Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pseudogapping: its syntactic analysis and cumulative effects on its acceptability

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research on Language and Computation

Abstract

Pseudogapping is often treated as a combination of movement and ellipsis in current generative work. After reviewing a number of arguments against this type of analysis, I argue for an interpretive approach to pseudogapping, following Miller (1990). On the basis of corpus data and informant judgments, I then proceed to outline two factors, syntactic context and remnant type, which affect the acceptability of pseudogapping. The effects of the two factors are gradient and cumulative, in the sense of Keller (2000).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bach E. (1979). Control in montague grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(4): 515–531

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach E. (1980). In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3: 297–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltin, M. (2000). Implications of pseudogapping for binding and the representation of information structure. Online MS.

  • Bard E.G., Robertson D., Sorace A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1): 32–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1955). The logical structure of lingustic theory. New York, Plenum Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In: Anderson S.R., Kiparsky P. (eds). A festschrift for morris halle. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 232–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowart W. (1997). Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgements. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Culicover P., Jackendoff R.S. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hoop, H. (1992). Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen. Published 1996 by Garland Press, New York.

  • Hendriks, P. (1995). Comparatives and categorial grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen.

  • Hoeksema J. (1991). Complex predicates and liberation in Dutch and English. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14: 661–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg A. (1999). Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization. Studia Linguistica, 53: 1–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, P. (1987). Phrase structure, grammatical relations and discontinuous constituents. In G. Huck, & A. Ojeda (Eds.), Discontinuous constituency, Vol. 20 of Syntax and semantics. New York: Academic Press.

  • Jayaseelan K.A. (1990). Incomplete VP deletion and gapping. Linguistic Analysis, 20: 64–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson K. (2001). What VP ellipsis can do, what it can’t, but not why. In: Baltin M., Collins C. (eds). The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, pp. 439–479

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehler A. (2000). Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistic and Philosophy, 23: 533–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. P.h.D thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland

  • Kuno, S. (1981). The syntax of comparative clauses. In Proc. of CLS 17, Chicago, pp. 136–155.

  • Lasnik, H. (1995). A note on pseudogapping. In Proc. MITWPL 27, Cambridge, MA. pp. 143–163.

  • Lasnik, H. (1999). Pseudogapping puzzles. In S. Lappin, & E. Benmamoun (Eds.), Framents: Studies in ellipsis and gapping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Levin N. (1980). Main verb ellipsis in spoken english. In: Zwicky A.M. (eds). Clitics and ellipsis. Columbus, The Ohio State University, pp. 65–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant J. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, Islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant J. (2004). Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(6): 661–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. (1990). Pseudogapping and do so substitution. In Proc. CLS 26, Chicago, pp. 293–305.

  • Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, MIT. Published under the title Infinite Syntax! by Ablex, Norwood (1986).

  • Sorace A., Keller F. (2005). Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua, 115(11): 1497–1524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi, S. (2004). Pseudogapping and cyclic linearization. In Proc. NELS 34, GLSA Publications: Amherst, MA. pp. 571–585.

  • Visser F.T. (1963). A historical syntax of the English language (Vol. Part one: Syntactical units with one verb). Leiden, E J Brill

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoerner E., Agbayani B. (2002). A pseudogapping asymmetry. Snippets, 5: 18–19

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dutch Language and Culture, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Jack Hoeksema

Authors
  1. Jack Hoeksema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jack Hoeksema.

About this article

Cite this article

Hoeksema, J. Pseudogapping: its syntactic analysis and cumulative effects on its acceptability. Research Language Computation 4, 335–352 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-9023-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-9023-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation