Spring 2006
LX 523, Week 10: On Ellipsis
1. What is ellipsis?
• Gaps (i.e. missing materials) occur under the identity with antecedent.
(1) John likes a pizza, and his daughter does <like a pizza>, too.
• Gaps can either precede or follow antecedent.
(2) John does <want to visit the museum>, but Mary doesn’t want to visit the museum.
• Antecedent can be found across clauses or sentences.
(3) a. Mary said that she ate sushi for lunch, and Bill said that he did eat sushi for lunch, too.
b. Jill and her friends decide to go to the ball game this Saturday. Well, I’m not
particularly interested in baseball, but I will go to the ball game, too.
(4) Not all ellipsis phenomena allow a long distance antecedent
a. Mary ate Sushi, and Bill ate Teriyaki.
b. *Mary said that she ate Sushi, and Bill said that he ate Teriyaki.
• Types of Ellipsis
(5) a. John will have caviar, but others won’t ____.
VP-Ellipsis
b. John will have caviar, but others ____ beans.
Gapping
c. John will have caviar, but others will ____ beans.
Pseudogapping
d. John read every book that Mary did ____.
Antecedent Contained Deletion
e. I will drink Bill’s wine, but Mary’s _____ is even better.
NP-Ellipsis
f. The Red Sox start a more talented infield than they do _____ an outfield.
Comparative Deletion
g. Susan loves studying sluicing, and Jason____, too!
Stripping
h. Every man who said he would buy some salmon did _____.
Argument Contained Deletion
i. John said something last night, but I don’t remember what_____.
Sluicing
j. Luis was talking, but I don’t know who to _____.
Swiping
k. Mary loves____, but Bill hates CATS.
Right Node Raising
2. Representation in syntax
• Does the elision site have an internal syntactic structure?
o A pro-form account: a null pronoun occupies the ellipsis site (Williams 1988, Hardt
1992, Lobeck 1995).
o A derivational account: the full-fledged syntactic structure remains in the ellipsis site.
(e.g. Ross 1967, Johnson 2001, Merchant 2001)
1
(6) John likes the cookie, and Bill does, too.
a. The derivational approach
&P
qp
TP
&’
3
3
DP
T’
&
TP
Jane 3
3
T
VP
DP
T’
6
Bill
3
likes the cookie
T
VP
does 6
like the cookie
b. The pro-form approach
TP
3
T’
3
T
VP
does
g
pro
(7) Anne invited someone, but I don’t know who.
The derivational approach
3
know
CP
3
who
C’
3
C
IP
6
invited twho
The pro-form approach:
3
know
DP
g
who
• Against the pro-form approach
o Missing antecedent phenomenon
If the pro-form is correct, the replacement of the ellipsis site with an overt pronoun is
predicted to be possible.
(8) My uncle didn’t buy anything for Christmas, but my aunt did pro and it was bright red.
(9) *My uncle didn’t buy anything for Christmas, but my aunt did it for him and it was
bright red.
(Bresnan 1971: 591)
2
(9) shows that the NPI cannot be taken to be an antecedent for the pronominal it, so the
antecedent for the pronoun is missing.
Note: The some/any alternation is proposed by Klima (1964). Consider (10). If the ellipsis
site is just the strict copy of the corresponding antecedent (10a), the reconstruction is
unsuccessful because the NPI in the second conjunct cannot be licensed by the negation.
(10) I didn’t read any book last night, but Bill did.
a. *I didn’t read any book last night, but Bill did <read any book last night>.
b. I didn’t read any book last night, but Bill did <read some book last night>.
Klima claims that some and any are the same underlyingly, and they can be altered between
them in an appropriate context.
Some/any alternation can also be understood under Fiengo & May’s (1994) Vehicle
Change.
Vehicle Change is proposed to explain the alternation between the proper name and its
pronoun form in an ellipsis context. Fiengo & May (1994) propose that proper names and
pronouns share the same binary feature [± pronoun].
(11) Mary loves Johni, and hei thinks Sally does <love Johni>, too
(Fiengo & May 1994:220)
According to Fiengo & May, proper names have the feature [-pronoun], but the
reconstruction of the ellipsis are not sensitive to the value of the feature, so it can be realized
as [+pronoun], thus avoiding Principle C violation.
(12) Vehicle Change (simplified version, Fiengo & May 1994)
As long as indices remain constant, proper names and their pronominal correlates must
have the same reference.
Q. Can we explain the some/any alternation with Vehicle Change, too?
o Island sensitivity
Syntactic movement out of islands is prohibited.
(13) a. I know which book Mag read, and which book John said that you hadn’t.
b. ?*I know which book Mag read, and which book John asked why you hadn’t.
c. ?*I know which book Mag read, and which book John read my report that you hadn’t.
d. ?*I know which book Mag read, and which book John discussed after I had.
(Johnson 2001: 457)
o Differences between ellipsis and anaphors
Ellipsis is available, but not VP anaphora.
3
(14) Katie suspected everyone who the detective did.
(15) a. *Katie suspected everyone who the detective did it.
b. *Katie suspected everyone who the detective did so.
(16) [everyone who the detective did]i [Katie [suspected ti]
o Case-matching
Consider what case the wh-word is assigned in (17-18). Case must have been assigned by the
internal structure.
(17) A car is parked on the lawn, but we don’t know whose/*who car is parked on the lawn
(18) Er will jemandem schmeicheln, aber sie wissen nicht, {*wer /*wen /wem}
he wants someone.DAT flatter,
but they know not {who.NOM who.ACC who.DAT}
o Number Agreement
The prediction under each approach is different in (19), as well.
(19) Some of these problems are solvable, but [which problems are solvable] is/*are not
obvious.
o Preposition-stranding
English is a P-stranding language, but German is not. Sluicing in the context of P-stranding
is available only for languages permitting P-stranding in overt syntax. Compare (20) with (21).
(20) Peter was talking with someone, but I don’t know (with) who.
(21) Anna hat mit jemandem gesprochen, aber ich weiβ nicht, *(mit) wem.
Anna has with someone
spoken
but I know not
with who
• Island Repair
(22) Mike wants to know which guests gave him a certain present, but he doesn’t find out
which onet <Mike wants to know which guests gave him t>.
(Ross 1969)
Recall that syntactic movement is sensitive to island constraints.
Q: What island does (22) violate?
It is puzzling that (22) sounds good even if it violates a movement constraint!
Ross (1969) claims that island violation can be repaired if the defect site is deleted by
sluicing. However, consider (23).
4
(23) *Abby wants to hire someone who speaks Greek, but I don’t remember which
(language) Ben does want to hire someone who speaks.
Merchant (2001) claims that there are PF-islands and LF-islands. PF-deletion can only
repair PF-islands.
The other examples of PF-islands: Left-Branch extraction (24), Comp-trace effects (25),
and topicalizations (26).
(24) Kate bought a big car, but I don’t know [DegP HOW big] <she bought [t’ a [t car]>
(25) It’s probable that a certain senator will resign, but which <it’s probable that t will
resign> is still a secret.
(26) A: A biography of one of the Marx brothers, she refused to read
B: Which one?
(cf. *Which Marx brother did she say that [a biography of __], she refused to read?
LF-islands:
Extraction of the propositional a domain. (e.g. Relative clause, Adjuncts, etc.)
Sluicing cannot repair LF-island violations.
(27) *They hired someone who speaks a Balkan language – guess which (Balkan language)
they did <hire someone who speaks.>
(28) They hired someone who speaks a Balkan language – guess which <she speaks>.
(28’) They hired someone who speaks a Balkan language – guess which (Balkan language)
<they hired someone who speaks.>
(cf. Fox & Lasnik 2003 for a different analysis, Takahashi & Fox 2005 for MaxElide)
3. Licensing Ellipsis
• Null hypothesis: Ellipsis can occur whenever we can find its antecedent.
(5) a.John will have caviar, but others won’t have caviar.
VP-Ellipsis
i. John said something last night, but I don’t remember what John said. Sluicing
(29) *John sold the blue car, and Mary bought the blue car.
(29’) cf. John sold the blue car, and Mary bought the blue car.
(30) *John appears to be smart, and Mary also seems [IP to be smart.]
The Null hypothesis is not borne out.
5
• Lobeck (1995): Only functional heads can license ellipsis.
That is, T can license VP-ellipsis, D NP-ellipsis, and C sluicing (IP-ellipsis).
However, consider (31-32). IP-ellipsis is predicted be licensed, contrary to fact, since
whether/that merges to C.
(31) *John said that he would go to the party, but Bill hasn’t decided whether he would go
to the party.
(32) *It was painted, but it wasn’t obvious that it was painted.
Lobeck proposes that the null IPs do not occur when lexically governed, and that the null IP
must be properly head-governed by an agreeing head, C0, which must be specified [+wh].
In Minimalist Program friendly terms, Merchant (2001) proposes a feature E on I that can
be checked only by [+wh, +Q] triggers deletion of IP at PF. E moves I to C, being checked
in C.
CP
3
wh-word
C’
3
C[+wh,+Q]
IP
:
3
z-- IE
…
“E issues an instruction to the PF system to skip its complement for purposes of parsing
and production.”
(Merchant 2001:60)
Q: What about the other types of ellipsis? VPE and NP-ellipsis?
(33) John bought two apples, but Mary bought three apples.
(34) *John read a book, and Mary bought the book.
To sum up,
• Ellipsis needs a specific licensor.
• Certain functional heads (C, I, or D) are eligible to have the E feature.
• GIVENness & e-GIVENness
(35) *John called Bill an idiot, and Mary did insult Bill, too.
(35’) John called Bill an idiot, and Mary insulted Bill, too.
6
(36) John called Bill an idiot, and Mary did call Bill an idiot, too.
Why can’t we elide the VP in (35)?
It is natural to assume that only given materials (i.e. given from prior discourse) are eligible
to be elided. New information cannot be elided. Consider (36), again. The VP call Bill an idiot
is given since we have exactly the same antecedent in the first conjunct.
Now consider (35), again. Since call someone an idiot has a very close meaning with insult
someone, the VP in the second conjunct should be considered as given as well, since it has an
antecedent. But ellipsis is not licensed, but deaccenting is. We need to define the givenness.
o Schwarzchild (1999): What is given?
GIVEN:
An utterance U counts as GIVEN iff it is entailed by prior discourse.
(37) [a green apple] entails [an apple], so [an apple] is given.
Entailment relationship holds between propositions, type t. But we want to apply the term
‘given’ to expressions of any type.
Existential type shifting (∃-type shifting): a type shifting operation that raises expressions
to type t, by existentially binding unfilled argument.
(37’) ∃x (green-apple(x)) ∃x (apple (x)).
(38) A: John ate a green apple.
B: No, John ate a RED apple.
Non-F-marked constituents are given.
Does John ate a green apple entail John ate a RED apple?
Conflicts between non-F-marking and givenness.
(38B) John ate a Y apple (where Y is a focus variable)
Then, F-closure: ∃-type shifting occurs on this F-variable in (39).
(39) John ate a green apple ∃Y[John ate a Y apple]
Definition of GIVEN (Schwarzschild 1999: 151)
An utterance U counts as GIVEN iff it has a salient antecedent A and A entails the
existential F-closure of U, modulo ∃-type shifting.
How is it relevant in our discussion on ellipsis?
7
o Merchant (2001) proposes that ellipsis be able to occur when the givenness
relationship is established between the two conjuncts (call this ellipsisGIVENness).
e-GIVENness (Merchant 2001: 31)
An expression E counts as e-given iff E has a salient antecedent A and, modulo ∃-type
shifting,
(i) A entails F-clo (E), and
(ii) E entails F-clo (A)
(36) JOHN called Bill an idiot, and MARY did call Bill an idiot, too.
a) Antecedent: JOHN called Bill an idiot
b) F-clo (A) = ∃x. x called Bill an idiot. (by ∃-type shifting for the focused item)
c) Ellipsis: MARY called Bill an idiot
d) F-clo (E) = ∃x. x called Bill an idiot. (by ∃-type shifting for the focused item)
A entails F-clo (E) & E entail F-clo (A).
e-GIVENness is satisfied, so ellipsis is licensed.
o What about deaccenting?
Deaccenting has a weaker licensing condition. The only requirement for deaccenting is (i).
Therefore if antecedent entails the deaccented clause, deaccenting is licensed, regardless of the
other way around.
Consider (35) again.
(35) *John called Bill an idiot, and Mary did insult Bill, too.
(35’) John called Bill an idiot, and Mary insulted Bill, too.
A F-clo (E), but *E F-clo (A).
Therefore, ellipsis isn’t, but deaccenting is licensed!
• The same holds for sluicing, too.
(40) I know she called some politician an idiot, but I don’t know WHICH (politician) she
called an idiot.
(41) *I know she called some politician an idiot, but I don’t know WHICH (politician) she
insulted.
(42) I know she called some politician an idiot, but I don’t know WHICH (politician) she insulted.
8
• An alternative to e-GIVENness (Rooth’s (1992) structural parallelism)
o A E must be observed in Ellipsis and deaccenting.
o Ellipsis must observed one more requirement (i.e. structural isomorphism)
Merchant’s criticism on Rooth’s proposals:
o Even if antecedent and ellipsis are not structurally equivalent, ellipsis is still allowable
(43a).
o A lack of correspondence between structures can be observed, for example, a gerund
antecedent can license the deletion of an infinitive (43b) – mismatch in structure.
o Isomorphism cannot account for when deaccenting is available (43c).
o It is hard to explain cases involving Fiengo & May’s (1994) Vehicle Change, with
which R-expressions and pronouns are equivalent under ellipsis (43d).
(43) a. Mary was singing, but I don’t know WHAT <Mary was singing t>
b. Changing oil for your car is easy if you know HOW <*changing oil for your car>
<to change oil for your car>
c. Mary called Ben an idiot, but I don’t know who else <she insulted/*she dated>
d. The police arrested Mike1, though he1 thought they wouldn’t<arrest Mike1>
5 Scope Parallelism
Scope Parallelism is a well-known phenomenon in ellipsis literature (Sag 1976, Williams 1977,
Hirschbühler 1982, Rooth 1992, Fox 1995, 2000).
(44) One of the undergraduate students in Syntax II class admires every professor in
linguistics, and some graduate student does, too.
(Either both ∃>∀ or ∀>∃)
*∃>∀ & ∀>∃
*∀>∃ & ∃>∀
The non-quantifier subject in ellipsis disambiguates the scope in (45).
(45) One of the undergraduate students in Syntax II class admires every professor in
linguistics, and Johnson does, too.
(Only ∃>∀ for both conjuncts)
Sluicing forces the indefinite in the first conjunct to take wide-scope in (46).
(46) Mary wanted to meet a movie star, but I wonder WHICH one.
(47) Scope Economy (Fox 1995, 2000)
Quantifier Raising must influence the output (i.e. scope). Vacuous movement is banned
because it is not economical (Chomsky 1995).
(48) LF structure of (44)
9
TP1: i) [TPevery professor [TPone of the undergraduate student [TP… …]]
ii) [TPone of the undergraduate student [TPevery professor [TP… …]]
(∀>∃)
(∃>∀)
TP2: Some graduate student does admire every professor.
i) [TPevery professor [TP some graduate student [TP… …]]
(∀>∃)
ii) [TPsome graduate student [TPevery professor [TP… …]]
(∃>∀)
Each QR in TP1 and TP2 derives a different scope, so informative.
(49) TP1 can be comparable to TP1 in (48).
TP2: Johnson does admire every professor.
i) *[TPevery professor [TP Johnson [TP … …]]
(*∀>Johnson:*scope economy)
ii) [TPJohnson [TP every professor [TP … …]]
(Johnson>∀: surface scope)
(49i) is banned because QR does not influence the scope, thus violating scope economy.
Therefore, ∃>∀ is the only option for (45), observing scope parallelism. On the other hand,
the inverse scope is available in (44), since the second conjunct can take ∀>∃.
10