Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T02:45:46.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Semantics of Sluicing: beyond Truth Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Scott AnderBois
Scott AnderBois*
Affiliation:
Brown University
*
Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences Brown University Box 1821 190 Thayer Street Providence, RI 02912 [Scott_AnderBois@Brown.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since Merchant 2001, it has been widely agreed that the licensing condition on sluicing is at least partially semantic in nature. This article argues that the semantics this condition operates on must include not only truth conditions, but also the Issues introduced by existential quantification and disjunction. In the account presented here, the special role these elements play in antecedents for sluicing derives from the deep semantic connections between these elements and questions. In addition to accounting for well-known facts about sluicing in a natural way, this article also analyzes novel facts such as the interaction of sluicing with appositives and double negation, and handles recalcitrant cases such as disjunctive antecedents. The account can readily be extended to so-called ‘sprouting’ cases where the crucial material in the antecedent is an implicit argument or is missing altogether.

Keywords

sluicingsproutinginquisitivityindefinitesdisjunctionappositivesnegation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 887 - 926
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 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

Allerton, D. J. 1975. Deletion and proform reduction. Journal of Linguistics 11. 213.mdash; 37.10.1017/S0022226700004540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Amaral, Patricia, Roberts, Craige; and Smith, E. Allyn. 2007. Review of Potts 2005. Linguistics and Philosophy 30. 707–49.Google Scholar
AnderBois, Scott. 2011. Issues and alternatives. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.Google Scholar
AnderBois, Scott. 2012a. Focus and uninformativity in Yucatec Maya questions. Natural Language Semantics 20. 349–90.10.1007/s11050-012-9084-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AnderBois, Scott. 2012b. Indefiniteness and the typology of implicit arguments. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 30. 43–53. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/30/index.html.Google Scholar
AnderBois, Scott, Brasoveanu, Adrian; and Henderson, Robert. 2013. At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse. Journal of Semantics, first published online November 25, 2013. doi: 10.1093/jos/fft014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David, and Zeevat, Henk. 2007. Accommodation. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. by Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 503–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Implicit arguments. The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 2, ed. by Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 558–88. Malden, mA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2005. Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. Berkeley Linguistics Society 31. 1. 73–91. Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/bls/issue/view/157.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William A.; and McCloskey, James. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3. 239–82.10.1007/BF01248819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William; and McCloskey, James. 2011. Sluicing(:) between structure and inference. Representing language: Essays in honor of Judith Aissen, ed. by Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo, Mikkelsen, Line, and Potsdam, Eric, 31–50. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center, UCSC.Google Scholar
Ciardelli, Ivano. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and intermediate logics. Inquisitive semantics and intermediate logics: University of Amsterdam master's thesis.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo, and Gawron, Jean Mark. 1996. The context-dependency of implicit arguments. Quantifiers, deduction, and context, ed. by Kanazawa, Makoto, Piñon, Christopher, and de Swart, Henriette, 1–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta, and Schwarzschild, Roger. 2010. Definite inner antecedents and wh-correlates in sluices. Rutgers Working Papers in Linguistics 3. 92–114.Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 2008. Ellipsis sites as definite descriptions. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 191220.10.1162/ling.2008.39.2.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. Chicago Linguistic Society 7. 59–66.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka, and Bruce, Kim. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27. 81–118.10.1093/jos/ffp010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1969. Types of lexical information. Studies in syntax and semantics, ed. by Kiefer, Ferenc, 109–37. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12. 95–107. Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/bls/issue/view/316.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry, and Fodor, Janet. 1980. Functional structure, quantifiers and meaning postulates. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 759–70.Google Scholar
Fortin, Catherine. 2007. Indonesian sluicing and verb phrase ellipsis: Description and explanation in a minimalist framework. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles Jr. 2006. Ellipsis and discourse coherence. Linguistics and Philosophy 29. 315–46.10.1007/s10988-006-0002-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan. 2001. Interrogative investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gribanova, Vera. 2013. Copular clauses, clefts, and putative sluicing in Uzbek. Language 89. 4. 830–82.10.1353/lan.2013.0074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen. 2007. Inquisitive semantics: Two possibilities for disjunction. Proceedings of the 7th International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Communication, ed. by Bosch, Peter, Gabelaia, David, and Lang, Jérôme, 80–94. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Roelofsen, Floris. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. Meaning, content, and argument: Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Rhetoric.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10. 41–53.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 391–426.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel, and Romero, Maribel. 2004. Ellipsis and the structure of discourse. Journal of Semantics 21. 375–414.10.1093/jos/21.4.375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Krahmer, Emiel, and Muskens, Reinhard. 1995. Negation and disjunction in discourse representation theory. Journal of Semantics 12. 357–76.10.1093/jos/12.4.357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika, and Shimoyama, Junko. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. The proceedings of the third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Utpal. 2002. Questions and answers in embedded contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198241331.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 35788.10.1162/LING_a_00001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-4359-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 1997. Lexical distributivity and implicit arguments. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 3. 145–61. Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/issue/view/286.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2006. Sluicing. The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 4, ed. by Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 271–91. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2007. The syntactic representation of implicit arguments? Handout from ‘Funny indefinites’ workshop, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, July 2007. Online: http://home.uchicago.edu/merchant/presentations.html.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason, and Simpson, Andrew (eds.) 2012. Sluicing: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645763.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Sarah. 2010. Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation.Google Scholar
Nouwen, Rick. 2007. On appositives and dynamic binding. Research on Language and Computation 5. 87–102.10.1007/s11168-006-9019-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potsdam, Eric. 2007. Malagasy sluicing and its consequences for the identity requirement on ellipsis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 3. 577–613.10.1007/s11049-006-9015-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pruitt, Kathryn, and Roelofsen, Floris. 2012. The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions. The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions: Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation, ms.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2007. It is raining (somewhere). Linguistics and Philosophy 30. 12346.10.1007/s10988-006-9007-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49. 91–136. [Revised 1998 version. Online: http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu//∼croberts/infostr.pdf.].Google Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris. 2013. Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content. Synthese 190. 1. Supplement).79-102.10.1007/s11229-013-0282-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.10.1007/BF02342617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats, and Partee, Barbara. 1982. Conjunction, type ambiguity, and wide scope or. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 1. 353–62.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1969. Guess who? Chicago Linguistic Society 5. 252–86.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2006. Scopal independence: A note on branching and wide scope readings of indefinites and disjunctions. Journal of Semantics 23. 281–314.10.1093/jos/ffl005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GiVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7. 2. 141–77.10.1023/A:1008370902407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2008. More ado about nothing: Sluicing, copular clauses and case. Handout from UCSC Colloquium, October 2008.Google Scholar
Vlachos, Christos. 2011. Sluicing and relatives. Snippets 23. 18–19.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16. 97–148.10.1093/jos/16.2.97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, Bonnie. 1978. A formal approach to discourse anaphora. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar