FishFeed 28\/02\/20<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n Co-speech gestures (CSGs) are gestures which co-occur with a spoken expression and contribute some additional information about its denotation. Until very recently, the literature has assumed that their gestural modality gives CSGs a special semantic status: roughly, they are either always interpreted as supplements, akin to appositives (Ebert 2014), or as cosuppositions, akin to truth-conditionally vacuous modifiers (Schlenker 2018, et seq.). By contrast, Esipova (2018, et seq.) develops what she calls a compositionally-driven approach: modifier CSGs behave strictly like their spoken counterparts; their interpretation depends only on how they compose, not on some intrinsic property associated with their modality. Depending entirely on their context, then, CSGs can be interpreted as supplements, non-restricting modifiers, or even restricting modifiers. This is summed up in what we can call Esipova\u2019s Conjecture: syntax and semantics are modality-blind. This predicts that CSGs should behave like their spoken counterparts with respect to phenomena that are sensitive to the at-issue \/ non-at-issue divide (i.e. whether a piece of content makes a truth-conditional contribution). Ellipsis is just such a phenomenon. In this talk, I show that the ellipsis recovery procedure is able to freely ignore most truth-conditionally vacuous content, while at-issue content is recovered obligatorily. Crucially, this holds regardless of whether the antecedent material is spoken or gestural: what matters is how such material composes, consistent with Esipova’s Conjecture. I conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for the identity condition on ellipsis. (This is based on joint work with Valentina Colasanti, TCD.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Craig Sailor FishFeed 28\/02\/20 Abstract Co-speech gestures (CSGs) are gestures which co-occur with a spoken expression and contribute some additional information about its denotation. Until very recently, the literature has assumed that their gestural modality gives CSGs a special semantic status: roughly, they are either always interpreted as supplements, akin to appositives (Ebert 2014), Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":889,"featured_media":0,"parent":543352,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"_mc_calendar":[],"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-591587","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/site.uit.no\/castlfish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/591587","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/site.uit.no\/castlfish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/site.uit.no\/castlfish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/site.uit.no\/castlfish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/889"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/site.uit.no\/castlfish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=591587"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/site.uit.no\/castlfish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/591587\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":591592,"href":"https:\/\/site.uit.no\/castlfish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/591587\/revisions\/591592"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/site.uit.no\/castlfish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/543352"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/site.uit.no\/castlfish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=591587"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}