Speakers often use ordinary words and phrases, unembedded in any sentence, to perform speech acts—or so it appears. In some cases appearances are deceptive: The seemingly lexical/phrasal utterance may really be an utterance of a syntactically eplliptical sentence. I argue however that, at least sometimes, plain old words and phrases are used on their own. The use of both words/phrases and elliptical sentences leads to two consequences: 1. Context must contribute more to utterance meaning than is often supposed. Here's why: The semantic type of normal words and phrases is non-proppositional, even after the usual contextual features are added (e.g., reference assignment and disambiguation). Yet an utterance of a word/phrase can be fully propositional. 2. Often, a hearer does not need to know the exact identity of the expression uttered, to understand an utterance. The reason: Typically, words/phrases in context will sound the same, and mean the same, as some elliptical sentence token.
2023. Can there be a feature‐placing language?. European Journal of Philosophy 31:3 ► pp. 655 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
Liu, Chi-Ming Louis
2022. (Embedded) short answers to wh-questions in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 31:3 ► pp. 351 ff.
Elbourne, Paul
2020. Literal vs Enriched Meaning. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, ► pp. 1 ff.
Bum-Sik Park
2013. Multiple fragment answers in Korean. Linguistic Research 30:3 ► pp. 453 ff.
Frápolli, María José
2013. What Do You Mean by “Redundancy”?. In The Nature of Truth, ► pp. 111 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.
Daeho Chung
2012. Is amwu( N)-to a negative quantifier?. Linguistic Research 29:3 ► pp. 541 ff.
Hee-Don Ahn & 조성은
2012. Some Notes on Two Types of Fragments in English. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 12:4 ► pp. 903 ff.
Hee-Don Ahn & 조성은
2017. A Bi-clausal Analysis of Multiple Fragments. Studies in Generative Grammar 27:1 ► pp. 197 ff.
Hee-Don Ahn & 조성은
2017. A hybrid ellipsis analysis of two types of fragments in Korean. Linguistic Research 34:3 ► pp. 311 ff.
Predelli, Stefano
2011. Sub-sentential speech and the traditional view. Linguistics and Philosophy 34:6 ► pp. 571 ff.
Chevalier, Fabienne H. G.
2008. Unfinished Turns in French Conversation: How Context Matters. Research on Language & Social Interaction 41:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
박범식
2008. Fragments and Ellipsis in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 18:1 ► pp. 13 ff.
Fortin, Catherine
2007. Some (not all) nonsententials are only a phase. Lingua 117:1 ► pp. 67 ff.
Barber, Alex
2005. Co-Extensive Theories and Unembedded Definite Descriptions. In Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech, ► pp. 185 ff.
Clift, Rebecca
2005. Discovering order. Lingua 115:11 ► pp. 1641 ff.
Merchant, Jason
2005. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27:6 ► pp. 661 ff.
Ariel, Mira
2002. The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 34:4 ► pp. 361 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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 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.