Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:40:39.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remnant connectivity in pseudogapping: Experimental evidence for a direct generation approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2022

TILL POPPELS  and
PHILIP MILLER
TILL POPPELS
Affiliation:
Université Paris Cité, UMR 7110 LLF, Bât. Olympe de Gouges, 5ème étage. 8, Rue Albert Einstein, 75013 Paris, France tillpoppels@gmail.com
PHILIP MILLER
Affiliation:
Université Paris Cité, EA3697 CLILLAC-ARP, Bât. Olympe de Gouges, 5ème étage. 8, Rue Albert Einstein, 75013 Paris, France philip.miller@u-paris.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports the results of two acceptability judgment experiments that examine the effect of PP remnants with mismatching correlates in the antecedent clause (either a PP, with a distinct preposition, or an NP) on the acceptability of pseudogapping as well as non-elliptical controls. Across both experiments, three novel findings emerge: First, utterances with mismatching PPs across the ellipsis clause and its antecedent were consistently degraded relative to their preposition-matched counterparts. Second, this mismatch penalty arose for elliptical and non-elliptical variants alike with only minor differences between the two. Finally, a significant portion of the mismatch penalties was explained away by the degree of semantic similarity between the thematic relations established by the mismatching prepositions with respect to the antecedent verb which was measured in a separate norming experiment. We examine the consequences of these new empirical results for current theories of pseudogapping, namely (i) the remnant-raising analysis, according to which the remnant XP is raised leftward out of the VP prior to VP ellipsis, licensed under identity with its antecedent; and (ii) the direct generation analysis, under which auxiliaries are verbal proforms that recover their referent anaphorically without the need for remnant movement or syntactic identity between the verb and its antecedent. We conclude that the data are more naturally accounted for under the direct generation approach.

Keywords

acceptability judgment experimentsanaphoraellipsismismatched antecedentspseudogapping
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 59 , Special Issue 2: Experimental and corpus-based approaches to ellipsis , April 2023 , pp. 293 - 325
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. 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.)

Footnotes

We are grateful to Barbara Hemforth for conducting initial rounds of data collection and analysis of Experiments 1 and 2. We would further like to thank the audiences at ECBAE 2019, Linguistic Evidence 2020, and CUNY 2020 for providing feedback on earlier versions of the paper, as well as three anonymous reviewers and the volume editors for their comments and suggestions. This work is supported by a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the program “Investissements d’Avenir” (reference: ANR-10-LABX-0083). It contributes to the IdEx Université Paris Cité – ANR-18-IDEX-0001.

References

REFERENCES

Arregui, Ana, Clifton, Charles Jr., Frazier, Lyn & Moulton, Keir. 2006. Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 55, 232–246. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asher, Nicholas, van de Cruys, Tim, Bride, Antoine & Abrusán, Márta. 2016. Integrating type theory and distributional semantics: A case study on adjective–noun compositions. Computational Linguistics 42.4, 703–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph & Tily, Harry J.. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bürkner, Paul-Christian. 2018. Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. The R Journal 10.1, 395–411. doi:10.32614/RJ-2018-017.CrossRefGoogle 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 Linguistic Society, vol. 31, 73–91. Berkeley,CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2013. Syntactic identity in sluicing: How much and why. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray S.. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Shieber, Stuart & Pereira, Fernando. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14.4, 399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). https://www.english-corpora.org/coca (accessed 1 August 2022).Google Scholar
Dubey, Amit, Sturt, Patrick & Keller, Frank. 2005. Parallelism in coordination as an instance of syntactic priming: Evidence from corpus-based modeling. In Mooney, Raymond, Brew, chris, Chien, Lee-Feng, & Kirchhoff, Katrin (eds.), Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 827–834. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 2013. A recycling approach to processing ellipsis. In Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Corver, Norbert (eds.), Diagnosing syntax, 485–501. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Munn, Alan & Clifton, Charles Jr. 2000. Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29, 343–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gengel, Kirsten. 2013. Pseudogapping and ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Miller, Philip. 2019. Ellipsis in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. In van Craenenbroek, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 75–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Grant, Margaret, Clifton, Charles & Frazier, Lyn. 2012. The role of non-actuality implicatures in processing elided constituents. Journal of Memory and Language 66, 326–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2006. Pseudogapping: Its syntactic analysis and cumulative effects on acceptability. Research on Language and Computation 4, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2019. Ellipsis in categorial grammar. In van Craenenbroek, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 122–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 1990. Incomplete VP deletion and gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20, 136–155.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kertz, Laura. 2013. Verb phrase ellipsis: The view from information structure. Language 89, 390–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Christina S., Kobele, Gregory M., Runner, Jeffrey T. & Hale, John T.. 2011. The acceptability cline in VP ellipsis. Syntax 14, 318–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Christina S. & Runner, Jeffrey T.. 2018. The division of labor in explanations of Verb Phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 41, 41–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke & Levine, Robert. 2017. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 48.2, 212–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1981. The syntax of comparative clauses. In Hendrick, Roberta, Masek, Carrie & Miller, Mary (eds.), Papers from the seventeenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 161–175. Chicago, IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Pseudogapping puzzles. In Lappin, Shalom & Benmamoun, Elabbas (eds.), Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping, 141–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Nancy. 1986. Main verb ellipsis in spoken English (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Lewis, Mike & Steedman, Mark. 2013. Combined distributional and logical semantics. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 1, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Mikkelsen, Line, Hardt, Daniel & Ørsnes, Bjarne. 2012. Orphans hosted by VP anaphora. In Choi, Jaehoon (ed.), Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 178–186. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip. 1990. Pseudogapping and Do so substitution. In Papers from the 26th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 293–305. Chicago, IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip. 2014a. A corpus study of pseudogapping and its theoretical consequences. In Piñón, Christopher (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, vol. 10, 73–90. www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss10/eiss10.pdf (accessed 1 August 2022).Google Scholar
Miller, Philip. 2014b. Les compléments orphelins dans les ellipses et anaphores verbales en anglais. In Girard, Geneviève (ed.), Autour du verbe anglais, 45–57. Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2014. Exophoric VP ellipsis. In Hofmeister, Philip & Norcliffe, Elisabeth (eds.), The core and the periphery: Data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by Ivan A. Sag, 5–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna & Hawkins, John A.. 2020. English fragments, minimize domains, and minimize forms. Language and Cognition 12.3, 411–443. doi:10.1017/langcog.2020.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2021. Fragments and structural identity on a direct interpretation approach. Journal of Linguistics 123, 74–117.Google Scholar
Poppels, Till. 2020. Towards a referential theory of ellipsis. Dissertation, UC San Diego.Google Scholar
Poppels, Till & Kehler, Andrew. 2019. Reconsidering asymmetries in voice-mismatched VP-ellipsis. Glossa 4.1, art. 60. doi:10.5334/gjgl.738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudin, Deniz. 2019. Head-based syntactic identity in sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 50, 253–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SanPietro, Steve, Xiang, Ming & Merchant, Jason. 2012. Accounting for voice mismatch in ellipsis. In Arnett, Nathan & Bennett, Ryan (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 303–312. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 1977. Pseudogapping. Ms., Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
Thoms, Gary. 2016. Pseudogapping, parallelism, and the syntax of focus. Syntax 19, 286–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Craenenbroek, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja. 2019. The Oxford handbook of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar