Abstract
In this paper, we will argue that, of the various grammatical and discourse constraints that affect acceptability in verb phrase ellipsis (VPE), only the structural parallelism constraint is unique to VPE. We outline (previously noted) systematic problems that arise for classical structural accounts of VPE resolution, and discuss efforts in recent research on VPE to reduce explanations of acceptability in VPE to general well-formedness constraints at the level of information structure (e.g. Kehler in Linguist Philos 23(6):533–575, 2000; Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 2002; Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory, vol 25, 2015; Kertz in Language 89(3):390–428, 2013). In two magnitude estimation experiments, we show that—in line with Kehler’s predictions—degradation due to structural mismatch is modulated by coherence relation. On the other hand, we consistently find residual structural mismatch effects, suggesting that the interpretation of VPE is sensitive to structural features of the VPE antecedent. We propose that a structural constraint licenses VPE, but that sentences violating this constraint can nevertheless be interpreted. The variability in acceptability is accounted for not by additional constraints on VPE in the grammar, but by the numerous general biases that affect sentence and discourse well-formedness, such as information structural constraints (as proposed by Kertz 2013), discourse coherence relations (Kehler 2000), sensitivity to Question Under Discussion structure (e.g. Ginzburg and Sag in English interrogative constructions, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 2000; Kehler 2015), and thematic role bias at the lexical level (e.g. McRae et al. in J Mem Lang 38:283–312, 1998). We test the prediction that thematic role bias (Experiment 3) and QUD structure (Experiment 4) will influence both elliptical and non-elliptical sentences alike, while structural mismatch continues to degrade elliptical sentences alone. Our proposal differs from existing proposals in cutting the explanatory pie in a different way with respect to how variations in acceptability are accounted for. We suggest that degradation can result from at least two distinct and separable sources: violating construction-specific grammatical constraints, or from complexity differences in interpretation related to very general discourse level information.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arregui, A., Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Moulton, K. (2006). Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 232–246.
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32–68.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.
Birner, B. J., & Ward, G. (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177–192.
Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.
Bonatti, L. (2008). PsyScope X, Build 53. PsyScope X Project. SISSA Language, Cognition and Development Lab. http://psy.ck.sissa.it/.
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13–B25.
Büring, D. (2003). On d-trees, beans, and b-accents. Linguistics & Philosophy, 26(5), 511–545.
Büring, D. (2005). Binding theory. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cai, Z. G., Pickering, M. J., & Sturt, P. (2012). Processing verb-phrase ellipsis in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence against the syntactic account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(6), 810–828.
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.
Dalrymple, M., Shieber, S. M., & Pereira, F. C. N. (1991). Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 399–452.
den Dikken, M. (2006). Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fiengo, R., & May, R. (1994). Indices and identity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fine, A. B., Kim, C. S., & Runner, J. T. (2009). The role of inflectional entropy in VP ellipsis resolution. Poster presented at CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. UC Davis.
Francom, J. C. (2009). Experimental syntax: Exploring the effect of repeated exposure to anomalous syntactic structure—Evidence from rating and reading tasks, Ph.D. thesis. University of Arizona.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2005). The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax, 8(2), 121–174.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2006). Ellipsis and discourse coherence. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 319–346.
Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (1987). Interpreting elliptical verb phrases. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 39(4), 611–627.
Ginzburg, J. (2012). The interactive stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. (2000). English interrogative constructions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Grant, M, Jr., Charles, C., & Frazier, L. (2012). The role of non-actuality implicatures in processing elided constituents. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 326–343.
Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399.
Hankamer, J., & Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–428.
Hardt, D. (1993). Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing, Ph.D. thesis. University of Pennsylvania.
Hardt, D. (1999). Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 187–221.
Hardt, D., & Romero, M. (2004). Ellipsis and the structure of discourse. Journal of Semantics, 21(4), 375–414.
Hendriks, P. (2004). Coherence relations, ellipsis, and contrastive topics. Journal of Semantics, 21(2), 133–153.
Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86(2), 366–415.
Hofmeister, P., Arnon, I., Jaeger, T. F., Sag, I. A., & Snider, N. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1), 48–87.
Jacobson, P. (2014). Silent linguistic material: An urban legend? In Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago.
Johnson, K. (2001). What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 439–479). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaschak, M. P. (2007). Long-term structural priming affects subsequent patterns of language production. Memory and Cognition, 35, 925–937.
Katz, J. J., & Postal, P. (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kehler, A. (2000). Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23(6), 533–575.
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Kehler, A. (2015). On QUD-based licensing of strict and sloppy ambiguities. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (Vol. 25).
Kennedy, C. (2003). Ellipsis and syntactic representation. In The syntax-semantics interface: Interpreting (omitted) structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kennedy, C., & Merchant, J. (2000). Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18(1), 89–146.
Kertz, L. (2008). Focus structure and acceptability in verb phrase ellipsis. In Proceedings of the West Coast conference on formal linguistics (Vol. 27, pp. 283–291). Los Angeles.
Kertz, L. (2010). Ellipsis revisited, Ph.D. thesis. UCSD.
Kertz, L. (2013). Verb phrase ellipsis: The view from information structure. Language, 89(3), 390–428.
Kim, C., Kobele, G., Runner, J., & Hale, J. (2011). The acceptability cline in verb phrase ellipsis. Syntax, 14(4), 318–354.
Kobele, G., Kim, C., Hale, J., & Runner, J. (2008). A processing model of ungrammatical VP ellipsis. In Talk presented at 21st CUNY conference on human sentence processing. Chapel Hill.
Lasnik, H. (1995). Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the minimalist program. In H. Campos & P. Kempchinsky (Eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory: Essays in Honor of Carlos Otero (pp. 251–275). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Lau, J. H., Clark, A., & Lappin, S. (2014). Measuring gradience in speakers’ grammaticality judgements. In 36th Annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 821–826). Quebec City.
Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2008). A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 879–906.
Mauner, G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1995). A note on parallelism effects in processing deep and surface verb-phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 1–12.
McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Tanenhaus, M. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312.
Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merchant, J. (2008). Variable island repair under ellipsis. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Topics in ellipsis (pp. 132–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Merchant, J. (2013). Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(1), 77–108.
Miller, P., & Pullum, G. K. (2013). Exophoric VP ellipsis. In P. Hofmeister & E. Norcliffe (Eds.), The core and the periphery: Data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by Ivan A. Sag (pp. 5–32). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Miltsakaki, E. (2002). Toward an aposynthesis of topic continuity and intrasentential anaphora. Computational Linguistics, 28(3), 319–355.
Phillips, C. (2012). On the nature of island constraints I: Language processing and reductionist accounts. In J. Sprouse & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Experimental syntax and island effects (pp. 64–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, C., & Parker, D. (2014). The psycholinguistics of ellipsis. Lingua, 151, 78–95.
Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. (2008). The Penn discourse treebank 2.0. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on language resources and evaluation. Marrakech.
Roberts, C. (1996). Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), OSU working papers in linguistics (Vol. 49, pp. 91–136). Columbus: The OSU Department of Linguistics.
Rohde, H., & Kehler, A. (2009). QUD-driven expectations in discourse interpretation. In 83rd annual meeting of the linguistics society of America, San Francisco, CA.
Rohde, H., Levy, R., & Kehler, A. (2011). Anticipating explanations in relative clause processing. Cognition, 118(3), 339–358.
Rooth, M. (1992). Proceedings of the Stuttgart workshop on ellipsis, volume 29 of Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, chapter Reduction redundancy and ellipsis redundancy. University of Stuttgart.
Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and logical form, Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Sag, I., & Hankamer, J. (1984). Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, 325–345.
Schütze, C. T., & Sprouse, J. (2014). Chapter 3: Judgment data. In D. Sharma & R. Podesva (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shieber, S. M., Pereira, F., & Dalrymple, M. (1996). Interactions of scope and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 527–552.
Sprouse, J. (2011). A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments. Language, 87(2), 274–288.
Takahashi, S., & Fox, D. (2005). MaxElide and the re-binding problem. In E. Georgala & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 15 (pp. 223–240). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Tanenhaus, M., & Carlson, G. (1990). Comprehension of deep and surface verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processess, 5, 257–280.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Trueswell, J. C., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.
Vallduví, E. (1992). The informational component. New York: Garland.
Webber, B. L. (1978). A formal approach to discourse anaphora. Technical Report 3761. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Berenek and Newman.
Wescott, T., & Fanselow, G. (2011). On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87(2), 249–273.
Williams, E. (1977). Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 101–139.
Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 203–238.
Winkler, S. (2000). Silent copy and polarity focus in VP ellipsis. In K. Schwabe & N. Zhang (Eds.), Ellipsis in coordination (pp. 221–247). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, C.S., Runner, J.T. The division of labor in explanations of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguist and Philos 41, 41–85 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-017-9220-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-017-9220-0