Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Ellipsis resolution is governed by syntactic identity conditions (Sag 1976; Williams 1977), not semantic scope, so ellipsis parallelism cannot distinguish ambiguity from sense-generality.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Ellipsis resolution systematically fails when syntactic identity holds but semantic incompatibility exists (garden-path scope mismatches).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scope-dependent phenomena like binding, quantifier interactions, and donkey anaphora demonstrably constrain ellipsis licensing in ways syntax alone cannot explain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates syntactic *licensing* conditions with semantic *resolution* mechanisms—these are distinct levels requiring independent accounts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Ellipsis licensing depends on structural parallelism (c-command, constituency), not antecedent meaning, as VP-ellipsis examples demonstrate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sense-general predicates (like 'give') allow multiple semantic readings, but ellipsis still requires matching syntactic configurations regardless.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If semantics governed ellipsis, we'd expect systematic failures when antecedents are ambiguous; instead parallelism succeeds uniformly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.