Pseudogapping in English: a direct interpretation approach
-
Jong-Bok Kim
und
Jeffrey T. Runner
Abstract
Gapping elides a finite verb in the non-initial conjunct of a coordinate structure while VP ellipsis deletes a whole VP after an auxiliary. Unlike these two, pseudogapping elides most of the VP except one remnant. Pseudogapping additionally differs from gapping and VP ellipsis, in that it involves ellipsis of part of a non-finite VP. In this paper we provide a Construction Grammar account of pseudogapping that captures its similarities with as well as differences from other related elliptical constructions like VP ellipsis. Our construction-based analysis, which capitalizes on the inheritance network of constructions to capture broad similarities and unique differences among these constructions, allows us to account for the full range of extant data.
Acknowledgment
Our deep thanks go to three anonymous reviewers for their critical but insightful comments, which helped reshape and improve the paper a lot. The usual disclaimers apply. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2017S1A2A2041092).
References
Abeillé, Anne, Gabriela Bîlbîie & François Mouret. 2014. A Romance perspective on gapping constructions. In Hans Boas & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds.), Romance perspectives on construction grammar, 227–267. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/cal.15.07abeSuche in Google Scholar
Aelbrecht, Lobke & William Harwood. 2015. To be or not to be elided: VP ellipsis revisited. Lingua 153. 66–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.10.006.Suche in Google Scholar
Agbayani, Brian & Ed Zoerner. 2004. Gapping, pseudogappingand sideward movement. Studia Linguistica 58(3). 185–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0039-3193.2004.00114.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2009. A linearization-based approach to gapping. In James Rogers (ed.), Proceedings of FG-MoL 2005: The 10th conference on formal grammar and the 9th meeting on mathematics of language Edinburgh, 205–218. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2017. VP-ellipsis. In Martin Everaert & Henk Van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn. 1–35. New York, United States: John Wiley & Sons Inc.10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom049Suche in Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Stuart Shieber & Fernando Pereira. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(4). 399–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00630923.Suche in Google Scholar
Gengel, Kristen. 2013. Pseudogapping and ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665303.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Ivan A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogatives (CSLI Lecture Notes 123). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Philip Miller. 2018. Ellipsis in head-driven phrase structure grammar. In Jeroen van Creanenbroeck & Tanja Temmerman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 75–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.4Suche in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Constructions at work: Constructionist approaches in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0002Suche in Google Scholar
Griffiths, James & Anikó Lipták. 2014. Contrast and island sensitivity in clausal ellipsis. Syntax 17(3). 189–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12018.Suche in Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel & Maribel Romero. 2004. Ellipsis and the structure of discourse. Journal of Semantics 21(4). 375–414. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.4.375.Suche in Google Scholar
Hartman, Jeremy. 2011. The semantic uniformity of traces: Evidence from ellipsis parallelism. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 367–388. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00050.Suche in Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2006. Pseudogapping: Its syntactic analysis and cumulative effects on its acceptability. Research on Language and Computation 4. 335–352.10.1007/s11168-006-9023-xSuche in Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2016. The short answer: Implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa). Language 92(2). 331–375. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0038.Suche in Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil Achutha. 1990. Incomplete VP deletion and gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20. 64–81.Suche in Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 439–479. Oxford, UK; Malden Massachusetts, US: Blackwell Publishers.10.1002/9780470756416.ch14Suche in Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2009. Gapping is not (vp)-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 289–328. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.289.Suche in Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2000. Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(6). 533–575. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005677819813.10.1023/A:1005677819813Suche in Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth, Wilfried Meyer-Viol & Dov Gabbay. 1999. Vp ellipsis: Toward a dynamic, structural account. In Shalom Lappin & Elabbas Benmamoun (eds.), Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping, 227–289. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195123029.003.0010Suche in Google Scholar
Kertz, Laura. 2013. Verb phrase ellipsis: The view from information structure. Language 89. 390–428. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0051.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Christina S., Gregory M. Kobele, Jeffrey T. Runner & John T. Hale. 2011. The acceptability cline in VP ellipsis. Syntax 14(4). 318–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00160.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2006. Similarities and differences between English VP ellipsis and VP fronting: An HPSG analysis. Studies in Generative Grammar 13(3). 429–460.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Anne Abeillé. 2019. Why-stripping in English. Linguistic Research 36. 365–387. https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.36.3.201912.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Ivan A. Sag. 2002. Negation without head-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20(2). 339–412. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015045225019.10.1023/A:1015045225019Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Joanna Nykiel. 2020. The syntax and semantics of elliptical constructions: A direct interpretation perspective. Linguistic Research 39. 223–255.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Laura A. Michaelis. 2020. Syntactic constructions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Mark Davies. 2020. English what with absolute constructions: A construction grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics 24(4). 637–666. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674319000169.Suche in Google Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke & Robert Levine. 2017. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2). 213–257. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00242.Suche in Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Pseudogapping puzzles. In Shalom Lappin & Elabbas Benmamoun (eds.), Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping, 141–174. New York: Oxford University Press.10.4324/9780203987209-7Suche in Google Scholar
Levin, Nancy S. 1979. Main verb ellipsis in spoken English. Columbus, Ohio, US: Ohio State University Doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195091816.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2000. Ellipsis and discourse-linking. Lingua 110(3). 183–213.10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00036-4Suche in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2008. An asymmetry in voice mismatches in vp-ellipsis and pseudogapping. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.169.Suche in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1). 77–108. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00120.Suche in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2016. Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & Tanja Temmerman (eds.), A handbook of ellipsis, 18–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.2Suche in Google Scholar
Miller, Philip. 1990. Pseudogapping and do so substitution. In Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske & Karen Deaton (eds.), Papers from the 26th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 293–305. Chicago, Illinois, US: Chicago Linguistic Society.Suche in Google Scholar
Miller, Philip. 2014. A corpus study of pseudogapping and its theoretical consequences. In Christopher Pinon (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, vol. 10, 73–90. Paris: CSSP.Suche in Google Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna & Kim Jong-Bok. 2021. Ellipsis. In Stefan Müller, Anne Abeillé, Robert D. Borsley & Jean-Pierre Koenig (eds.), Handbook of head-driven phrase structure grammar, 847–888. Berlin: Language Science.Suche in Google Scholar
Park, Sang-Hee. 2019. Gapping: A constraint-based syntax-semantics interface. Buffalo, New York, US: State University of New York at Buffalo Doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Poppels, Till & Andrew Kehler. 2019. Reconsidering asymmetries in voice-mismatched VP- ellipsis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1). 60. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.738.Suche in Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02342617.Suche in Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura A. Michaelis. 2014. Frames and the interpretation of omitted arguments in English. In Katz B. Stacey & Lindsy L. Myers (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic structure and context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht, 57–86. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/pbns.244.04rupSuche in Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1976. Deletion and logical form (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). New York: Garland.Suche in Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Language 86(3). 486–545. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0002.Suche in Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Thomas Wasow & Emily Bender. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Stockwell, Richard. 2018. Ellipsis in tautologous conditionals: The contrast condition on ellipsis. Proceedings of Salt 28. 584–603.10.3765/salt.v28i0.4426Suche in Google Scholar
Thoms, Gary. 2016. Pseudogapping, parallelism, and the scope of focus. Syntax 19(3). 286–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12122.Suche in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18(4). 523–557. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog.2007.027.Suche in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. De Gruyter.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Introduction: Special issue on empirical approaches to elliptical constructions
- Articles
- Explaining ellipsis without identity*
- Experimentally testing the interpretation of multiple sluicing and multiple questions in Hungarian
- Multiple sluicing and islands: a cross-linguistic experimental investigation of the clausemate condition
- Pseudogapping in English: a direct interpretation approach
- Me too fragments in English and French: a direct interpretation approach
- Complementizer deletion in embedded gapping in Spanish
- An experimental perspective on embedded gapping in Persian
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Introduction: Special issue on empirical approaches to elliptical constructions
- Articles
- Explaining ellipsis without identity*
- Experimentally testing the interpretation of multiple sluicing and multiple questions in Hungarian
- Multiple sluicing and islands: a cross-linguistic experimental investigation of the clausemate condition
- Pseudogapping in English: a direct interpretation approach
- Me too fragments in English and French: a direct interpretation approach
- Complementizer deletion in embedded gapping in Spanish
- An experimental perspective on embedded gapping in Persian
