[Attempto] @anaphoric reference

[Simon Spero]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Tobias Kuhn <t.kuhn at gmx.ch> wrote:


> Another problem with proper names in apposition is that they can produce
> ambiguity if there are verbs like "show" that can be transitive or
> ditransitive:
>
>  (1) John shows a book.
>  (2) John shows Mary a book.
>  (3) John shows a man Bill.
>
> "show" can be a transitive (1) or a ditransitive verb (2). Sentence (3)
> gets two possible meanings if proper names as appositions are allowed. (I
> think that there are even more cases in which such proper names as
> appositions can introduce ambiguity.)


There's  ambiguity, though I think that without commas being possible, (2)
and (3) are less ambiguous in ACE than they could have been :)

Assuming that the ditransitive form is the initial lexical entry,

By analogy with lexical rules for imperative sentences, The lexical rule
licensing (1) seems to  require some sort of assumed under-specified object
to which the book is shown.  There would seem to have to be  suitable
cataphora to satisfy the ACE binding theory?

(2) is licensed by the basic lexical entry; the usual dative alteration rule
would also license "John shows a book to Mary".

(1) and (3) seem to be ambiguous in [uncontrolled] English; even without
appositions

(1a) Down at the rifle range, Kim shows a PC what happens to obsolete
information.  Sandy shows a book (= Sandy shows to a book what happens to
obsolete information)
(1b) At the arts festival Kim shows a new sculpture to her fans. Sandy shows
a book (= Sandy shows to her fans a book).

Thanks
Simon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ifi.uzh.ch/pipermail/attempto/attachments/20090703/3416c65a/attachment.htm>