Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T05:22:11.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction to the special issue Experimental and Corpus-based Approaches to Ellipsis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2023

GABRIELA BÎLBÎIE  and
JOANNA NYKIEL
GABRIELA BÎLBÎIE
Affiliation:
University of Bucharest & Laboratoire de Linguistique Formelle
JOANNA NYKIEL
Affiliation:
Stockholm University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ellipsis has been, and continues to be, of both theoretical and empirical interest. It affects the syntax of phrases or clauses by stranding their various constituents but keeps the semantics of the stranded constituents identical to that of their non-elliptical counterparts. The theoretical value of ellipsis lies, therefore, in the relationship between meaning and form that it encodes, such that a complete propositional meaning is paired with what appears to be a syntactically incomplete form. This property of ellipsis has inspired researchers to probe, in particular, the syntax of ellipsis and the role the surrounding context plays in helping resolve ellipsis, as stranded constituents depend on the surrounding context for their interpretation. Among the constructions that have attracted considerable attention over the years are clausal ellipsis (e.g. sluicing (Example 1), sprouting (Example 2), stripping (Example 3), and fragments (Example 4)), pseudogapping (Example 5), gapping (Example 6), and Right Node Raising (RNR) (Example 7), all of which are discussed in the contributions to this special issue.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 59 , Special Issue 2: Experimental and corpus-based approaches to ellipsis , April 2023 , pp. 229 - 234
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abeillé, Anne, Bîlbîie, Gabriela & Mouret, François. 2014. A Romance perspective on gapping constructions. In Boas, Hans & Gonzálvez-García, Francesco (eds.), Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar, 227–267. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abeillé, Anne & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2022. ‘Me too’ fragments in English and French: A direct interpretation approach. The Linguistic Review 39.3, 495–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bîlbîie, Gabriela. 2017. Grammaire des constructions elliptiques: Une étude comparative des phrases sans verbe en roumain et en français. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2006. Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. In Cover, Rebecca T. & Kim, Yuni (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31, 73–91. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2013. Syntactic identity in sluicing: How much and why. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 2013. A recycling approach to processing ellipsis. In Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Corver, Norbert (eds.), Diagnosis in syntax, 485–501. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations. The form, meaning and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Perek, Florian. 2018. Ellipsis in Construction Grammar. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis, 188–204. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Sag, Ivan A.. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391–428.Google Scholar
Harris, Jesse A. & Carlson, Katy. 2018. Information structure preferences in focus-sensitive ellipsis: How defaults persist. Language and Speech 61.3, 480–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, Kyle. 2009. Gapping is not (VP)-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 289–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, Edith, Wijnen, Frank & Swaab, Tamara Y.. 2004. Gapping: Electrophysiological evidence for immediate processing of ‘missing’ verbs in sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 89, 584–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2015. Syntactic and semantic identity in Korean sluicing: A direct interpretation approach. Lingua 166, 260–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Abeillé, Anne. 2019. Why-stripping in English. Linguistic Research 36, 365–387.Google Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke & Levine, Robert. 2017. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 48.2, 212–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemke, Robin. 2021. Experimental investigations on the syntax and usage of fragments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrea E. & McElree, Brian. 2011. Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from sluicing. Journal of Memory and Language 64, 327–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 77–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molimpakis, Emilia. 2019. Accepting preposition-stranding under sluicing cross-linguistically: A noisy-channel approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 1985. Psychological explanations of deep and surface anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics 9, 785–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna. 2013. Clefts and preposition omission in sluicing. Lingua 123, 74–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna & Hawkins, John A.. 2020. English fragments, minimize domains, and minimize forms. Language and Cognition 12.3, 411–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2021. Ellipsis. In Müller, Stefan, Abeillé, Anne, Borsley, Robert D. & Koenig, Jean-Pierre (eds.), Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook, 843–883. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2022a. Fragments and structural identity on a direct interpretation approach. Journal of Linguistics 58.1, 73–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2022b. On the grammaticality of morphosyntactically reduced remnants in Polish sluicing. Linguistics 60.1, 177–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Dan. 2018. A memory-based explanation of antecedent-ellipsis mismatches: New insights from computational modeling. Glossa 3.129, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. & Nykiel, Joanna. 2011. Remarks on sluicing. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 188–208. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Carlson, Greg N.. 1990. Comprehension of deep and surface verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 5, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. The syntax of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja. 2018. The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, Andrew. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Masaya, Dickey, Michael Walsh & Sturt, Patrick. 2012. Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and ellipsis in real-time sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 28.3, 272–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, Masaya, Lee, Jiyeon & Dickey, Michael Walsh. 2013. The island (in)sensitivity of sluicing and sprouting. In Sprouse, Jon & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Experimental syntax and island effects, 360–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, Masaya, Ackerman, Lauren, Ward, Rebekah & Purrier, Morgan. 2014. The processing of backward sluicing and island constraint. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 43 ), 261–272.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Masaya, Potter, David & Hunter, Tim. 2019. Condition C reconstruction, clausal ellipsis and island repair. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37, 1515–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar