how it interfaces with context-dependent linguistic devices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46358,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistic Review\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"341 - 400\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistic Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2091\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2091","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要省略是世界语言中普遍存在的现象,原因很容易理解:它允许说话人省略话语的某些部分,同时传达其全部含义,这有助于提高语言交流的效率。虽然人们普遍认为,省略的话语在某种程度上取决于上下文,但这种依赖的性质仍然存在争议。在本文中,我重新评估了两类省略理论的优点:同一性理论,该理论认为只有当材料与语言先行词相同时,才能省略;以及指称理论,它们认为省略是由支配其他形式话语指称的相同的潜在机制促成的。我认为,在这种比较中,经验和理论的考虑都有利于指称理论,在这样做的过程中,我概述了语言学理论的新的充分性标准,旨在解释语言和非语言语境的性质,以及它如何与依赖语境的语言手段相结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Explaining ellipsis without identity*
Abstract Ellipsis is a pervasive phenomenon across the world’s languages, and it is easy to see why: it allows speakers to omit certain parts of their utterances while nonetheless conveying their full meaning, which contributes to making linguistic communication highly efficient. While there is broad consensus that elliptical utterances depend on the context in some way, the nature of this dependency remains controversial. In this paper, I re-evaluate the merits of two classes of ellipsis theories: identity theories, which posit that material can be elided only if it is identical to a linguistic antecedent; and referential theories, which assume that ellipsis is enabled by the same underlying mechanism that governs other forms of discourse reference. I argue that both empirical and theoretical considerations favor referential theories in this comparison, and in doing so I outline new adequacy criteria for linguistic theories aimed at explaining the nature of the linguistic and non-linguistic context and how it interfaces with context-dependent linguistic devices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Linguistic Review
Linguistic Review Multiple-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Linguistic Review aims at publishing high-quality papers in syntax, semantics, phonology, and morphology, within a framework of Generative Grammar and related disciplines, as well as critical discussions of theoretical linguistics as a branch of cognitive psychology. Striving to be a platform for discussion, The Linguistic Review welcomes reviews of important new monographs in these areas, dissertation abstracts, and letters to the editor. The editor also welcomes initiatives for thematic issues with guest editors. The Linguistic Review is a peer-reviewed journal of international scope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信