{"title":"重新访问重新绑定:MaxElide的替代方案","authors":"J. Griffiths","doi":"10.7557/12.4193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using Takahashi & Fox (2005) as an exemplar, this paper argues that analyses of English ellipsis that make recourse to a MaxElide constraint (or a theoretical reduction thereof) are misguided, and that one must look past MaxElide to explain the distribution of acceptability in the elliptical rebinding constructions that MaxElide was originally invoked to explain. A novel analysis is outlined which attributes the unacceptability observed in the rebinding dataset to an inability to satisfy a more restrictive, reflexive version of Takahashi & Fox's (ibid.) Parallelism condition on ellipsis recoverability.","PeriodicalId":29976,"journal":{"name":"Nordlyd Tromso University Working Papers on Language Linguistics","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting rebinding: an alternative to MaxElide\",\"authors\":\"J. Griffiths\",\"doi\":\"10.7557/12.4193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Using Takahashi & Fox (2005) as an exemplar, this paper argues that analyses of English ellipsis that make recourse to a MaxElide constraint (or a theoretical reduction thereof) are misguided, and that one must look past MaxElide to explain the distribution of acceptability in the elliptical rebinding constructions that MaxElide was originally invoked to explain. A novel analysis is outlined which attributes the unacceptability observed in the rebinding dataset to an inability to satisfy a more restrictive, reflexive version of Takahashi & Fox's (ibid.) Parallelism condition on ellipsis recoverability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29976,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordlyd Tromso University Working Papers on Language Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordlyd Tromso University Working Papers on Language Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7557/12.4193\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordlyd Tromso University Working Papers on Language Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7557/12.4193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Using Takahashi & Fox (2005) as an exemplar, this paper argues that analyses of English ellipsis that make recourse to a MaxElide constraint (or a theoretical reduction thereof) are misguided, and that one must look past MaxElide to explain the distribution of acceptability in the elliptical rebinding constructions that MaxElide was originally invoked to explain. A novel analysis is outlined which attributes the unacceptability observed in the rebinding dataset to an inability to satisfy a more restrictive, reflexive version of Takahashi & Fox's (ibid.) Parallelism condition on ellipsis recoverability.