Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 261–307

Linearization-based word-part ellipsis

Research Article


This paper addresses a phenomenon in which certain word-parts can be omitted. The evidence shows that the full range of data cannot be captured by a sublexical analysis, since the phenomena can be observed both in phrasal and in lexical environments. It is argued that a form of deletion is involved, and that the phenomena—lexical or otherwise—are subject to the same phonological, semantic, and syntactic constraints. In the formalization that is proposed, all of the above constraints are cast in a parallel and declarative fashion, in the framework of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Pollard and Sag Head-driven phrase structure grammar, 1994), since the various levels of linguistic description are locally and simultaneously available. Building on recent accounts of ellipsis, this paper proposes a unified and general account of word-part ellipsis and phrasal ellipsis.


Coordination Ellipsis Constraint-based grammar 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbott B. (1976) Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 639–642Google Scholar
  2. Alsina, A. (1990). Predicate composition: A theory of syntactic function alternations. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson S. (1992) A-morphous morphology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Artstein, R. (2002). Coordination of word parts: A surface level account. In G. Katz, S. Reinhard, & P. Reuter (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik (pp. 1–15). University of Osnabrück.Google Scholar
  5. Artstein R. (2005) Coordination of parts of words. Lingua 115(4): 359–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashby W. (1977) Clitic inflection in French: An historical perspective. Rodopi, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, L. (1998). When is a sequence of two nouns a compound in English? English Language Linguistics, 2, 65–86.Google Scholar
  8. Beavers, J., & Sag, I. A. (2004). Ellipsis and apparent non-constituent coordination. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (pp. 48–69). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  9. Booij G. (1985) Coordination reduction in complex words: A case for prosodic phonology. In: van der Hulst H., Smith N. (eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology, Vol. 7 of linguistic models. Foris, Dordrecht, pp 143–160Google Scholar
  10. Booij G.E. (2005) Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. In: Dressler W.U., Kastovsky D., Pfeiffer O.E., Rainer F. (eds) Morphology and its demarcations, Number 264 in current issues in linguistic theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp 109–132Google Scholar
  11. Bresnan J. (1974) On the position of certain clause-particles in phrase structure. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 614–619Google Scholar
  12. Bresnan J., Mchombo S.A. (1995) The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13: 181–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chaves, R. P. (2007). Coordinate structures—Constraint-based syntax-semantics processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lisbon.Google Scholar
  14. Chaves, R. P., & Sag, I. A. (2007). Two kinds of ellipsis in English coordinate structures. Under review for journal publication.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky N. (1970) Remarks on nominalization. In: Jacobs A., Rosenbaum P. (eds) Readings in transformational grammar. Ginn and Co, Waltham (MA), pp 184–221Google Scholar
  16. Copestake A., Flickinger D., Sag I.A., Pollard C. (2006) Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Journal Research on Language & Computation 3(4): 281–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crysmann, B. (2002). Constraint-based coanalysis—Portuguese cliticisation and morphology-syntax interaction in HPSG. PhD Thesis, Saarland University.Google Scholar
  18. Crysmann, B. (2003). An asymmetric theory of peripheral sharing in HPSG. In G. Jäger, P. Monachesi, G. Penn, & S. Wintner (Eds.), Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2003 (pp. 47–62). Vienna, Austria: ESSLLI 2003.Google Scholar
  19. Di Sciullo A.M., Williams E. (1987) On the definition of word. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Donohue, C., & Sag, I. A. (1999). Domains in Warlpiri. In Sixth International Conference on HPSGAbstract (pp. 101–106). University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  21. Dowty D.R. (1988) Type-raising, functional composition, and nonconstituent coordination. In: Richard Oehrle E.B., Wheeler D. (eds) Categorial grammars and natural language structures. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 153–198Google Scholar
  22. Féry C., Hartmann K. (2005) The focus and prosodic structures of German gapping and right node raising. The Linguistic Review 22: 69–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gleitman L.R. (1965) Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41: 260–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodall G. (1987) Parallel structures in syntax: Coordination, causatives, and restructuring. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Grevisse, M. (1986 [1936]). Le Bon usage. Gembloux: Duculot. Revised by André Goosse.Google Scholar
  26. Gundel, J. (2003). Information structure and referential givenness/newness: How much belongs in the grammar? In S. Mü ller (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG-2003 Conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing (pp. 122–142). Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://cslipublications.
  27. Haji-Abdolhosseini, M. (2003). A constraint-based approach to information structure and prosody correspondence. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG-2003 Conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing (pp. 143–162). Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://cslipublications.
  28. Hankamer J. (1973) Unacceptable ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 17–28Google Scholar
  29. Hartmann K. (2000) Right node raising and gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. John Benjamins, Philadelphia/AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Hayes B. (1989) The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In: Kiparsky P., Youmans G. (eds) Rythm and meter. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 201–260Google Scholar
  31. Höhle T. (1991) On reconstruction and coordination. In: Haider H., Netter K. (eds) Representation and derivation in the theory of grammar, studies in natural language and linguistic theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 139–197Google Scholar
  32. Hopper, P. J., & Traugott E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Horn L. (2002) Ellipsis and discourse coherence. Sophia Linguistica 49: 1–64Google Scholar
  34. Horn L. et al (2005) An un-paper for the unsyntactician. In: Ufwene S.M. (eds) Polymorphous linguistics: Jim McCawley’s legacy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 329–365Google Scholar
  35. Huddleston R.D., Payne J., Peterson P. (2002) Coordination and supplementation. In: Huddleston R.D., Pullum G. K. (eds) The Cambridge grammar of the English language, Chap 15. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1273–1362Google Scholar
  36. Hudson R. (1976) Conjunction reduction, gapping, and right-node-raising. Language 52: 535–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ingria, R. J. P. (1990). The limits of unification. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 194–204). Morristown, NJ, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  38. Inkelas S., Zec D. (1990) Prosodically constrained syntax. In: Inkelas S., Zec D. (eds) The phonology-syntax connection. University of Chicago Press, Stanford: CSLI & Chicago, Cambridge, pp 365–378Google Scholar
  39. Jackendoff R. (1977) X-Syntax: A study of phrase structure. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Johannessen J. (1998) Coordination. Oxford University Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  41. Kathol, A. (1995). Linearization-based German syntax. PhD Thesis, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  42. Kathol A. (2000) Linear syntax. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Kayne R. (1994) The antisymmetry of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  44. Koenig J.-P. (1999) Lexical relations. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Krieger H.-U., Nerbonne J. (1993) Feature-based inheritance networks for computational lexicons. In: Briscoe T., Paiva V., Copestake A. (eds) Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 90–136Google Scholar
  46. Kuhn, J. (1996). An underspecified HPSG representation for information structure. In J. Tsuji (Ed.), Proceedings of Coling-96. 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING96). Copenhagen, Denmark, August 5–9, 1996 (pp. 670–675). Association for Computational Linguistics, Somerst, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  47. Lapointe, S. (1997). A lexical analysis of the English auxiliary verb system. In GLOT (pp. 2, 215–254).Google Scholar
  48. Levine R. (1985) Right node (non-)raising. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 492–497Google Scholar
  49. Levine R.D. (2001) The extraction riddle: Just what are we missing?. Journal of Linguistics 37: 145–174Google Scholar
  50. McCawley J.D. (1987) Some additional evidence for discontinuity. In: Huck G.J., Ojeda A.E. (eds) Syntax and semantics 20: Discontinuous constituency. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp 185–200Google Scholar
  51. McCawley J.D. (1988) The syntactic phenomena of English (2 ed). University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  52. Milward, D. (1990). Coordination in an axiomatic grammar. In COLING, (pp. 207–212). August 20–25, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  53. Müller W. (1990) Die real existierenden grammatischen Ellipsen und die Norm. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Sprachwissenschaft 15: 241–366Google Scholar
  54. Neijt A. (1979) Gapping. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  55. Nespor M. (1985) The phonological word in Italian. In: van der Hulst H., Smith N. (eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, pp 193–204Google Scholar
  56. Nespor M., Vogel I. (1986) Prosodic phonology. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  57. Nunberg G., Wasow T., Sag I.A. (1994) Idioms. Language 70(3): 491–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Orgun, C. O. (1996). Sign-based morphology and phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  59. Pollard C., Sag I.A. (1987) Information-based syntax and semantics; volume one fundamentals. CSLI Lecture Notes No. 13. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  60. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  61. Pollard, C. J., Kasper, R. T., & Levine, R. D. (1994). Studies in constituent ordering: Toward a theory of linearization. In Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Research Proposal to the National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  62. Postal P.M. (1974) On raising. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  63. Postal P.M. (1994) Parasitic and pseudoparasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 63–117Google Scholar
  64. Postal P.M. (1998) Three investigations of extraction. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  65. Pullum G.K., Zwicky A.M. (1986) Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 72: 751–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman, HarcourtGoogle Scholar
  67. Reape M. (1994) Domain union and word order variation in German. In: Nerbonne J., Netter K., Pollard C. J. (eds) German in head-driven phrase structure grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes, number 46. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 151–197Google Scholar
  68. Reinhard, S. (2001). Deverbale Komposita an der Morphologie-Syntax-Semantik-Schnittstelle: ein HPSG-Ansatz. Philosophische dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  69. Riehemann S.Z. (1998) Type-based derivational morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 49–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Published in 1986 as Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.)Google Scholar
  71. Ross J.R. (1970) Gapping and the order of constituents. In: Bierwisch M., Heidolph K. (eds) Progress in linguistics. Mouton, The Hague, pp 249–259Google Scholar
  72. Sabbagh J. (2007) Ordering and linearizing rightward movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(2): 349–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sag, I. A. (1976). Deletion and logical form. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published in 1980 by New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
  74. Sag I.A., Wasow T., Bender E.M. (2003) Syntactic theory A formal introduction (2nd ed). CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  75. Selkirk E. (1986) On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405Google Scholar
  76. Selkirk E.O. (1982) The syntax of words. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  77. Siegel, D. (1974). Topics in English morphology. MIT Dissertation.Google Scholar
  78. Simpson, J. (1983). Aspects of Warlpiri morphology and syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  79. Simpson J. (1991) Warlpiri morpho-syntax: A lexicalist approach. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  80. Smith G. (2000) Word remnants and coordination. In: Thieroff R., Tamrat M., Fuhrhop N., Teuber O. (eds) Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp 57–68Google Scholar
  81. Strauss S.L. (1982) Lexicalist phonology of English and German. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  82. Suñer M. (1975) Spanish adverbs: Support for the phonological cycle?. Linguistic Inquiry 6: 602–605Google Scholar
  83. Toman J. (1985) A discussion of coordination and word-syntax. In: Jindřrich T. (eds) Studies in German grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 407–432Google Scholar
  84. Torner S. (2005) On the morphological nature of Spanish adverbs ending in -mente. Probus 17(1): 115–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Trost, H. (1993). Coping with derivation in a morphological component. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 368– 376). Utrecht.Google Scholar
  86. Vergnaud J.-R. (1974). French relative clauses, Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge MA, MITGoogle Scholar
  87. Vigário M. (2003) The prosodic word in European portuguese. Interface Explorations 6. Mouton de Gruyter, Berline, NewyorkGoogle Scholar
  88. Vigário M., Frota S. (2002) Prosodic word deletion in coordinate structures. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 1(2): 241–264Google Scholar
  89. Wesche B. (1995) Symmetric coordination. An alternative theory of phrase structure. Niemeyer Verlag, TüebingenGoogle Scholar
  90. Wexler K., Culicover P. (1980) Formal principles of language acquisition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  91. Wiese R. (1992) Prosodic phonology and its role in the processing of written language. In: Görz G. (eds) Computing meaning, Konvens 92: 1. Konferenz “Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache”. Springer, Berlin, pp 139–148Google Scholar
  92. Wiese R. (1996) The phonology of German. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  93. Wilcock G. et al (2005) Information structure and minimal recursion semantics. In: Arppa A. (eds) Inquiries into words, constraints and contexts: Festschrift for Kimmo Koskenniemi on his 60th Birthday, CSLI Studies in Computational Linguistics ONLINE. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 268–277Google Scholar
  94. Wilder C. (1997) Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. In: Alexiadou A., Hall T.A. (eds) Studies on universal grammar and typological variation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 59–107Google Scholar
  95. Yatabe, S. (2001). The syntax and semantics of left-node raising in Japanese. In D. Flickinger, & A. Kathol (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 325–344). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. HPSG/1/.
  96. Zaenen, A., & Karttunen, L. (1984). Morphological non-distinctness and coordination. In ESCOL 83 (pp. 309–320).Google Scholar
  97. Zwicky, A. M. (1986). The unaccented pronoun constraint in English. In: A. M. Zwicky (Ed.), Interfaces, volume 32 of Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics (pp. 100–114). Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics Center of the University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations