This handbook is the first volume to provide a comprehensive, in-depth, and balanced discussion of ellipsis phenomena, whereby a perceived interpretation is fuller than would be expected based solely on the presence of linguistic forms. Natural language abounds in these apparently incomplete expressions, such as I laughed but Ed didn’t, in which the final portion of the sentence, the verb ‘laugh’, remains unpronounced but is still understood. The range of phenomena involved raise general and fundamental questions about the workings of grammar, but also constitute a treasure trove of fine-grained points of inter- and intralinguistic variation. The volume is divided into four parts. In the first, the authors examine the role that ellipsis plays and how it is analyzed in different theoretical frameworks and linguistic subdisciplines, such as HPSG, construction grammar, inquisitive semantics, and computational linguistics. Chapters in the second part highlight the usefulness of ellipsis as a diagnostic tool for other linguistic phenomena including movement and islands and codeswitching, while Part III focuses instead on the types of elliptical constructions found in natural language, such as sluicing, gapping, and null complement anaphora. Finally, the last part of the book contains case studies that investigate elliptical phenomena in a wide variety of languages, including Dutch, Japanese, Persian, and Finnish Sign Language.

The Oxford handbook of ellipsis

On raising predicates

Basic objects in natural categories revisited : a replication with sighted and blind college students /

The empirical facts about right-node raising (RNR) lead to fundamentally conflicting analytical conclusions. There is strong evidence that RNR does not obey syntactic constraints of any kind, which in turn suggests that RNR is not a syntactic operation, but there is also evidence that strongly favors a syntactic analysis. The idiosyncratic and almost paradoxical nature of the phenomena indicates that no simple unified analysis of RNR can be formulated. In order to resolve this empirical and theoretical impasse, I propose that what is usually called RNR is best seen as the conflation of three completely unrelated kinds of phenomena: VP/N′-ellipsis , extraposition , and (backward ) periphery deletion . Although they are fundamentally different, these phenomena can yield structures that are superficially similar and, in some cases, apply to the same strings. The latter is one of the major factors that has misled previous accounts. Once this three-way confound between ellipsis, extraposition, and deletion is taken into account, the contradictory idiosyncrasies about RNR vanish, and a wide range of cases are obtained as predictions of independently motivated accounts of VP/N′-ellipsis and ATB extraposition phenomena. This article offers an explicit formalization of the phenomena under discussion in sign-based construction grammar (), a framework that combines insights from head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG; ) and Berkeley construction grammar ().

On the disunity of right-node raising phenomena: Extraposition, ellipsis, and deletion

OF THE DISSERTATION Sluicing and Identity in Ellipsis

/pdf/sluicing-and-identity-in-ellipsis-i82oeept2v.pdf

Sluicing and identity in ellipsis

Existing analyses of Right Node Raising (RNR) implicitly assume that all instances thereof can be subsumed under a single mechanism, whether it be movement, ellipsis, or multidomination. We challenge this assumption by showing that English RNR can be divided into (at least) two distinct subtypes, one which shows properties of ellipsis and one which shows properties of multidomination. Moreover, we also show that these two subtypes are in complementary distribution, and that neither one can be reduced to the other. The overall result is that RNR is not a single process, but rather a cover term for a family of processes with superficially identical outputs. This working paper is available in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/ vol17/iss1/2 Right Node Raising Requires both Ellipsis and Multidomination Matthew Barros and Luis Vicente*

/pdf/right-node-raising-requires-both-ellipsis-and-nuc8czdt58.pdf

Right Node Raising Requires both Ellipsis and Multidomination

In this paper, I claim that two generalizations about sluicing in the recent literature are epiphenomenal, emerging from the interaction of independent properties of sluicing and answerhood. The primary focus is on the generalization in Dayal & Schwarzschild 2010, dubbed Antecedent-Correlate Harmony. The empirical pattern is shown to follow from how the semantics of Wh-phrases and correlates interact with Barker’s (in press) Answer Ban generalization, where the antecedent cannot be an answer to the sluiced question. In the latter part of the paper, I shift focus from ACH to the Answer Ban and show how the Answer Ban fills a previously unnoticed gap in Romero’s (1998) empirical coverage of inheritance of content effects in sluicing. The Answer Ban is, in turn, shown to follow straightforwardly from the recent semantic condition on sluicing proposed in AnderBois 2011.

/pdf/harmonic-sluicing-which-remnant-correlate-pairs-work-and-why-47mws7dujw.pdf

Harmonic sluicing: Which remnant/correlate pairs work and why

This article defends a semantic identity account of ellipsis licensing. The argument comes from examples of multiple sluicing, especially from Russian. Concentrating on antecedents that contain two...

Multiple Sluicing, Scope, and Superiority: Consequences for Ellipsis Identity

The focus of this paper is the characterization of the identity condition on sluicing. While the formulation of this condition remains an open issue, recent work suggests that sluices are anaphoric to an implicit question or issue that the antecedent raises in the discourse (Q-equivalence approaches, Ginzburg & Sag 2000; AnderBois 2011; 2014; 2016; Barros 2014; Weir 2014; Kotek & Barros 2018). We highlight several challenges to Q-equivalence accounts, and argue instead for a return to focus-based accounts (Rooth 1992a; Romero 1998; Fox 2000; Merchant 2001). Under such an approach, antecedents are importantly not responsible for raising any particular issue/question themselves, a point we show to be a critical challenge to Q-equivalence accounts. We propose instead that sluicing is possible provided that the antecedent and sluice have the same focus-theoretic propositional content. We show that this account is similar to, but improves upon, Merchant’s (2001) influential e-GIVENness account. We extend this account to cases of VP ellipsis, and moreover argue in support of the idea that the theory of ellipsis licensing should be integrated into a more general theory of redundancy reduction. In other words, that the semantic condition on identity in ellipsis is the same as the semantic condition on deaccenting (Rooth 1992a; Tancredi 1992). We propose a generalized condition on redundancy reduction, which may replace Schwarzschild’s (1999) GIVENness condition.

https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/5207/galley/12616/download/

Ellipsis licensing and redundancy reduction: A focus-based approach

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Matthew Barros

Author Tools

Chat about Author