Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T08:02:10.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Verb Phrase Ellipsis: The View from Information Structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Laura Kertz
Laura Kertz*
Affiliation:
Brown University
*
Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences Brown University Providence, RI 02912-1821 [laura_kertz@brown.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An analysis of antecedent mismatch effects under ellipsis is proposed to explain why some cases of verb phrase ellipsis exhibit a sizeable penalty when the elided target is not structurally matched to its antecedent, while other cases show little or no penalty at all. The proposal attributes the penalty in the former case to an information-structural constraint governing contrastive topics, and it is argued that previous accounts have misattributed that penalty to a licensing constraint on ellipsis. Results from four experiments (three off-line acceptability, one on-line self-paced reading) confirm that the relative size of the mismatch penalty can be reliably predicted based on the information structure of the clause containing the ellipsis and that acceptability differences associated with information structure are observable even in the absence of ellipsis.

Keywords

ellipsisparallelismdiscourseinformation structureanaphora

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 390 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by NIH grant 5-T32-DC0041 to the Center for Research in Language, University of California, San Diego. I am grateful to research assistants Jeff Derrenberger, Emma Hendricks, Kelly Mak, Tessa Opperman, and Andrew Strabone for help with data collection and to Corey Cusimano for editing. Thanks for valuable discussion go to Roger Levy, Hannah Rohde, Cynthia Kilpatrick, Ivano Caponigro, Robert Kluender, Klinton Bicknell, Chris Barkley, Philip Hofmeister, and audiences at WCCFL 2008 and CUSP 2009, both hosted by the University of California, Los Angeles. A special debt is owed to Andrew Kehler for comments on earlier drafts and for many thoughtful discussions.

References

Arregui, Ana, Clifton, Charles Jr., Frazier, Lyn; and Moulton, Keir. 2006. Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 55. 232–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1961. Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language 37. 83–96.10.2307/411252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BÜring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 511–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, Wynn. 1987. On ellipsis. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Jacobs, Joachim, Stechow, Arnim von, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo, 506–69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, and Matthews, Stephen. 1990. Prolegomena to a typology of tough movement. Studies in typology and diachrony: For Joseph H. Greenberg, ed. by Croft, William, Denning, Keith, and Kemmer, Suzanne, 43–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 1991. Against reconstruction in ellipsis. Against reconstruction in ellipsis: Xerox PARC.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2005. Against reconstruction in ellipsis. Ellipsis and nonsentential speech (Studies in linguistics and philosophy 81), ed. by Elugardo, Reinaldo and Stainton, Robert J., 31–55. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Shieber, Stuart Μ.; and Pereira, Fernando C. N.. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danes, Frantisek. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. Papers on functional sentence perspective, ed. by Danes, Frantisek, 106–28. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783111676524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, Nigel, and Matsuo, Ayumi. 2003. Factoring out the parallelism effect in VP-ellipsis. Chicago Linguistic Society 39. 591–603.Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 2008. Ellipsis sites as definite descriptions. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 191220.10.1162/ling.2008.39.2.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199262588.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles Jr. 2001. Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy alpha. Syntax 4. 1–22.10.1111/1467-9612.00034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles Jr. 2005. The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax 8. 121–74.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00077.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles Jr. 2006. Ellipsis and discourse coherence. Linguistics and Philosophy 29. 315–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, Lyn, Munn, Alan; and Clifton, Charles Jr. 2000. Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29. 343–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, Lyn, Taft, Lori, Roeper, Tom, Clifton, Charles Jr.; and Ehrlich, Kate. 1984. Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition 12. 421–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnham, Alan, and Oakhill, Jane. 1987. Interpreting elliptical verb phrases. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 39A. 611–27.Google Scholar
Garvey, Catherine, Caramazza, Alfonso; and Yates, Jack. 1975. Factors influencing assignment of pronoun antecedents. Cognition 3. 227–43.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Grant, Margaret, Clifton, Charles Jr.; and Frazier, Lyn. 2012. The role of nonactuality implicatures in processing elided constituents. Journal of Memory and Language 66. 326–43.10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grinder, John, and Postal, Paul Μ.. 1971. Missing antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 269–312.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Groenendijk Jeroen Antonius, and Johan, Martin Stokhof, Bastiaan. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1978. On the nontransformational derivation of some null VP anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 66–74.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 391–426.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Hendriks, Petra. 2004. Coherence relations, ellipsis and contrastive topics. Journal of Semantics 21. 133–53.10.1093/jos/21.2.133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2000. Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 23. 533–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, Kertz, Laura, Rohde, Hannah; and Elman, Jeffrey L.. 2008. Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 25. 1–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, Chris. 2003. Ellipsis and syntactic representation. In Schwabe & Winkler, 2953.Google Scholar
Kertz, Laura. 2008. Focus structure and acceptability in verb phrase ellipsis. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 27. 283–91.Google Scholar
Kertz, Laura. 2010. Ellipsis reconsidered. San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Kim, Christina, Kobele, Gregory m., Runner, Jeffrey T.; and Hale, John T.. 2011. The acceptability cline in VP ellipsis. Syntax 4. 318–54.Google Scholar
Kim, Christina, and Runner, Jeffrey T.. 2009. Discourse structure and parallelism in VP ellipsis. Poster presented at Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19, The Ohio State University, Columbus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1991. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 11) 1. 127–58. Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/1.127.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Additive particles under stress. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 8. 111–28. Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/8.111.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 3–4.243-76.10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Geoffrey. 1971. Presupposition and relative well-formedness. Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology, ed. by Steinberg, Danny D. and Jakobovits, Leon A., 329–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. Μ., and Kelter, Stephanie. 1982. Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology 14. 78–106.10.1016/0010-0285(82)90005-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2011. Integrating surprisal and uncertain-input models in online sentence comprehension: Formal techniques and empirical results. Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1055–65.Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195091816.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malt, Barbara C. 1985. The role of discourse structure in understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 24. 271–89.10.1016/0749-596X(85)90028-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauner, Gail, Tanenhaus, Michael K.; and Carlson, Greg N.. 1995. A note on parallelism effects in processing deep and surface verb-phrase anaphora. Language and Cognitive Processes 10. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1998. On recent formal analyses of topic. The Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation: Selected papers, ed. by Ginzburg, Jonathan, Khasidashvili, Zurab, Vogel, Carl, Lévy, Jean-Jacques, and Vallduví, Enric, 147–60. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738.10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2008. An asymmetry in voice mismatches in VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 169–79.10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2010. Voice mismatches and the dark side of ellipsis. Voice mismatches and the dark side of ellipsis: University of Chicago, MS.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 77–108.10.1162/LING_a_00120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Philip. 2011. The choice between verbal anaphors in discourse. Anaphora processing and applications: 8th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium (DAARC 2011) (Lecture notes in artificial intelligence 7099), ed. by Hendrickx, Iris, Devi, Sobha Lalitha, Branco, António, and Mitkov, Ruslan, 82–95. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-25917-3_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Philip, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2012. Exophoric VP post-auxiliary ellipsis. Exophoric VP post-auxiliary ellipsis: Université Paris Diderot, MS. Online: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/∼gpullum/Exophoric.pdf.Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 1985. Processes of understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 24. 290–303.10.1016/0749-596X(85)90029-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. 53–94.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics (Papers in semantics) 49. 91–136.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.10.1007/BF02342617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1993. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop (Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340.29), ed. by Berman, S. and Hestvik, Arild. Stuttgart and Tübingen: Universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, and Hankamer, Jorge. 1984. Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy 7. 325–45.10.1007/BF00627709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1977. Does she or doesn't she? Linguistic Inquiry 8. 763–67.Google Scholar
Schwabe, Kerstin, and Winkler, Susanne. 2003. Exploring the interfaces from the perspective of omitted structures. The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, ed. by Schwabe, Kerstin and Winkler, Susanne, 1–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7. 141–77.10.1023/A:1008370902407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2000. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 649–89.10.1162/002438900554505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturt, Patrick, Keller, Frank; and Dubey, Amit. 2010. Syntactic priming in comprehension: Parallelism effects with and without coordination. Journal of Memory and Language 62. 333–51.10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tancredi, Christopher D. 1992. Deletion, deaccenting, and presupposition. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael k., and Carlson, Greg N.. 1990. Comprehension of deep and surface verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 5. 257–80.10.1080/01690969008407064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The information component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2013. A compositional analysis of contrastive topics. A compositional analysis of contrastive topics: McGill University, MS. Online: http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mrwZTIwM/wagner11.pdf.Google Scholar
Wasow, Tom. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Webber, Bonnie Lynn. 1978. A formal approach to discourse anaphora. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin S. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 101–39.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin S. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 577–628.Google Scholar
Winkler, Susanne. 1997. Ellipsis and information structure in English and German: The phonological reduction hypothesis. (Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340.121.) Stuttgart and Tübingen: Universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen.Google Scholar
Winkler, Susanne. 2005. Ellipsis and focus in generative grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110890426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, Susanne. 2006. Ellipsis. The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., ed. by Brown, Keith, 109–13. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar