Nonsentential Constituents

A theory of grammatical structure and pragmatic interpretation

Author

Ellen Barton | Wayne State University

Hardbound – Available

ISBN 9789027250087 (Eur) | EUR 110.00

ISBN 9781556190452 (USA) | USD 165.00

e-Book –

ISBN 9789027283337 | EUR 110.00 | USD 165.00

Linguists traditionally have assumed that full sentence sources truncated by ellipsis rules account for the grammatical structure as well as the semantic interpretation of fragments like B below: A: What happened in 1974? B: A scandal in the White House. A sentential structure dominated by the initial node of S is reduced to a fragment by the operation of ellipsis, and it is the full sentential source that provides the semantic interpretation for the remaining fragment.Barton argues against both of these assumptions. She claims that independent major lexical categories like the example above are generated within a grammar as syntactic structures dominated by the initial node of NP, VP, and so on, rather than S. Her second claim is that the major part of the interpretation of these independent constituent utterances takes place within a pragmatic context, rather than in the semantic component of a grammar. A theory of nonsentential constituents is presented consisting of two interacting models: an autonomous competence model of the grammar of nonsentential constituent structures, and a modular pragmatic model of the interpretation of independent constituent utterances in context.

[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 2] 1990. xviii, 247 pp.

Publishing status: Available

https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.2

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments | p. ix

Introduction | p. xi

Interacting Models in a Theory of Nonsententiel Constituents | p. 1

Motivating a Nonsentential Constituent Structure Analysis | p. 23

A Competence Model of the Grammar of Nonsentantial Constituent Structures | p. 43

The Representation of Linguistic Context in the Pragmatic Model | p. 105

The Representation of Conversational Context in the Pragmatic Model | p. 161

Conclusion

Notes | p. 211

Index of Topics | p. 249

Index of Names | p. 251

Cited by

Cited by 55 other publications

Order by:

Allott, Nicholas & Benjamin Shaer

2013. Some linguistic properties of legal notices. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 58:1 ► pp. 43 ff.

AN, DUK-HO

2024. Clause types, intonation and stranded embedded clauses. Journal of Linguistics 60:1 ► pp. 51 ff.

Barton, Ellen

1991. Nonsentential Constituents and Theories of Phrase Structure. In Views on Phrase Structure [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25], ► pp. 193 ff.

Barton, Ellen & Ljiljana Progovac

2005. Nonsententials in Minimalism. In Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech, ► pp. 71 ff.

Barton, Ellen L.

1998. The Grammar of Telegraphic Structures. Journal of English Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 37 ff.

Brucart, Josep María & Jonathan E. MacDonald

2012. Empty Categories and Ellipsis. In The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, ► pp. 579 ff.

Cecchetto, Carlo & Caterina Donati

2023. Labeling (Reduced) Structures: When VPs Are Sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 55:1 ► pp. 1 ff.

Clapp, Lenny

2005. On the Interpretation and Performance of Non-Sentential Assertions. In Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech, ► pp. 109 ff.

Devitt, Michael

2021. Sub-Sententials: Pragmatics or Semantics?. In Overlooking Conventions [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 29], ► pp. 281 ff.

Elugardo, Reinaldo & Robert J. Stainton

2004. Shorthand, Syntactic Ellipsis, and the Pragmatic Determinants of What Is Said. Mind & Language 19:4 ► pp. 442 ff.

Elugardo, Reinaldo & Robert J. Stainton

2005. Introduction. In Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech, ► pp. 1 ff.

Espinal, M.Teresa & Susagna Tubau

2019. Response Systems: The Syntax and Semantics of Fragment Answers and Response Particles. Annual Review of Linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 261 ff.

Graci, Roberto

2023. Aphasia, Sub-Sentential Speeches and Pragmatic Enrichment. In Aphasia’s Implications for Linguistics Research [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 35], ► pp. 99 ff.

Graci, Roberto & Alessandro Capone

2023. Perspectives on the semantics/pragmatics debate: insights from aphasia research. Frontiers in Psychology 14

Hall, Alison

2013. Relevance Theory, Semantic Content and Pragmatic Enrichment. In Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 2], ► pp. 99 ff.

Havu, Eva & Florence Lefeuvre

2010. Le fonctionnement en discours des unités prédicatives averbales autonomes. Discours :6

Jaszczolt, Kasia M., Eleni Savva & Michael Haugh

2016. The Individual and the Social Path of Interpretation: The Case of Incomplete Disjunctive Questions. In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 4], ► pp. 251 ff.

Kaltenböck, Gunther, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann

2016. Extra-clausal constituents. In Outside the Clause [Studies in Language Companion Series, 178], ► pp. 1 ff.

Kim, Jong-Bok

2024. Fragment answers with negative dependencies in Korean: a direct interpretation approach. Linguistics 62:2 ► pp. 385 ff.

Lavidas, Nikolaos & Meike Pentrel

2020. Introduction to thematic issue “Fragments or ellipsis or both? New challenges and new perspectives”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52:2 ► pp. 147 ff.

Lemke, Robin, Lisa Schäfer, Ingo Reich & Andriy Myachykov

2021. Modeling the predictive potential of extralinguistic context with script knowledge: The case of fragments. PLOS ONE 16:2 ► pp. e0246255 ff.

Liu, Chi-Ming Louis

2022. (Embedded) short answers to wh-questions in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 31:3 ► pp. 351 ff.

Ludlow, Peter

2005. A Note on Alleged Cases of Nonsentential Assertion. In Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech, ► pp. 95 ff.

Mankowitz, Poppy

2021. ‘Quantifier Variance’ Is Not Quantifier Variance. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 99:3 ► pp. 611 ff.

Martí, Luisa

2015. Grammar versus Pragmatics: Carving Nature at the Joints. Mind & Language 30:4 ► pp. 437 ff.

Merchant, Jason

2005. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27:6 ► pp. 661 ff.

Progovac, Ljiljana

2013. Non‐sentential vs. Ellipsis Approaches: Review and Extensions. Language and Linguistics Compass 7:11 ► pp. 597 ff.

Reich, Ingo

2017. On the omission of articles and copulae in German newspaper headlines. Linguistic Variation 17:2 ► pp. 186 ff.

Reich, Ingo

2018. Ellipsen. In Handbuch Pragmatik, ► pp. 240 ff.

SAKA, Paul

2011. Quotation and Conceptions of Language. Dialectica 65:2 ► pp. 205 ff.

Sammarco, Carmela

2021. Chapter 8. Online text mapping. In Building Categories in Interaction [Studies in Language Companion Series, 220], ► pp. 211 ff.

Kate Scott, Billy Clark & Robyn Carston

2019. Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation,

Selting, Margret

1997. Sogenannte ‚Ellipsen‘ als interaktiv relevante Konstruktionen? Ein neuer Versuch über die Reichweite und Grenzen des Ellipsenbegriffs für die Analyse gesprochener Sprache in der konversationellen Interaktion. In Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch, ► pp. 117 ff.

Seraku, Tohru

2023. Grammars for placeholders: The dynamic turn. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 8:1

Stainton, Robert

2006. Words and Thoughts,

Stainton, Robert J.

1995. Non-sentential assertions and semantic ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 18:3 ► pp. 281 ff.

Stainton, Robert J.

2006. Not A Full‐fledged Speech Act?. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. 49 ff.

Stainton, Robert J.

2006. A Positive Representational–Pragmatic View. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. 155 ff.

Stainton, Robert J.

2006. Extra‐Grammatical Maneuvers. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. 63 ff.

Stainton, Robert J.

2006. Syntactic Ellipsis. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. 94 ff.

Stainton, Robert J.

2006. Sentences, Assertion, and the Semantics–Pragmatics Boundary. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. 213 ff.

Stainton, Robert J.

2006. Language–Thought Relations. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. 177 ff.

Stainton, Robert J.

2006. Semantic Ellipsis. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. 80 ff.

Stainton, Robert J.

2006. Introduction: The Appearances, and What They Might Mean. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. 3 ff.

Stainton, Robert J.

2006. A Divide‐and‐Conquer Strategy. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. 145 ff.

Stainton, Robert J.

2006. Sentence Primacy. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. 191 ff.

Stainton, Robert J.

2006. Further Background Issues. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. 30 ff.

Stanley, Jason

2005. II—Jason Stanley: Hornsby on the Phenomenology of Speech. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 79:1 ► pp. 131 ff.

Temmerman, Tanja

2013. The syntax of Dutch embedded fragment answers: on the PF-theory of islands and the wh/sluicing correlation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31:1 ► pp. 235 ff.

Thoms, Gary

2016. Short answers in Scottish Gaelic and their theoretical implications. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34:1 ► pp. 351 ff.

[no author supplied]

2002. References. In Thoughts and Utterances, ► pp. 384 ff.

[no author supplied]

2006. Bibliography. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ► pp. 742 ff.

[no author supplied]

2006. Copyright Page. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. iv ff.

[no author supplied]

2006. Detailed Contents. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. x ff.

[no author supplied]

2006. Dedication. In Words and Thoughts, ► pp. v ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects