Empirical Approaches to Elliptical Constructions Class 1: Background on Ellipsis

Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Empirical Approaches to Elliptical Constructions Class 1: Background on ellipsis

Gabriela Bîlbîie1 and Anne Abeillé2 1University of Bucharest [email protected] 2Université Paris Diderot-Paris 7 [email protected] LSA 2017 Linguistic Institute 6 July 2017, University of Kentucky

1 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Main goals of the course

Go beyond the limited paradigms of data obtained through introspection, by showing how corpora and psycholinguistic experiments can be used to obtain a much ﬁner-grained perspective on the data wrt ellipsis phenomena. Focussing on elliptical constructions (especially, Gapping in English and Romance languages, Right-Node Raising in English and French, Verb Phrase Ellipsis and Pseudogapping in English), we will show that many putative empirical generalizations, on which sometimes very elaborate theoretical reasoning is based, turn out not to hold.

2 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Outline of the course

Class 1 (July 6). Background on ellipsis Overview of the state of the art on ellipsis and of the current theories (Merchant 2013, Merchant to appear, Ginzburg & Sag 2000, Culicover & Jackendoﬀ 2005) The deep and surface proposal (Hankamer & Sag 1976) Early psycholinguistic research (Tanenhaus & Carlson 1990) Class 2 (July 10). Focus on English gapping Corpus-based study on English gapping (Bîlbîie ms.) Related constructions : Stripping, Argument Cluster Coordination Class 3 (July 13). Focus on Romance gapping Corpus-based study (and experimental work) on gapping in Romance (Abeillé et al. 2014, Bîlbîie 2017, Bîlbîie & Garcia-Marchena ms.)

3 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Class 4 (July 17). Focus on Verb Phrase Ellipsis – part 1 Theoretical overview (Craenenbroek to appear) Corpus-based studies (Hardt 1993, Nielsen 2005, Bos & Spenader 2011, Miller 2011, Miller & Pullum 2014) Discourse factors (Kehler 2002, Kehler to appear) Class 5 (July 20). Focus on Verb Phrase Ellipsis – part 2 Experimental studies on VPE with mismatched antecedents (Grant et al. 2013, San Pietro et al. 2012, Kertz 2013, Miller & Hemforth ms.) Class 6 (July 24). Focus on Pseudogapping Theoretical studies (Lasnik 1999, Gengel 2013, Aelbrecht & Harwood to appear), corpus studies (Levin 1986, Hoeksema 2006, Miller 2014), experimental studies (Miller ms.)

4 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Class 7 (July 27). Focus on peripheral ellipsis (Right-Node Raising) – part 1 Diﬀerent approaches (Ross 1970, Chaves 2014) Corpus and experimental studies on French RNR (Abeillé et al. 2015, Shiraishi & Abeillé 2016) Class 8 (July 31). Focus on peripheral ellipsis (Right-Node Raising) – part 2 Corpus-based study on English RNR (Bîlbîie ms.) Syntactic and semantic constraints (Chaves 2014)

5 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Course assessment

Questionnaire to ﬁll in :

1 Mention your name(s) and aﬃliation. 2 Mention your status (Enrolled student vs. Auditor). For enrolled students : do you need a letter grade (A, B, C, D) or P/F (Pass/Fail) ? (two diﬀerent sections on Canvas : Graded Students vs. Pass/Fail Students) 3 Are you following other courses on experimental and empirical approaches (corpus linguistics, experimental syntax, etc.) ? 4 Have you ever worked on ellipsis ? If the answer is positive, mention the topic(s) of your research. 5 Mention the languages you know. 6 Mention the preference you have for the course assessment : (i) set up an acceptability experiment (via e.g. Amazon Mechanical Turk, the Ibex farm platform), (ii) do some corpus study (e.g. Penn Treebank, French Treebank) on an elliptical construction, (iii) other.

6 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Class 1 – Content

1 Introduction

2 A typology of ellipsis

3 Theories of ellipsis

4 Ellipsis and anaphora

7 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Plan

1 Introduction

2 A typology of ellipsis

3 Theories of ellipsis

4 Ellipsis and anaphora

8 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Ellipsis – a challenge for grammar

Ellipsis : a form/meaning mismatch (signiﬁcatio ex nihilo)

1 part of the material necessary for the interpretation is missing in the syntactic structure (’incomplete’ syntax) ;

2 the missing material is recovered from an antecedent in the context.

Descriptive problem : A mass of elliptical constructions, on the basis of several criteria, e.g. syntactic function of the missing material (head or dependent), syntactic context (coordination, subordination ; dialogue), ellipsis directionnality (forward vs. backward ellipsis). ⇒ Sometimes, unstable terminology. Theoretical problem : A plethora of competitive analyses, with respect to the level at which reconstruction of the missing material takes place : syntactic reconstruction vs. semantic reconstruction. ⇒ Unsolved theoretical problems.

9 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora The diﬃculty of studying ellipsis

Lack of consensus about the typology of elliptical constructions Lack of consensus about the appropriate analysis for various elliptical constructions Few naturalistic data compared to introspection judgements ; need of relevant context (a lot of linguists’ examples are judged ungrammatical for lack of proper context) ; need of relevant prosody Very few corpora annotated for ellipsis Lack of consensus about the annotation of ellipsis Need of spoken corpora (dialogues)

10 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Plan

1 Introduction

2 A typology of ellipsis

3 Theories of ellipsis

4 Ellipsis and anaphora

11 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora What’s ellipsis ?

Elliptical clause A syntactically incomplete clause combined with a complete clause which fully determines its interpretation.

Terminology : Syntactically incomplete clause = Target clause Missing material Remnants : lexically-realized elements in the elliptical clause The complete clause providing the material which is necessary for the interpretation = Source clause It contains the antecedent of the missing material. Correlates : elements in the source clause which are parallel to remnants in the target clause. Semantics : The target has a propositional content. Syntax : Is the target a clause or not ?

(1) a. Paul is taller [than Mary]. b. = Paul is taller [than Mary is]. 12 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Classifying elliptical constructions

We are interested here in elliptical clauses corresponding to some speciﬁc constructions, i.e. syntactic structures lacking the head and/or dependents, whose interpretation and, to some extent, syntax are ﬁxed by the context. Three criteria used for classifying elliptical constructions :

1 Syntactic status of the missing material : head or dependents omitted. 2 Syntactic contexts in which an elliptical construction may occur : coordination, subordination, dialogue. 3 Ellipsis directionality : the missing material precedes or follows the antecedent.

13 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Criterion 1 : Syntactic status of the missing material

Three main classes :

1 Head ellipsis : the missing material in the target corresponds to a syntactic head.

2 Dependents ellipsis : the missing material in the target corresponds to a dependent (argument or adjunct) in the clause, rather than to a head.

3 Undiﬀerentiated/Non-selective ellipsis : the missing material may correspond to either a head or a dependent in the clause.

14 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Head ellipsis

Gapping (Ross 1967, 1970) : any elliptical clause containing at least two remnants (one of them being generally - but not necessarily - the subject) and lacking at least the main verb (which is generally in non-ﬁnal position in non-head-ﬁnal languages, such as English or Romance languages). Occurs mostly in coordination (2-a) and comparative (2-b) contexts.

(2) a. John drinks scotch [and Bill borbon]. b. Robin speaks French better [than Leslie German]. (Culicover & Jackendoﬀ 2005)

(3) a. Some talked with you about politics [and others with me about music]. (Winkler 2005) b. During dinner he didn’t address his colleagues from Stuttgart [or at any time his boss], for that matter. (Winkler 2005) c.I want to try to begin to write a novel [and Mary a play]. (Ross 1970)

For gapping in English, see class 2. For gapping in Romance, see class 3.

15 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Conjunction Reduction (Jackendoﬀ 1971), also dubbed Left Peripheral Ellipsis : the missing head is not in median position (as in gapping constructions), but rather in a (left) peripheral position in non-head-ﬁnal languages, such as English (4-a). The elliptical analysis of this construction was called into question by Dowty (1988), Hudson (1988), Maxwell & Manning (1996), Steedman (2000), etc. Steedman (2000) proposed the term Argument Cluster Coordination : no ellipsis at all, but rather some unordinary coordination of two non-standard constituents in the scope of a shared predicate (4-b) ⇒ sub-clausal coordination. Regardless of the elliptical vs. non-elliptical accounts, the distinction between gapping and this construction is problematic in particular from a typological perspective (see languages with SO + SOV order or VSO + SO order).

(4) a. John went to Paris on Monday [and to Rome on Friday]. b. John went [to Paris on Monday] [and [to Rome on Friday]].

16 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Stripping (Ross 1969, Hankamer & Sag 1976), also dubbed Bare Argument Ellipsis (Wilder 1997, Culicover & Jackendoﬀ 2005), deﬁnes any elliptical clause with one remnant, often combined with an adverb such as too (5-a) or not (5-b) in English. Stripping cannot be embedded in English (6-a), unlike Romance languages (see French (6-b)).

(5) a. John drinks scotch, [and Bill too]. b. John drinks scotch, [but not Bill].

(6) a.* Jane loves to study rocks, and John says [that geography too]. (Lobeck 1995) b. Marie viendra à la fête et elle m’a dit [que Marie come.fut to the party and she me-aux told that son mari aussi]. her husband too ’Marie will come to the party and she told me that her husband will come too.’

17 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Sluicing (Ross 1969) deﬁnes any elliptical (and generally embedded) clause reduced to an interrogative phrase. The remnant interrogative clause may correspond to an argument (7-a) or an adjunct (7-b).

(7) a. John drinks something, but I don’t know [what]. b. John will go to Paris, but I don’t know [when].

There are cases where the source clause doesn’t contain an explicit correlate (8) ⇒ Sprouting. Sluiced interrogative phrases are generally embedded, but they may occur as root clauses too (9) ⇒ short questions.

(8) He drank, but I don’t know [what].

(9) A : – Someone left. B : – [Who] ?

18 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Ellipsis of dependents

Constructions involving ellipsis of dependents are all variants of Post-Auxiliary Ellipsis (PAE), cf. Sag (1976).

Verb Phrase Ellipsis (Sag 1976) : a constituent or constituent sequence immediately following an auxiliary is missing (e.g. a lexical verbe or any argument/adjunct of that verb). As noted by Hankamer (1978), Miller (2011) and Miller & Pullum (2014), VPE is a very poorly chosen term, because it is neither necessary or suﬃcient that it should involve ellipsis of a VP. ⇒ Sag’s terminological suggestion : Post-Auxiliary Ellipsis.

(10) a. John drinks scotch, [but Bill doesn’t]. b. John drinks scotch, [and Bill does too]. c. John cannot drink scotch, [but Bill can].

19 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Two diﬀerent types of VPE in English, satisfying distinct discourse requirements (cf. Miller 2011, 2014, Miller & Pullum 2014) :

1 Auxiliary-Choice (11-a) : the subject of the antecedent is identical with the subject of the target clause and the auxiliary is (at least weakly) stressed, signaling a new choice of tense, aspect, modality, or (the most frequent) polarity. ⇒ ’Auxiliary focus’ (cf. Kertz 2008)

2 Subject-Choice (11-b) : the subject of the antecedent is distinct from the subject of the target clause, and stressed if it is a pronoun. ⇒ ’Argument/subject focus’ (cf. Kertz 2008)

(11) a. A : He shops in women’s. B : No, he dóesn’t. b. She shops in women’s and he does too.

20 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

According to Goldberg (2005), VPE (deﬁned as PAE) is a rare phenomenon cross-linguistically. It is absent in Romance languages (Lobeck 1995), except Portuguese (Cyrino & Matos 2002, Martins 2005).

(12)A Ana já tinja lido o livro à irmã mas a def Ana already had read def book to.the sister but def Paula nõ tinha. (Cyrino & Matos 2002) Paula not had ’Ana had already read the book to her sister but Paula had not.’

A phenomenon which is related to VPE is, according to Goldberg (2005), Verb-Stranding VPE in languages such as Portuguese (13), Hebrew, Irish, Swahili, etc. : the elliptical clause is reduced to the main verb (which is not necessarily an auxiliary).

(13)A: – O Kim pegou o livro ? B: – Pegou. A: – def Kim took.3sg def book B: – took.3sg ’A : – Did Kim take the book ? B : – Yes, he did.’ 21 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Null Complement Ellipsis, dubbed Null Complement Anaphora by Hankamer & Sag 1976, deﬁnes any elliptical clause lacking the complement of a modal (can), aspectual verb (start, stop, continue, ﬁnish), attitude verb, etc. It is licensed by a particular group of predicates, determined lexically, but no natural class has been found yet (Depiante 2017).

(14) a. I asked Bill to leave, but [he refused]. b. John could have come, [but Mary disapproved].

If Post-Auxiliary Ellipsis is banned in most Romance languages (Lobeck 1995), ’post-modal’ ellipsis is acceptable in all Romance languages (Dagnac 2008, 2010) : see the contrast in (15-a)–(15-b) for French.

(15) a. *Tom a vu Lee mais Marie n’a pas. (Dagnac 2010) ’Tom saw lee, but Marie didn’t.’ b. Tom a pu voir Lee, mais Marie n’a pas pu. ’Tom could see Lee, but Marie couldn’t.’

22 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Antecedent Contained Ellipsis (Bouton 1970) characterizes the ellipsis occurring in a restrictive relative clause whose antecedent is under the scope of a strong quantiﬁer or a deﬁnite expression. The missing material is contained inside its antecedent.

(16) a. John tried to read everything [he could]. b. Alicia visited every town [that Beatrix did].

Speciﬁc constraint on ACE in Romance : the subject of the target and the subject of the source clause must corefer (’same subject constraint’, cf. Dagnac 2008, 2010), as shown by the contrast (17-a)–(17-b) in French.

(17) a. Marie lit tous les livres qu’elle peut. (Dagnac 2010) ’Marie reads all the books that she can.’ b.* Marie lit tous les livres que Jean peut. ’Marie reads all the books that John can.’

23 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Pseudogapping (Levin 1986) is a construction sharing properties with both VPE and gapping. It is similar to VPE in that it is characterized by an ellipsis behind an auxiliary. It is similar to gapping in that it involves at least two remnants surrounding the auxiliary. The auxiliary is followed by a complement remnant, which corresponds to a complement of the antecedent.

(18) a. John drinks scotch, [and Bill does bourbon]. b. John can drink scotch, [and Bill can bourbon].

Phenomenon considered as rare and marginal (Lasnik 1999), with a great individual variation among English speakers (Hoeksema 2006). However, recent corpus studies (Miller 2014) show that classical examples are not at all representative in the COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English). 96,7% occur in comparative contexts, not coordination ; preference for the same subject...

(19) a. It hurt me [as much as it did her]. (COCA, cf. Miller 2014) b. You must treat him [as you would me]. (COCA, cf. Miller 2014) 24 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Undiﬀerentiated/Non-selective ellipsis

Right-Node Raising (Postal 1974), also dubbed Right Peripheral Ellipsis (Hohle 1991) : the target clause lacking a dependent (20-a) or a head (20-b) in ﬁnal position precedes the source clause which determines its interpretation.

(20) a. [John made], and Mary sold a piece of furniture. b. [If the President], and if Congress act under a letter of attorney from the people, so do the judges.

As for pseudogapping, RNR is considered as very rare rare and marginal (Meyer 1995). Classical examples are indeed not representative at all in the corpora (see RNR data from the Penn Treebank in Bîlbîie 2013). Most of the RNR occurrences in the PTB are subclausal : verbal phrase (21-a) or nominal phrase (21-b) level.

(21) a. Motorola [either denied] or would not comment on the various charges. (wsj-28924) b. ... this was [a formal] or an informal dinner party ? (swbd-132959) 25 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Criterion 2 : Syntactic contexts

Most ellipsis studies are limited to coordination, considered as the preferred syntactic relation (if not the sole option) for ellipsis. Some elliptical constructions seem to be preferred in coordination contexts (e.g. gapping). Some others (VPE, RNR) may occur in subordination too, the target clause being embedded in the source.

(22) a. Robert cooked the ﬁrst course, and Marie the dessert. b. *Robert cooked the ﬁrst course, because Marie the dessert.

(23) a. Joan write a novel, and Marvin did too. b. Joan write a novel after Marvin did too.

(24) a. You know a man who sells, and I know a man who buys, pictures of Elvis Presley. b. It seemed likely to me, though it seemed unlikely to everyone else, that he would be impeached. (Chaves & Sag 2008) 26 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Comparatives as a speciﬁc syntactic context favoring ellipsis (Lechner 2004). Comparative contexts signiﬁcantly improve acceptability judgements wrt some ellipsis constructions (VPE in French, pseudogapping, gapping). Pseudogapping in English considered as marginal in general, but very natural in comparative contexts (see supra). VPE, considered as absent in French, but acceptable in comparatives (see the contrast (25-a)–(25-b)).

(25) a. *Jean a lu le livre, et Paul a aussi. (Boeckx 2000) ’Jean read the book, and Paul did too.’ b. Jean avait lu plus de livres que Marie n’avait. ’Jean read more books than Marie did.’

Gapping, considered as ungrammatical in subordination, but quite acceptable in comparatives (see classes 2 and 3).

27 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Criterion 3 : Directionality of ellipsis Two directions of ellipsis (Haspelmath 2007) : Forward ellipsis (Analipsis) : source clause precedes target clause, e.g. Gapping in English (26-a) and other non-head-ﬁnal languages Backward ellipsis (Catalipsis) : source clause follows target clause, e.g. RNR in English (26-b) and other non-head-ﬁnal languages.

(26) a. John loves apples, and Mary bananas. b. Birds eat, and ﬂies avoid long-legged spiders.

Some elliptical constructions are compatible with both directions, e.g. VPE in English.

(27) a. Bill will make a statement blasting the press, if Hillary will. b. If Hillary will, Bill will make a statement blasting the press.

Directionality depends on ellipsis type, but also on language type. 28 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Directionality in a typological perspective

In a typological perspective, Ross (1970) establishes a correlation between the directionality of gapping and the word order in a language, in particular the position of the verbal head in a clause. The complete clause precedes the elliptical one in head-initial languages (SVO, VSO), but follows it in head-ﬁnal languages (SOV) : Forward gapping in SVO languages such as English (28-a), or VSO languages like Irish (29-a). Backward gapping in SOV languages such as Japanese (30-a).

(28) a. John likes apples and Mary pears. b. *John apples and Mary likes pears.

(29) a. Chonaic Eoghan Siobhán agus Eoghnaí Ciarán. saw Eoghan Siobhán and Eoghnaí Ciarán ’Eoghan saw Siobhán and Eoghnaí Ciarán.’ (Steedman 2000) b. *Eoghan Siobhán agus chonaic Eoghnaí Ciarán. Eoghan Siobhán and saw Eoghnaí Ciarán

29 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

(30) a. Watakusi-wa sakana-o, Biru-wa gohan-o tabeta. 1sg-top fish-acc Biru-top rice-acc ate ’I ate fish, Bill rice.’ (Ross 1970) b. *Watakusi-wa sakana-o tabeta, Biru-wa gohan-o. 1sg-top fish-acc ate Biru-top rice-acc

Ross’(1970) generalization is appropriate for non-head-final languages (Jackendoff 1971, Lobeck 1995), but it cannot account for all the empirical facts found in head-final languages or languages with free word order : Some head-final languages only have forward gapping : Persian (31-a). Some head-final languages have both backward and forward gapping : Basque (32), Hindi, Turkish. Languages with free word order may permit both : Russian (33), Latin, Zapotec.

30 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

(31) a. Æli sib xord væ Mæzi hulu. (Hernández 2007) Ali apple ate and Marzo peach ’Ali ate apples and Marzo peaches.’ b. *Æli sib væ Mæzi hulu xord. Ali apple and Marzo peach ate

(32) a. Linda-k ardau eta Ander-ek esnea edaten dabez. Linda-erg wine.abs and Ander-erg milk.abs drink 3pl.3sg ’Linda will drink wine and Ander milk.’ (Haspelmath 2007) b. Linda-k ardau edaten du, eta Ander-ek esnea. Linda-erg wine.abs drink 3sg.fut and Ander-erg milk.abs ’Linda will drink wine and Ander milk.’

(33) a. Ja pil vodu, i Anna vodku. (Ross 1970) I drank water and Anna vodka ’I drank water and Anna vodka.’ b. Ja vodu, i Anna vodku pila. I water and Anna vodka drank.fem c. Ja vodu pil, i Anna vodku.

I water drank and Anna vodka 31 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

When studying ellipsis, a problematic aspect in a typological perspective is the fact that some elliptical constructions are difficult to be identified in certain languages. In particular, languages have sometimes ambiguous configurations which a priori are candidates for more than one elliptical construction. ⇒ gapping and peripheral gaps SO + SOV order : ambiguity between Gapping and Right-Node Raising or Argument Cluster Coordination (see Farudi 2013 for Farsi data or Ince 2009 for Turkish data ; this ambiguity also applies to Japanese, Korean or subordination in German, see also Maling 1972, Hankamer 1979, etc.) ; VSO + SO order : ambiguity between Gapping and Argument Cluster Coordination (Russian, Romanian, etc.). Languages have sometimes devices (agreement, special coordinators, etc.) to choose between these competing constructions. An empirical study must be done before positing any elliptical construction in a language. ⇒ Need of a language-by-language and construction-by-construction study !

32 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora What ellipsis is not

Expressions with no antecedents (implicit or overt).

Special registers : titles, headlines... Labels : Campbell Soup. Starbucks. Next exit : Chicago. Short directives : Left ! Higher ! Expressive exclamations : Wonderful ! Nonsense ! For Pete’s sake ! Clauses with a non-verbal head : How about a cookie ? What, me worry ? Fr. A quelle heure le concert ? ’At what time the concert ?’ Subject-predicate analysis, non-verbal head. Do not need context to be interpreted. Etc.

33 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Plan

1 Introduction

2 A typology of ellipsis

3 Theories of ellipsis

4 Ellipsis and anaphora

34 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Two competing accounts

General question : how to articulate the usual form/meaning dichotomy wrt ellipsis phenomena ? Two possible answers : The usual form/meaning mapping is maintained : there must be an ’invisible’ form. There is meaning in the absence of a form : there is no ’invisible’ form. In mainstream generative grammars, the syntactic component accounts for the correspondance between form and meaning. So, the major question wrt ellipsis is what Merchant to appear calls the structure question : In elliptical constructions, is there syntactic structure that is unpronounced ? ⇒ The two possible answers have far-reaching implications for the theory of grammar. Positive answer = Structural approaches : we must posit more abstract syntactic structures within theories of grammars that permit unpronounced phrases and heads. Negative answer = Non-Structural approaches : there is no abstract syntactic structure ; the syntax of ellipsis may be ’what you see is what you get’, with no unpronounced elements. 35 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Two kinds of reconstruction

Syntactic reconstruction in structural approaches : the meanings are derived by the mechanisms at play in other contexts ; elliptical clauses and their full counterparts share the same properties. Two accounts : Positing essentially ordinary syntax, subject to some kind of ’deletion’ to render the syntax unpronounced ⇒ PF-Deletion (Ross 1967, 1969, Sag 1976, Hankamer & Sag 1976, Hankamer 1979, Hartmann 2000, Merchant 2001, Johnson 2004, Chung 2005, etc.) ⇒ Traditional generative solution to ellipsis. Positing a null lexical element which is replaced or identiﬁed at some level of representation not relevant to the pronunciation ⇒ LF-copy, null anaphora (Hardt 1993, Wasow 1972, Williams 1977, Fiengo & May 1994, Lobeck 1995, etc.). Semantic reconstruction in non-structural approaches, by supplementing the theory of meanings, creating or exploiting devices that can generate meanings in the absence of syntactic structure ⇒ Fragment-based accounts (Ginzburg & Sag 2000, Culicover & Jackendoﬀ 2005).

36 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Some evidence for structural approaches

Connectivity eﬀects (Merchant 2001, 2004) : Form appears to be determined by unpronounced elements. Preposition matching : PP remnants appear with the preposition that they would have in full clauses (34). Case matching : In languages with morphological case, remnants typically appear in the case that they would have in the understood complete clause. E.g. German sluicing in (35-a)–(35-b). (34) He seemed to be competing with someone, though we never knew {with whom / *to whom}. (Ginzburg & Miller 2017)

(35) a. Er will jemandem schmeicheln, aber sie wissen nicht he wants someone.dat ﬂatter but they know not {*wen / wem}. (Ross 1969) {who.acc / who.dat} ’He wants to ﬂatter someone, but they don’t know who.’ b. Er will jemanden loben, aber sie wissen nicht, {wen / he wants someone.acc praise but they know not {who.acc / *wem}. who.dat} ’He wants to praise someone, but they don’t know who.’ 37 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Locality eﬀects : Some kinds of locality constraints (in particular island constraints) are observed to hold of elements whose putative origin site is inside the understood missing material. If any of these are due to restrictions on syntactic representations (cf. Sag 1976), then their presence in elliptical structures argues that those representations must be present. Sensitivity to islands, when extracting from an elliptical structure : e.g. Wh-island constraint applying with VPE (36-a) or stripping (36-b).

(36) a. *Abby knows ﬁve people [who have dogs], but cats, she doesn’t. (Merchant 2009) b. *They caught the man [who’d stolen the car] after searching for him, but not the diamonds.

38 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Preposition-stranding generalization (Merchant 2001, 2004, 2009) : Cross-linguistically, there is a strong correlation/parallelism between languages that allow P-stranding in non-elliptical structures and in elliptical contexts. If what regulates P-stranding is a morphosyntactic condition, then this grammatical constraint will be operative in elliptical contexts as well.

(37) a. Peter was talking with someone, but I don’t know (with) who(m). (Merchant 2009) b.A:– Who was he talking with ?B:–(With) Mary.

(38) a.I Anna milise me kapjon, alla dhe ksero *(me) pjon. def Anna talked with someone but not I.know with who ’Anna talked with someone, but I don’t know with who.’ b.* Pjon milise me ? (Merchant 2009) who talked.3sg with ’Who was he talking with ?’

Etc.

39 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Some evidence for non-structural approaches

Some data seem to point that there is no structure that has the properties of its putative full counterpart. Non-connectivity eﬀects : case mismatches.

(39) A : – Who wants a slice of pizza ? (Merchant 2017) B : – Me ! (*Me want a slice of pizza.)

Absence of locality eﬀects : island violations.

(40) a. Bob found a plumber [who ﬁxed the sink], but I’m not sure with what. (Culicover & Jackendoﬀ 2005) b. Robin knows a lot of reasons [why dogs are good pets], and Leslie, cats.

40 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Exceptions to the P-stranding generalization : in Italian, speakers seem to accept a bare wh-phrase in place of the PP in elliptical contexts, whereas this is impossible in non-elliptical contexts.

(41) a. Pietro ha parlato con qualcuno, ma non so Pietro has spoken with someone but not I.know ?(con) chi. (Merchant 2001) with who ’Pietro has spoken with someone, but I don’t know (with) who.’ b.* Chi ha parlato Pietro con ? who has spoken Pietro with ’Who has Pietro spoken with ?’

Etc.

41 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Plan

1 Introduction

2 A typology of ellipsis

3 Theories of ellipsis

4 Ellipsis and anaphora

42 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Ellipsis and anaphora

Idea that there is interpretation beyond what is said/written, something is literally missing, or is semantically much less contentful than what is actually understood, and that what is understood is understood because of the presence of an antecedent in the context. Ellipsis : missing words that partly receive their interpretation through a contextually given antecedent. Anaphor = Proform : word or phrase that partly receives its interpretation through a contextually given antecedent (plural : anaphors). Anaphora : the phenomenon linking ellipses and proforms/anaphors to their antecedents.

43 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Analipsis (Forward ellipsis) ∼ Anaphoric relations Catalipsis (Backward ellipsis) ∼ Cataphoric relations

(42) a. She said something. I no longer remember what Ø. (Sluicing) b. A. – Kim is working today. B. – Sandy is Ø too. (VPE)

(43) a. Though I haven’t yet had time to Ø, I will be seeing John soon. (VPE) b. John made Ø, and Mary sold a piece of furniture. (RNR)

(44) a. Ann saw Mary yesterday. She was tired. b. Did Mary go home ? – I think so. c. John then said this : “I cannot accept your oﬀer”.

44 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Sometimes, alternance between an elliptical construction and a structure using a pronominal or adverbial proform.

(45) a. Paul likes but Mary dislikes bananas. b. Paul likes bananas but Mary dislikes them.

(46) a. John liked the play and Bob did too. b. John liked the play and so did Bob.

(47) a. John liked the play, but not Bob. b. John liked the play, but Bob, no.

45 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Deep vs. Surface Anaphora

Hankamer & Sag (1976) Two main classes of anaphoric devices

Very inﬂuential paper : 906 citations on google scholar and continues to be cited 39 years after publication. Interesting data and a coherent and a priori attractive analysis.

46 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

End 1960s and beginning 1970s : controversy between two analyses of anaphora and ellipsis : Deletion and substition transformations : Ellipses are obtained by deletion under identity with an antecedent ; proforms are obtained by substitution under identity with an antecedent. Interpretative analyes : Ellipses and proforms are understood by recovering an appropriate antecedent in the context. Cf. Hankamer & Sag (1976), both types of analyses are valid, it depends on the type of proform or ellipsis : Surface anaphora are derived transformationally by deletion or substitution under identity with a syntactically present antecedent. Deep anaphora are present as such in underlying representation and do not involve deletion or substitution.

47 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Criteria for distinguishing deep and surface anaphora

1 Exophoric uses (pragmatic antecedent) : whether they can take a non-linguistic (pragmatic) antecedent or not.

2 Syntactic identity/parallelism : whether they require a strict syntactic parallelism with its antecedent.

3 Missing antecedents : whether they can make missing antecedents accessible or not.

48 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Criterion 1 : Pragmatic antecedents

’Pragmatic control’ : situations in which the antecedent is presented in the context, but not introduced explicitly in a linguistic expression. Deep anaphora do not require a linguistic antecedent (both exophoric and endophoric uses). Surface anaphora require a linguistic (syntactically present) antecedent ; they cannot be pragmatically controlled (only endophoric uses).

(48)[ Hankamer attempts to stuﬀ a 9-inch ball through a 6-inch hoop] (Depiante 2017, adapted from H & S 1976) a. Sag : It’s not clear you’ll succeed. (NCA) b. Sag : It’s not clear that you’ll be able to do it. (Do it proform) c. Sag : #It’s not clear that you’ll be able to. (VPE)

49 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Criterion 2 : Syntactic parallelism

Surface anaphora require superﬁcial syntactic identity of structure between the antecedent segment and the segment to be anaphorized. E.g. no voice mismatches. Deep anaphora do not require such a syntactically identical antecedent. E.g. voice mismatches.

(49) Nobody else would take the oats down to the bin, a. so Bill volunteered. (NCA) b. so Bill did it. (Do it proform) c. so Bill did. (VPE) (Hankamer & Sag 1976)

(50) The oats had to be taken down to the bin, a. so Bill volunteered. (NCA) b. so Bill did it. (Do it proform) c. *so Bill did. (VPE) (Hankamer & Sag 1976)

50 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Criterion 3 : Missing antecedents

The missing antecedent phenomenon was previously discussed in Grinder & Postal (1971) and Bresnan (1971). Grinder & Postal (1971) argue that : The NP a wife of the 1st clause of (51-a) cannot be the antecedent of the pronoun she in the 3rd clause, as evidenced by the fact that (51-b) is ungrammatical. This is because “a wife is indeﬁnite and under the scope of negation”. But then why is (51-c) grammatical ? Because, assuming a deletion under identity approach, illustrated in (51-d), a wife occurs outside the scope of negation in the 2nd clause, which can serve as an antecedent.

(51) a. Harry doesn’t have a wife but Bill does have a wife and she is a nag. b. *Harry doesn’t have a wife and she is a nag. c. Harry doesn’t have a wife but Bill does and she is a nag. d. Harry doesn’t have a wife but Bill does [have a wife] and she is a nag.

51 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Bresnan (1971) : PAE vs. VPA PAE = Post-Auxiliary Ellipsis (cf. Sag 1976) = VPE = Verb Phrase Ellipsis) VPA = Verb Phrase Anaphors = do it, do this, and do that Bresnan (1971) suggests that PAE/VPE and VPA diﬀer in their ability to license missing antecedents : PAE/VPE license missing antecedents (52-a), (53-a). VPA don’t license missing antecedents (52-b), (53-b).

(52) a. My uncle didn’t buy anything for Christmas, but my aunt did, and it was bright red. [it = something] b. *My uncle didn’t buy anything for Christmas, so my aunt did it for him, and it was bright red. [it = something]

(53) a. Jack didn’t cut Betty with a knife, though Bill did, and it was rusty. [it = knife] b. *Jack didn’t cut Betty with a knife. Bill did it, and it was rusty. [it = knife]

52 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Coming back to Hankamer & Sag’s typology, Surface anaphora exhibit the missing antecedent phenomenon, i.e. they can make missing antecedents accessible. Deep anaphora do not exhibit the missing antecedent phenomenon.

(54) a. *John didn’t want to give up his seat, so Peter voluntereed because it was too narrow for him anyway. (NCA) (Depiante 2017) b. *John didn’t want to give up his seat, so Peter did it because it was too narrow for him anyway. (Do it proform) c. John didn’t want to give up his seat, so Peter did because it was too narrow for him anyway. (VPE)

53 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Deep Anaphora : do it, do this, do that, NCA, personal pronouns Exophoric uses are possible No strict syntactic identity Missing antecedents are not possible ⇒ Present in deep structure (not transformationally derived) Surface Anaphora : do so, PAE/VPE, Sluicing, Stripping, Gapping No exophoric uses are possible Strict syntactic identity Missing antecedents are possible ⇒ Result from a deletion or substitution under identity

54 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Empirical evidence for Hankamer & Sag’s typology

Tanenhaus & Carlson (1990) Psycholinguistic research : three experiments on comprehension of deep and surface anaphora.

Materials : pairs of stimuli in which a context sentence introduced an antecedent for an anaphor in a following target clause. Task : a “makes sense” judgement task in which subjects were instructed to decide as quickly as possible whether or not the target clause made sense given the context sentence. Three experiments investigating the eﬀects of parallelism on the comprehension of deep and surface anaphora.

55 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Experiment 1

Manipulating parallelism by introducing the antecedent in either an active or a passive sentence. Active version (= parallel antecedent) : there is a linguistic constituent that can serve as the antecedent for the anaphor. Passive version (= non-parallel antecedent) : there is no appropriate constituent that can serve as the antecedent. Parallel antecedents were introduced in active sentences (55-a) and non-parallel antecedents in passive sentences (55-b). Target clauses : deep anaphor (55-c) vs. surface anaphor (55-d).

(55) a. Someone had to take out the garbage. b. The garbage had to be taken out. c. But Bill refused to do it. d. But Bill refused to.

56 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Participants : 36 undergraduates from introductory psychology courses. Material : 20 sets of sentences (each set containing two context sentences and two target sentences). Within a set, each context sentence was paired with each target clause, resulting in four sentence-pairs which were counterbalanced across four presentation lists. Test sentences intermixed with 39 ﬁller sentences (16 control items which do not make sense given the context sentence, as in (56-a)–(56-b)).

(56) a. After the exam Bill decided to have a beer or two. Sam didn’t either. b. Yesterday, the sports star announced his retirement. Sam denied it, too.

Procedure : The subject sees ﬁrst a context sentence. When she ﬁnished reading it, she pressed a response button which erased the context sentence and replaced it with the target sentence. The subject then pressed the appropriate response button to indicate whether or not the target makes sense given the context sentence.

57 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Results : Two types of data : judgement data (a “yes” or “no” judgement), and latency data (latency to make a judgement : the time that the subject took to make the decision that the target sentence makes sense). Surface anaphora were judged to make sense more often when their antecedent was syntactically parallel (significant effect of parallelism for the surface anaphora), whereas syntactic parallelism did not significantly affect judgements to the deep anaphora. However, parallelism did affect comprehension latencies to both types of anaphors.

Parallel Antecedent Non-parallel antecedent Anaphor % Judgement Latency % Judgement Latency Deep 94 2073 msec 91 2273 msec Surface 89 2161 msec 70 2776 msec

58 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Experiment 2

Manipulating parallelism by introducing the antecedent in either a verb phrase or a noun phrase using a nominalised verb. Prediction : The nominalisation manipulation should aﬀect the surface but not the deep anaphora. Parallel antecedents were created by presenting the antecedents in a verb phrase and non-parallel antecedents in a nominalised form.

(57) a. It always annoys Sally when anyone mentions her sister’s name. b. The mention of her sister’s name always annoys Sally. c. However, Tom did it anyway out of spite. d. However, Tom did anyway out of spite.

59 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Participants : 28 undergraduates from introductory psychology courses. The same design as in the experiment 1. Results : very similar to those obtained in the experiment 1. Judgement data : Surface anaphora were judged to make sense less often when their antecedents were syntactically non-parallel than when they were syntactically parallel. But no signiﬁcant eﬀects in the case of deep anaphora. Latency data : Increase in latency for both surface and deep anaphora with non-parallel antecedents.

Parallel Antecedent Non-parallel antecedent Anaphor % Judgement Latency % Judgement Latency Deep 86 2686 msec 86 2954 msec Surface 89 2556 msec 71 2923 msec

60 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora Experiment 3

Examining the eﬀects of syntactic parallelism when both types of anaphora involve null elements. Eliminating confound between type of anaphora and their phonological explicitness. In most surface anaphora, the anaphoric element is not realised phonologically. For most deep anaphora, there is an explicit anaphoric element. NCA is a deep anaphor, but the anaphoric element is not realised phonologically. Comparison between NCA (a deep anaphor) and VPE (a surface anaphor), both types involving null elements.

61 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Material : only 12 sets (instead of 20), because of the limited number of verbs that can be used with NCA.

(58) a. Someone has to take out the garbage. (Parallel antecedent) b. The garbage has to be taken out. (Non-parallel antecedent) c. But Bill refused. (NCA) d. But Bill refused to. (VPE)

Participants : 48 undergraduates from introductory psychology courses.

62 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Results : similar to those obtained in the experiments 1 and 2. Judgement data : Surface anaphora were judged to make sense significantly more often when their antecedents were syntactically parallel than when they were syntactically non-parallel. But no significant effects in the case of deep anaphora. Latency data : Increase in latency for both surface and deep anaphora with non-parallel antecedents.

Parallel Antecedent Non-parallel antecedent Anaphor % Judgement Latency % Judgement Latency Deep 92 1829 msec 89 2147 msec Surface 95 2023 msec 77 2139 msec

63 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora General discussion

According to Sag & Hankamer’s hypothesis, surface anaphora but not deep anaphora must be linked to a linguistic (syntactically present) antecedent. These 3 experiments made by Tanenhaus & Carlson (1990) show clear evidence for an interaction between syntactic parallelism and type of anaphor : surface anaphora are sensitive to the form of their antecedents in a way that deep anaphora are not. The basic distinction established by Hankamer & Sag (1976) is reﬂected in comprehension processes. Depiante (2017) : “Independently of one’s theoretical position and perspective on the details of Hankamer and Sag’s proposal, the gist behind Hankamer and Sag’s typology is still empirically accurate in the sense that all languages have anaphors that need linguistic antecedents and anaphors that can get their interpretation from the non-linguistic context.”

64 / 65 N Introduction A typology of ellipsis Theories of ellipsis Ellipsis and anaphora

Thank you !

65 / 65 N