XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
Ellipsis by Phase
Ángel J. GALLEGO
CLT – Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
<[email protected]>
GOALS
-
provide a cyclic transfer-based account of ellipsis (cf. Chomsky 2004)
explore this thesis in the different phase heads (i.e. v*, D, C, and p)
consider some possible counterexamples (cf. Merchant 2008)
consider parametric variation (cf. Lasnik 2008, Martins 1994, a.o.)
1. Introduction: phases and interface effects
(1)
a. Strong Minimalist Thesis (cf. Chomsky 2000)
b. Phases have natural interface correlates (cf. Chomsky 2004)
(2)
SEMantic (interface) correlates
(i)
propositionality (CP; cf. Chomsky 2000, Rizzi 1997, a.o.)
(ii)
argument structure (v*P, PP; cf. Borer 2005, Hale & Keyser 2002,
Pylkännen 2008, Svenonius 2008, a.o.)
(iii)
referentiality (DP; cf. Chomsky 2007, Ott 2008, Svenonius 2004, a.o.)
(iv)
discourse-oriented semantics (cf. Boeckx 2009, Rizzi 1997, a.o.)
(3)
PHONetic (interface) correlates
(i)
clefting (cf. Chomsky 2001, San Martin 2004, a.o.)
(ii)
phonological phrasing (cf. Richards 2006, Samuels 2009, a.o.)
(iii) cliticization (cf. Roberts to appear)
(iv)
linearization (cf. Fox & Pesetsky 2005, Richards 2004, a.o.)
(v)
raddoppiamento fonosintattico (cf. Biberauer & D’Alessandro 2006)
(vi)
phrase stress (cf. Kratzer & Selkirk 2007)
(4)
Phases yield “periodic forgetting” (in accord with the SMT) through the PIC
(5)
Phase Impenetrability Condition (cf. Chomsky 2000:108)
In phase α with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to operations outside
α; only H and its edge are accessible to such operations.
1
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
(6)
HYPOTHESIS: ellipsis can only target the “complement domain” of phase heads.
(7)
edge – complement distinction
PhP
/
YP
\
Ph’
/
Ph
\
XP
CYCLIC TRANSFER TO PHON (±VOC. INSERTION)
EDGE (unaffected by ellipsis)
(8)
The logic is similar to Kayne’s (2006). However, contrary to Kayne’s proposal,
(6) is assuming a connection between cyclic transfer and deletion –essentially,
transferred material feeds (or fails to feed) vocabulary insertion (cf. Halle &
Marantz 1993).
(9)
The hypothesis in (6) makes sense if ellipsis is PHON-deletion (cf. Lasnik 1999;
2008, and Merchant 2001, a.o.), and this coincides precisely with the chunks of
structure that are sent (by means of a transfer operation, according to Chomsky
2004) to the PHON component.
(10)
Crucially, if correct, (6) provides a rationale for the domains affected by
deletion are the ones they are –and not others. In a theory like Merchant’s
(2001), it is not obvious why the E feature cannot be assigned to, say, CP or DP
–in principle, it could be applied to any category, triggering deletion of any
category, contrary to fact.
2. Ellipsis domains
(11)
What are the phase heads? (cf. Boeckx 2009, Chomsky 2001, and Richards 2007)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
v* (cf. Chomsky 2000 and subsequent work)
C (cf. Chomsky 2000 and subsequent work)
D / n (cf. Chomsky 2007, Hiraiwa 2005, Marantz 2007, Ott 2008, and
Svenonius 2004)
p (cf. Abels 2003, Raposo 2002, Svenonius 2003, and van Riemsdijk 1978)
δ / Deg (cf. Corver 1991, Hale & Keyser 2002, and Zamparelli 1993)
2
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
(12)
Consider non-phase heads now (and their ‘elidable’ nature)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(13)
V (VP ellipsis; cf. Lasnik 2008, Lobeck 1995, Merchant 2001, a.o.)
T (TP ellipsis; cf. Lasnik 2008, Lobeck 1995, Merchant 2001, a.o.)
N (NP ellipsis; cf. Alexiadou & Gengel 2008, Corver & van Koppen
2007, Depiante & Masullo 2001, Eguren 2007; 2008, Lobeck 1995,
Yoshida 2008)
P (PP ellipsis; cf. Merchant 2002, Nakao et al. 2006)
A (AP ellipsis)
VP ellipsis (transitive)
a. John sings, and Peter does too.
b. John called Mary, and Peter did Susan.
(14)
VP ellipsis
pseudogapping (= VP ellipsis)
VP ellipsis (inaccusative/passive v also licenses VP ellipsis; cf. Richards 2004)
a. John died, and Bill did too.
b. John was arrested, and Bill was too.
c. There was found a book on the table, and there was a magazine too.
(15)
TP ellipsis
a. John called someone, but I do not know who. sluicing (= TP ellipsis)
b. John likes beer, and Mary cider.
gapping (pace Johnson 1993, 2006)
- possible counterevidence? If Mary is in SPEC-T. (cf. Kennedy & Merchant 2000)
c. John is taller than [FocP Mary [TP tMary is tall]]
- the type of C is irrelevant (raising, control; cf. Lasnik 1999; 2008)
d. John wants to beat Peter, and Charles wants [TP *(to) [vP e ] ] as well.
control
e. John seems to like linguistics, and Peter seems [TP *(to) [vP e ] ] as well. raising
- pragmatic factors (i.e. Merchant’s 2001 e-GIVENness) are also relevant (cf. Martin 2001)
f. Someone saw the defendant at the scene of the crime . . .
. . . the DA fount out [CP who [TP e ]]
. . . *the DA fount out [CP that [TP e ]]
3
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
(16)
NP ellipsis
a. Juan ha
leído esos cuentos y yo he
leído [DP estos [NP e]]
Juan have-3.SG read those stories and I have-1.SG read
these
‘Juan has read those short stories, and I have these ones’
b. The books are new, and [DP all [NP e]] were on sale.
c. John bought a big car, and Mary bought [DP a [NP small [one]]
(Spanish)
- one-replacement cases pose a problem if one occupies a position below D (cf.
Alexiadou & Gengel 2008, Yoshida 2008)
- the structure put forward by Chomsky (2007) (cf. Kayne 2005, Leu 2008)
d. [DP D [NP ]]
e. [nP [DP D …] n [ √N ]]
- if one is inserted in n (cf. Harley 2007), then deletion targets √NP, the complement
domain. Also, note that n can be analyzed as a classifier / gender head (cf. Picallo 2008).
(17)
PP ellipsis (“swiping,” which is not really PP ellipsis; cf. Merchant 2002, van
Craenenbroeck 2004, and Nakao et al. 2006)
a. John fixed it, but I don’t remember [CP [pP who with twho] [TP e]]
b. John fixed it, but I don’t remember [CP [pP what with twhat] [TP e]]
(18)
PP ellipsis (unreported data, from Google and CREA)
a. Tenlo
claro y no pienses más que antes y después . . .
have-2.SG-CL-it clear and not think-2.SG more than before and after
. . . pero nunca durante.
(Spanish)
but never during
‘Be clear about it and think only before and after, never during’
b. En este tema no se ha movido nada, ni antes, ni durante . . .
in this topic not SE have-3.SG moved anything, not before, not during
. . . ni después de mi visita a la RFA.
(Spanish)
not after
of my visit to the RFA
‘On this topic there is no news, neither before, nor during, nor after my visit to the RFA’
c. Les declaracions generals sobre, no pas contra, la privatització.
(Catalan)
the comments general about, not NEG against, the privatization
‘The general comments about, not against, privatization’
(19)
A phonological restriction
(i)
(ii)
If p is a clitic, ellipsis cannot take place
If p is strong (not clitic-like), ellipsis can take place
4
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
a. *El rey lo
hace
todo por el pueblo, pero [pP sin
[e]]
(Spanish)
the king CL-it do-3.SG all for the people but
without
‘The king does everything for the people, but without (them)’
(Spanish)
b. Pedro habló
antes del
partido, y yo lo hice [pP durante [e]]
Pedro talked-3.SG before of-the game and I CL-it did-3.SG during
‘Peter did not talk during the game, and I did during (the game)’
c. Mary cooked the chicken with garlic, but Peter did the beef [pP without [e]]
(20)
The same holds for NP ellipsis: clitic-like Ds must have a host (cf. Eguren 2007;
2008, Raposo 2002, Raposo & Uriagereka 2005).
a. No compré
la aspirina corriente, pero compré
la *(efervescente). (Spanish)
not bought-3.SG the aspirin regular but bought-3.SG the effervescent
‘I did not buy the regular aspiring, but I did the effervescent one’
b. Tenéis que leer [DP {ese / *el / *su} [e]]
(Spanish)
have-2.PL that read-INF that the his
‘You have to read that / the / his (one)’
- These data tell us that deletion of p and D complement is sensitive to the phonological
status of the relevant phase head: weak (= monosyllabic) phase heads disallow deletion
in a more radical way than strong (= bisyllabic) phase heads.
- However, NP ellipsis appears to be insensitive to focus, as noted by Eguren (2008).
c. Este no es
MI problema. Es [DP TU *(problema)]
this not be-3.SG my problem be-3.SG yours problem
‘This is not my problem. It is yours’
d. No digas
LA
calor, es [DP EL
??/?(calor)]
not say-3.SG the-FEM.SG heat be-3.SG the-MASC.SG heat
‘Do not say the heat, it’s the heat’
e. No es
EL
crisis, es [DP LA
??/?(crisis)]
not be-3.SG the-MASC.SG crisis be-3.SG the-FEM.SG
crisis
‘It’s not the crisis, it’s the crisis’
(21)
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
Strategies to rescue ellipsis: (i) strong pronoun insertion, and (i) P focusing.
a. Alonso corría
con Hamilton hace
dos años, pero . . .
Alonso raced-3.SG with Hamilton make-3.SG two years but
. . . este lo
hace
[pP contra [*(él)]]
(Spanish)
this CL-it make-3.SG against him
‘Two years ago, Alonso raced with Hamilton, but now he does against him’
b. A Juan le
gusta
trabajar con música, pero a mí [pP SIN [música]] (Spanish)
to Juan CL-him like-3.SG work-INF with music but to me without
‘Juan likes to work with music, but I like to work without it’
5
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
(22)
AP ellipsis
(Spanish)
a. Juan es
bastante simpático, pero Pedro lo es [DegP más [AP e]]
Juan be-3.SG quite nice
but Peter CL-it be-3.SG more
‘Juan is quite nice, but Pedro is nicer’
b. María resultó poco inteligente. Ana, por el contrario, [DegP mucho [AP e]] (Spanish)
María be-3.SG little intelligent Ana for the contrary
much
‘María was not very intelligent. Ana, on the other hand, was very intelligent’
c. John is very nice, and Peter even [DegP more so [AP e]]
3. On voice mismatch
(23)
In Merchant (2008), it is reported that VP ellipsis allows voice alternations
between the ellipsis site and its antecedent, contrary to pseudopaggping.
a. The system can be used by anyone who wants to (use it). VP ellipsis
b. *Some bought roses, and lilies were by others.
pseudogapping
[from Merchant 2008: 169-170]
- Merchant (2008) proposes that VP deletion be deletion of the complement of the v*
head, “which determines the voice properties of the clause” (p. 170). Since the head that
determines voice is outside of the ellipsis site, it falls into place why voice alternations
are possible.
(24)
Following Gengel (2007), Merchant (2008) analyzes pseudogapping as deletion
of v*P after movement of the remnant to a Focus projection above v*.
According to Merchant (2008), pseudogapping involves deletion of v*P, the
complement of the focus head posited by Gengel (2007).
a. John called Susan, and Peter did Mary.
FocusP
/
\
Mary
Focus’
/
\
Focus
v*P
/
\
tPeter
v*’
/
\
v*
VP
/
\
V
tMary
call
ELLIPSIS
6
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
- since v* is included in the ellipsis domain, and assuming some version of parallelism
requirement (cf. Merchant 2001), voice properties cannot be altered.
(25)
I want to suggest a solution to the technical part of the analysis by Merchant
(2008) and Gengel (2007), so that it is consistent with (6).
- In the simplest scenario (the one considered in Chomsky’s writings), the v*P phase
has two heads, as indicated below:
a. [ X (=v*) [ Y (=V) ] ]
- Note that something like (a) is obligatory, given the argument that comes from feature
inheritance (cf. Richards 2007). However, there is nothing in the logic of Phase Theory
that precludes there being more heads in both edge and complement domains.
Something like (b):
b. [ A [ B [ C [ D [ E ]]]]]
- Suppose that A, B, and C belong to the edge, while D and E belong to the
complement. If so, the question is which head is the phase head –the head bering uFF. It
does not really matter, as far as uFF end up in the transferred domain by the moment
cyclic transfer takes place.
- If this much is accepted, then it is possible for VP ellipsis to involve different amounts
of a v*P –that is, the complement domain of those different v*Ps can contain more or
less structure, including (or not) the phase head itself. In the case of pseudogapping,
Merchant’s (2008) data force us to take v* to be within the domain that gets transferred,
that is all.
c. [v*P v* [VP Vϕ DP]]
VP ellipsis (simple scenario)
d. [XP DP X [v*P v*ϕ [VP V tDP]]] pseudogapping (complex scenario)
(26)
In sum: for Merchant (2008), VP ellipsis deletes VP, but pseudogapping does v*P.
(27)
Problems:
(i)
object raising should target SPEC-V, not SPEC-v* (as part of ϕfeature inheritance; cf. Richards 2007).
(ii)
Empirically, no minimal pair ir offered (cf. Tanaka 2008):
a. *Roses were brought by some, and others did bring lilies.
b. *Roses were brought by some, and others did bring roses, too.
c. *Some brought roses, and lilies were brought by others.
d. *Some brought roses, and lilies were brought by others, too.
pseudogapping
VP ellipsis
pseudogapping
VP ellipsis
7
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
(28)
VP ellipsis counterparts of Merchant’s (2008) pseudogapping examples are also
ruled out (cf. Tanaka 2008).
a. *Klimt is admired by Abby more than anyone does admire Klee.
a’. *Klimt is admired by Abby more than anyone does admire Klimt.
pseudogapping
VP ellipsis
b. *Abby admires Klimt more than he is admired by anyone.
b’. *Abby admires Klimt more than he is admired by Abby.
pseudogapping
VP ellipsis
(29)
Furtheremore, pseudogapping counterparts of Merchant’s (2008) VP ellipsis
examples are also grammatical (cf. Tanaka 2008).
a. This problem was to have been looked into, but obviously nobody did. VP ellipsis
a’. ?My problem will be looked into by Tom, but he won’t into yours.
pseudogapping
4. Verb movement
(30)
In this final section, I turn to Romance languages, whose most intriguing
property is the unavailability of VP ellipsis. What I want to consider here is
whether there is some connection between this and verb movement.
Descriptively, we have the following:
a. Verb movement bleeds VP ellipsis.
(31)
This appears to be correct. However, (30) is threatened by languages like
Portuguese (and Hebrew and Irish too; cf. Lasnik 2008), which has verb
movement, but has been argued to have VP ellipsis (cf. Martins 1994).
- In the Spanish case, there is some controversy with respect to whether there is VP
ellipsis (cf. López 1999) or not (cf. Depiante 2001a; 2001b). I will assume Spanish lacks
VP ellipsis.
(32)
Most proposals I am familiar with argue that these facts are related to ΣP. More
precisely, most proposals argue that ellipsis is somehow licensed by this head.
- Importantly: this might well be correct, but, if so, we would not have the possibility to
connect ellipsis phenomena across phases. Since I want to explore this connection, I
will try to stick to (6), and reject analyses where Laka’s Σ licenses deletion.
8
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
(33)
Martins (1994) is one reference where it is claimed that Σ is an ellpisis licensing
head (cf. López 1994 too). According to this author, Σ is stronger in Portuguese
than in Spanish (p.189) –which means the verb moves higher in the former
language (up to Σ). Assuming ellipsis involves null categories (cf. Brucart 1986,
Lobeck 1995, a.o.), Martins (1994) argues that licensing the null VP requires
movement of this category to SPEC-Σ.
- Before going on, let me add a note: if Σ is the key to VP ellipsis, then one may want to
exploit Laka’s (1990) claim that ΣP is placed at different clausal points in Romance in
English:
a. [ C [ Σ [ T [ V . . .] ] ] ]
b. [ C [ T [ Σ [ V . . .] ] ] ]
Romance
English
- From (a)-(b), it is tempting to conclude that ellipsis targets the complement of Σ –and,
perhaps, that Σ is a phase head. This route, though appealing, undermines any proposal
that tries to connect phases and ellipsis. As I said, I will try to follow a different route.
(34)
Let us go back to the crucial question: does verb movement affect ellipsis?
Lasnik (1999) speculates it does, and proposes (but quickly dismisses) the
following:
a. VP ellipsis constraint: VP ellipsis is prohibited if VP has lost its head.
(35)
Lasnik (1999) concentrates on pseudogapping. In those cases, only a VP portion
is deleted; according to Lasnik, (34a) follows from the fact that V movement
must occur for cheking purposes (V has a strong feature, in pre-minimalist
terms): if it does not, the structure would yield a PF crash, unless it is deleted.
- As Lasnik (1999) points out (cf. also van Craenenbroeck & Lipták 2007), the same
idea can be pushed to sluicing:
a. Speaker A: Mary saw someone.
Speaker B: Who (*did)?
(36)
In general, then, (a) should hold:
a. XP ellipsis is prohibited if XP has lost its head.
[from Lasnik 1999:158]
9
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
(37)
The problem for (36a) is that languages with verb movement apparently have
VP ellipsis. Here I want to argue against this, at least in the case of Portuguese.
Actually, if the verb has moved above T (to Laka’s Σ or Uriagereka’s F), there
is no reason to reject the possibility that we have TP ellipsis there too –the verb
that survives the ellipsis process is never in T, so deletion could target TP.
- If correct, then (36a) can be maintained. But what does it follow from? Following
Gallego (2007), I assume that v*-to-F movement triggers a phase sliding process
whereby the complement domain of v* is actually TP, under Chomsky’s (2001)
definition of the PIC. Cf. Holmberg (2007) for related ideas.
5. Conclusions
- Ellipsis domains should follow from some general principle regulating syntax-PHON
interaction, taking ellipsis to be PHON-deletion (and not LF copying, or empty category
insertion).
- A syntax-PHON mapping is natural in a derivational model such as Chomsky’s
(2004), where there are dedicated domains that are sent to the interface components by
means of an operation of cyclic transfer: the complement domains of phase heads.
- We have shown that ellipsis indeed targets the complement domain of phase heads:
TP, VP, NP, AP, and PP.
- Parametric variation can be accounted for if (some instances of) X-movement is (are)
syntactic (cf. Boeckx 2009, Gallego 2007, and Roberts to appear).
- The approach is not incompatible (in fact, needs) pragmatic constraints, like
Merchant’s (2001) e-GIVEN-ness, but it is more principled, in the sense that no Eassigning feature or government mechanisms are invoked (cf. Merchant 2001, Lobeck
1995, a.o.). In fact, it is not clear at all why ellipsis domains are the ones we found if all
that matters for ellipsis to take place is, say, E-feature assignment.
- The present account says nothing about the connection between the antecedent and the
ellipsis sites. In fact, Phase Theory cannot say much about this, since it involves nonlocal dependencies.
- Likewise, the issue of whether these domains must be syntactically or semantically
isomorphic (cf. Lasnik 2005, Merchant 2001, and Vicente 2008b, a.o.) is left open.
10
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
REFERENCES
Abels, K. 2003. Successive Cyclicity, Anti-Locality, and Adposition Stranding, PhD dissertation,
UConn.
Alexiadou, A. and K. Gengel. 2008. “NP Ellipsis without Focus movement/projection: the role
of classifiers,” talk given at Workshop on Interface-Based Approaches to Information
Structure, University College London, September 13-15 2008.
Almeida, D. and M. Yoshida. 2007. “A problem for the Preposition Stranding Generalization,”
Linguistic Inquiry 38: 349-362.
Biberauer, T. and R. D’Alessandro. 2006. “Syntactic Doubling and the Encoding of Voice in
Eastern Abruzzese,” Proceedings of WCCFL 25, University of Washington, Seattle,
April 28-30 2006.
Boeckx, C. 2009. “Aspects of a Theory of Phases,” Ms., Harvard University.
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense (2 vols.), Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Brucart, J. M. 1987. La elisión sintáctica en español, Barcelona: Publicacions de la UAB.
Brucart, J. M. 1999. “La elipsis,” in I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de
la lengua española, Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 2787-2863.
Busquets, J. 2006. “Stripping vs. VP-ellipsis in Catalan: What is deleted and when?,” Probus
18: 159-187.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” in R. Martin et al. (eds.), Step by
Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 89-155.
Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by Phase,” in Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz
(ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1-51.
Chomsky, N. 2004. “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy,” in A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and
Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (vol. 3), Oxford, NY: OUP.
Chomsky, N. 2007. “Approaching UG from below,” in U. Sauerland and H-M. Gärtner (eds.),
Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntaxsemantics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-30.
Coppock, E. 2001. “Gapping: In Defense of Deletion,” in Proceedings of CLS 37: 133-148.
Corver, N. 1991. “Evidence for DegP,” in T. Sherer (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 21, Amherst,
MA: GLSA, 33-47.
Corver, N. and M. van Koppen. 2008. “NP ellipsis with adjectival remnants: a microcomparative perspective,” Ms., Utrecht Institute of Linguistics – OTS, Utrecht
University.
Depiante, M. 2001a. “Ellipsis in Spanish and the Stranded Affix Filter,” in Proceedings of
NELS 31, Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, 215-224.
Depiante, M. 2001b. “On null complement anaphora in Spanish and Italian,” Probus 13: 193221.
Depiante, M. 2004. “Dos casos de elipsis con partícula de polaridad en español,” Rasgal 1: 5369.
Depiante, M. and P. Masullo. 2001. “Género y número en la elipsis nominal: Consecuencias
para la hipótesis lexicalista,” talk given in I Encuentro de Gramática Generativa.
Escuela Superior de Idiomas, Universidad Nacional del Comahue. General Roca, Río
Negro, Argentina, November 22-23.
Dikken, M. den. 2007. “Phase Extension. Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in
phrasal extraction,” Theoretical Linguistics 33: 1-41.
Eguren, L. 2007. “Contrastive Focus and Nominal Ellipsis in Spanish,” talk given at Going
Romance 2007, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, December 6-8 2007.
Eguren, L. 2008. “Clíticos léxicos y elipsis nominal,” in X. Artiagoitia and J. Lakarra (eds.),
Gramatika jaietan: Patxi Goenaga omenez, Universidad del País Vasco, 209-224.
Epstein, S. and D. Seely. 2006. Derivations in Minimalism: Exploring the Elimination of AChains and the EPP, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
Fox, D. and H. Lasnik. 2003. “Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: the difference
between sluicing and VP-ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 34:143-154.
Fox, D. and D. Pesetsky. 2005. “Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure,” Theoretical
Linguistics 31: 1-45.
Gallego, A. 2007. Phase Theory and Parametric Variation, PhD dissertation, UAB.
Gengel, K. 2007. “Phases and Ellipsis,” Ms., University of Stuttgart.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection,” in K.
Hale and S. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. Essays in Honor of Sylvain
Bromberger, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111-176.
Harley, H. 2007. “One-replacement, unaccusativity, acategorial roots, and Bare Phrase
Structure,” Ms., University of Arizona.
Hiraiwa, K. 2005. Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture,
PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Holmberg, A. 2007. “Null Subjects and Polarity Focus,” Studia Linguistica 61: 212-236.
Johnson, K. 1996/2003. “In search of the middle field,” Ms., U.Mass Amherst.
Johnson, K. 2006, “Gapping isn’t (VP) Ellipsis,” Ms., U.Mass Amherst.
Kayne, R. 2005. Movement and Silence, Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, R. 2006. “On Parameters and on Principles of Pronunciation,” in H. Broekhuis et al.
(eds.) Organizing Grammar. Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Kennedy, K. 2001. “In Search of Unpronounced Structure,” Ms., Northwestern University.
Kennedy, K. and J. Merchant. 2000. “Attributive Comparative Deletion,” NLLT 18: 89-146.
Kratzer, A. and E. Selkirk. 2007. “Phase Theory and Prosodic Spell-Out. The Case of Verbs,”
Ms. UMass. Amherst.
Kornfeld, L. and A. Saab. 2004. “Nominal ellipsis and morphological structure in Spanish,” in
R. Bok-Bennema et al. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2002.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 183-198.
Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections.
PhD dissertation, MIT.
Lasnik, H. 1999. “Pseudogapping puzzles,” in S. Lappin and E. Benmamoun (eds.), Fragments:
Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping, New York: OUP.
Lasnik, H. 2005. “Review of Jason Merchant, the syntax of silence,” Language 81: 259-265.
Lasnik, H. 2008. “Repair by Ellipsis Revisited,” class lectures at Nanzan University, Japan,
August 2-6, 2008.
Leu, T. 2008. The Internal Syntax of Determiners. PhD Dissertation, NYU.
Lobeck, A. 1995. Ellipsis: functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: OUP.
López, L. 1994. “The Syntactic Licensing of VP-ellipsis: A Comparative Study of Spanish and
English,” in M.L. Mazzole (ed.), Issues and Theory in Romance Linguistics,
Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 333-354.
López, L. 1999. “The Syntax of Contrastive Focus: Evidence from VP Ellipsis,” in Advances in
Hispanic Linguistics, J. Gutiérrez-Rexach and F. Martínez-Gil (eds.), Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press, 412-427.
Marantz, A. 2007. “Phases and Words,” in S. H. Choe (ed.), Phases in the theory of grammar,
Seoul: Dong In, 191-220.
Martin, R. 2001. “Null Case and the Distribution of PRO,” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141-166.
Martins, A. M. 1994. “Enclisis, VP-deletion and the nature of Sigma,” Probus 6: 173-205.
McCloskey, J. 2008. “Two Problems in Irish Syntax: and their Resolution,” talk given at
Harvard University, November 7th 2008.
Merchant, J. 2001. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis, Oxford,
NY: OUP.
Merchant, J. 2002. “Swiping in Germanic,” in J.W. Zwart amd W. Abraham (eds.), Studies in
Comparative Germanic Syntax: Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative
Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
Merchant, J. 2008. “An asymmetry in Voice mismatches in VP-ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 39:
169-179.
Nakao, Ch., H. Ono, and M. Yoshida. 2006. “When a Complement PP Goes Missing: A Study
on the Licensing of Swiping,” in D. Baumer et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics 25, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 297-305.
Ormazabal, J. 1995. The syntax of complementation: on the connection between syntactic
structure and selection, PhD dissertation, U.Conn.
Ott, D. 2008. “Notes on noun ph(r)ases,” Ms., Harvard University.
Picallo, M.C. 2008. “On Gender and Number in Romance,” Lingue e Linguaggio 1: 44-66.
Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing Arguments, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Potsdam, E. 1997. “English Verbal Morphology and VP Ellipsis,” in Proceedings of NELS 27,
Amherst, MA: GLSA, 353-368.
Raposo, E. 2002. “Nominal Gaps with Prepositional Modifiers in Portuguese and Spanish: A
Case of Quick Spell-Out,” IUOG WPL 9: 127-144.
Raposo, E. and Uriagereka, J. 2005. “Clitic Placement in Western Iberian: A Minimalist View,”
in G. Cinque and R. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax,
Oxford, NY: OUP.
Richards, M. 2004. Object Shift and Scrambling in North and West Germanic: A Case Study in
Symmetrical Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Richards, M. 2006. “Weak pronouns, object shift, and multiple spell-out: Evidence for phases at
the PF-interface,” in C. Boeckx (eds.), Minimalist Essays, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Richards, M. 2007. “On Feature Inheritance: An Argument from the Phase Impenetrability
Condition,” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 563-572.
Rizzi, L. 1997. “The Fine Structure of The Left Periphery,” in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of
Grammar. Handbook in Generative Syntax, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281-337.
Roberts, I. 1985. “Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries,”
NLLT 3: 21-58.
Roberts, I. to appear. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation and Defective
Goals, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Samuels, B. 2009. The Structure of Phonological Theory, PhD Dissertation, Harvard University.
San Martin, I. 2004. On Subordination and the Distribution of PRO. PhD dissertation, UMD.
Svenonius, P. 2003. “Limits on P: Filling in Holes vs. Falling in Holes,” Nordlyd 31: 431-445.
Svenonius, P. 2004. “On the Edge,” in D. Adger et al. (eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and
their Effects, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Svenonius, P. 2008. “The Decomposition of P,” talk given at Syntactic Structures 2, Russian
State University for the Humanities, Moscow (Russia).
Tanaka, H. 2008. “Remarks on Voice-Mismatch,” Ms., University of York.
Uriagereka, J. 1988. On Government, PhD dissertation, U.Conn.
van Craenenbroeck, J. 2004. Ellipsis in Dutch Dialects, Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.
van Craenenbroeck, J. and A. Lipták. 2007. “On the Interaction between Verb Movement and
Ellipsis: New Evidence from Hungarian,” in Proceedings of WCCFL 26, Ch. Yang &
H. Haynie (eds.), Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
van Riemsdijk, H. 1978. A case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of
Prepositional Phrases, Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.
Vicente, L. 2007. “Constraints on the Remnants of Spanish Noun Ellipsis,” talk given at
Tabudag 2007, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Vicente, L. 2008a. “Subject control predicates and the movement analysis of gapping,” Ms.,
University of California, Santa Cruz.
Vicente, L. 2008b. “Syntactic isomorphism and non-isomorphism under ellipsis,” Ms.
University of California, Santa Cruz.
Yoshida, M. 2007. “Antecedent Contained Sluicing,” Ms., University of Maryland.
Yoshida, M. 2008. “Gapping in NP,” Ms., University of Edinburgh.
Zagona, K. 1988. “Proper Government of antecedentless VP in English and Spanish,” NLLT 6:
95-128.
13
XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar
April 1-3 2009, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Vitoria-Gasteiz (the Basque Country)
Zamparelli, R. 1993. “Pre-nominal Modifiers. Degree Phrases and the Structure of APs,” WPL
U. di Venezia 3: 139-163.
14