Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 187–223 | Cite as

Scopability and sluicing

  • Chris BarkerEmail author
Research Article


This paper analyzes sluicing as anaphora to an anti-constituent (a continuation), that is, to the semantic remnant of a clause from which a subconstituent has been removed. For instance, in Mary said that [John saw someone yesterday], but she didn’t say who, the antecedent clause is John saw someone yesterday, the subconstituent targeted for removal is someone, and the ellipsis site following who is anaphoric to the scope remnant John saw ___ yesterday. I provide a compositional syntax and semantics on which the relationship between the targeted subconstituent and the rest of the antecedent clause is one of scopability, not movement or binding. This correctly predicts that sluicing should be sensitive to scope islands, but not to syntactic islands. Unlike the currently dominant approaches to sluicing, there is no need to posit syntactic structure internal to the ellipsis site, nor is there any need for a semantic mutual-entailment requirement. Nevertheless, the fragment handles phenomena usually taken to suggest a close syntactic correspondence between the antecedent and the sluice, including case matching, voice matching, and verbal argument structure matching. In addition, the analysis handles phenomena exhibiting antecedent/sluice mismatches, including examples such as John remembers meeting someone, but he doesn’t remember who, Open image in new window , and especially so-called sprouting examples such as John left, but I don’t know when, in which there is no overt subconstituent to target for removal. In Sect. 5, I show how the analysis accounts for Andrews Amalgams such as Sally ate [I don’t know what] today, in which the antecedent surrounds the sluiced clause. Finally, in Sect. 6, I propose a new semantic constraint on sluicing: the Answer Ban, which says that the antecedent clause must not resolve, or even partially resolve, the issue raised by the sluiced interrogative.


Sluicing Sprouting Continuations Scopability Scope Focus Type logical grammar Anaphora Amalgams 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AnderBois, S. (2010). Sluicing as anaphora to issues. SALT, 20, 428–450.Google Scholar
  2. Baltin M. (2010) The unreality of doubly-filled COMPs. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2): 331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker C. (2002) Continuations and the nature of quantification. Natural Language Semantics 10(3): 211–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker C. (2007) Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(4): 407–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker C., Shan C.-c. (2006) Types as graphs: Continuations in type-logical grammar. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 15(4): 331–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barker C., Shan C.-c. (2008) Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding. Semantics and Pragmatics 1(1): 1–42. doi: 10.3765/sp.1.1.Google Scholar
  7. Barros, M. (2013). On sluicing and admissible inner-antecedent/Wh-correlate pairs. Ms., Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  8. Büring D. (2004) Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12(1): 23–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chung, S. (2006). Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. In R. Cover & Y. Kim (Eds.), BLS 31 (pp. 73–91). Berkeley, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  10. Chung S. (2013) Syntactic identity in sluicing: How much, and why. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1): 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chung S., Ladusaw W. A., McCloskey J. (1995) Sluicing and LF. Natural Language Semantics 3: 239–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chung, S., Ladusaw, W. A., & McCloskey, J. (2011). Sluicing(:) between structure and inference. Ms.
  13. Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Information, issues, and attention. SALT. (A revised version is available on-line.)Google Scholar
  14. Dalrymple, M., Shieber, S. M., & Pereira, F. C. N. (1991). Ellipsis and higher order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(4), 399–452.Google Scholar
  15. Dayal, V., & Schwarzschild, R. (2010). Definite inner antecedents and Wh-correlates in sluices. In P. Starverov, D. Altshuler, A. Braver, C. Fasola, & S. Murray (Eds.), Rutgers working papers in linguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 92–114). New Brunswick, NJ: LGSA.Google Scholar
  16. Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. In J. M. Larrazabal & L. Zubeldia (Eds.), Meaning, content and argument, Proceedings of the ILCLI international workshop on semantics, pragmatics and rhetoric (pp. 41–72). Leioa: University of the Basque Country Publication Service.Google Scholar
  17. Jäger G. (2001) Indefinites and sluicing. Colloquium, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. Jäger, G. (2005). Anaphora in TLG. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, K. (2012). Recoverability of deletion. In K. Nasukawa & H. C. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Identity relations in grammar. Studies in generative grammar series. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Kennedy C., Stanley J. (2009) On ‘average’. Mind 118: 583–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kluck M. (2011) Sentence amalgamation. Landelijke Onderzoeckschool Taalwetenschap, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  22. Kubota, Y., & Levine, R. (2013). Against ellipsis: Arguments for the direct licensing of non-canonical coordinations. Ms., University of Tokyo, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  23. Lakoff, G. (1974). Syntactic amalgams. In M. Galy, R. Fox, & A. Bruck (Eds.), Papers from the 10th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 321–344). Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
  24. Larson, B. (2012). Swiping and decomposed merge. UMD manuscript.Google Scholar
  25. Mascarenhas, S. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and logic. MSc in logic thesis. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
  26. Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  27. Merchant, J. (2002). Swiping in Germanic. In C. J.-W. Zwart & W. Abraham (Eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax (pp. 295–321). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. Merchant J. (2013) Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1): 77–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moortgat, M. (1997). Categorial type logics. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language. Amsterdam/Cambridge, MA: Elsevier/MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Morrill, G., Valentın, O., & Fadda, M. (2011). The displacement calculus. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20(1), 1–48.Google Scholar
  31. Potsdam E. (2007) Malagasy sluicing and its consequences for the identity requirement on ellipsis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 577–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Romero, M. (1998). Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  33. Rooth, M. (1992). Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In S. Berman & A. Hestvik (Eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart ellipsis workshop, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  34. Ross, J. R. (1969). Guess who? In R. I. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M. Green, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Papers from the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 252–286). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. (Reprinted from Sluicing: Cross-linguistic perspectives, by J. Merchant & A. Simpson, Eds., pp. 14–39, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schwarzschild R. (1999) GIVENness, avoid F and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2): 141–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shan C.-c., Barker C. (2006) Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(1): 91–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Szabolcsi, A. (1997). Quantifiers in pair-list readings. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of scope taking (pp. 311–347). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  38. Szabolcsi, A. (2010). Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Szabolcsi, A. (2012). Compositionality without word boundaries: (The) more and (the) most. In A. Chereches (Ed.), Proceedings of the 22nd semantics and linguistic theory conference (pp. 1–25). Ithaca, NY: CLC.Google Scholar
  40. Tancredi, C. (1992). Deletion, deaccenting and presupposition. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations