Variable island repair under ellipsis

Merchant, Jason

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511487033.006

Cited by 201 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The grammar and processing of ellipsis has been of interest for a considerable time (Sag 1976; Williams 1977; Grinder & Postal 1971; Murphy 1985; Garnham & Oakhill 1987; Garnham et al 1998; Tanenhaus & Carlson 1990; Dalrymple, Sheiber & Pereira 1991; Reinhart 1991; Rooth 1992; Hardt 1993; Fiengo & May 1994; Lobeck 1995; Mauner, Tanenhaus & Carlson 1995; Johnson 1996; Merchant 2001, 2004, 2008a,b; Carlson 2002; Martin & McElree 2008). In the present paper, we explore both syntactic and discourse constraints on ellipsis.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Imperfect Ellipsis: Antecedents beyond Syntax?

Clifton¹,

Frazier

2010

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ellipsis is subject to both syntactic conditions and discourse conditions. Here we explore the discourse condition that favors antecedents that are part of the main assertion of an utterance. We argue that the main assertion tendency is best captured in the processor, not the grammar. Two experiments test verb phrase ellipsis examples with antecedents in a conditional. One suggests that, because of the main assertion tendency, a reader considers full conditional antecedents and not just verb phrase antecedents. However, when the antecedent of the conditional expresses already given information and essentially becomes redundant, fewer full conditional antecedents are chosen for the verb phrase ellipsis, as if the consequent clause has become the assertion of the conditional sentence with the if-clause essentially cancelling out. The second experiment explores examples where a modal is added inside the if-clause, rendering the conditional counterfactual. As in other examples of flawed or imperfect ellipsis, the non-actuality entailment/implicature improves the acceptability of such examples.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Imperfect Ellipsis: Antecedents beyond Syntax?

Clifton¹,

Frazier

2010

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These parsing preferences reflect certain leading ideas in the literature. MaxElide was first proposed by Merchant (2008b) (first circulated in 2001) and has been expanded on by Takahashi & Fox (2005). Our specific interpretation of it entails that deletion above the voice head is to be expected, even though deletion at lower points is also possible.…”

Section: The Proposalmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Acceptability Cline in VP Ellipsis

Kim

Kobele

Runner

et al. 2011

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper lays the foundations for a processing model of relative acceptability levels in verb phrase ellipsis (VPE). In the proposed model, mismatching VPE examples are grammatical but less acceptable because they violate heuristic parsing strategies. This analysis is presented in a Minimalist Grammar formalism that is compatible with standard parsing techniques. The overall proposal integrates computational assumptions about parsing with a psycholinguistic linking hypothesis. These parts work together with the syntactic analysis to derive novel predictions that are confirmed in a controlled experiment.

show abstract

“…With the derivational difference between the two types of wh-phrases in conjunction with his feature-checking mechanism based on Merchant (2001), he argues that sluicing targets IP when the wh-phrase is simple, while it elides the lower CP 2 -layer if it is complex. The author convincingly demonstrates how the difference at stake can naturally yield particular patterns of two subtypes of sluicing, viz, swiping (Merchant (2002)) and spading (van Craenenbroeck (2010)) in German-ic. For example, the contrast in (2) shows that the simple wh-phrase who can enter into swiping while the complex wh-phrase which person cannot.…”

Section: The Articles' Theoretical/empirical Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Nakamura adopts the currently widespread view on (strong) islands and sluicing (Lasnik (2001), Fox and Lasnik (2003), Merchant (2008) inter alia. ): A-bar movement per se can take place out of such domains in NS, leaving behind illicit traces/copies marked by * between the head of the whchain and the islands, but such *-marked traces/copies are deleted at PF by sluicing, with resulting well-formedness.…”

Section: Some Theoretical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

<i>Sluicing: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives</i>

Hoshi

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

* I am very grateful to two anonymous EL reviewers for valuable and constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper, which led to significant improvements in them. I also wish to express my gratitude to Alexander Grosu for providing me with helpful suggestions for the content and style of earlier versions of the paper. Needless to say, I am solely responsible for any remaining inadequacies.

show abstract

Variable island repair under ellipsis

Cited by 201 publications

References 97 publications

Imperfect Ellipsis: Antecedents beyond Syntax?

Imperfect Ellipsis: Antecedents beyond Syntax?

The Acceptability Cline in VP Ellipsis

<i>Sluicing: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives</i>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About