Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:01:12.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adverbs in VP ellipsis: an experimental investigation of antecedent selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2018

Keir Moulton
Keir Moulton*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
keir.moulton@utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of verb phrase ellipses with adverbially modified antecedents. It is shown experimentally that there is a preference for resolving ellipses in certain embedded clauses with unmodified VPs. The effect is hypothesized to reflect a general requirement to minimize the complexity of accommodated content. Four experiments support this hypothesis over plausible candidate hypotheses, including syntactic approaches to the effect (Matsuo 2001; Sailor 2014).

Résumé

Cet article présente une étude de cas d'ellipses de syntagmes verbaux avec des antécédents modifiés de façon adverbiale. Il est démontré expérimentalement qu'il existe une préférence pour la résolution des ellipses dans certaines propositions enchâssées avec des SV non modifiés. On propose que cet effet provient d'une exigence générale visant à minimiser la complexité du contenu accommodé. Quatre expériences soutiennent cette hypothèse par rapport a d'autres hypothéses plausibles, y compris des analyses syntaxiques du phénomène (Matsuo 2001; Sailor 2014).

Keywords

VP ellipsisadverbsexperimental syntaxellipses de VPadverbessyntaxe expérimentale
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 475 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article expands on results initially reported in a NELS proceedings paper (Moulton 2008). In addition to presenting two new experiments, the present article situates the results within more recent work on the topic, especially Sailor (2014). I would like to thank Tanie Cheng for assistance in conducting Experiment 4. I would also like to thank Chuck Clifton, Lyn Frazier, Kyle Johnson, Andrea Santi, Florian Schwarz and three anonymous reviewers. This work was partially supported by a SSHRC Insight Development Grant 430-2014-01034 to the author.

References

Aelbrecht, Lobke, and Harwood, William. 2015. To be or not to be elided: VP ellipsis revisited. Lingua 153: 66–97.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian, and Wasow, Thomas. 1975. The constituent structure of VP and AUX and the position of the verb be. Linguistic Analysis 1(3): 205–245.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb Placement: A case study in antisymmetric syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Altmann, Gerry, and Steedman, Mark. 1988. Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 30(3): 191–238.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald R., Davidson, Douglas J., and Bates, Douglas M.. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4): 390–412.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 1987. Do antecedent-contained deletions exist? Linguistic Inquiry 18(4): 579–596.Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph, and Tily, Harry J.. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3): 255–278.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas M. 2005. Fitting linear mixed models in R: Using the lme4 package. R News: The Newsletter of the R Project 5: 27–30.Google Scholar
Beaver, David, and Condoravdi, Cleo. 2003. A Uniform Analysis of Before and After. In Proceedings of SALT XIII, ed. Young, Robert B. and Zhou, Yuping, 37–54. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Cognition and the development of language, ed. Hayes, John R., 279–362. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. F. 1970. Antecedent contained pro-forms. In Papers from the sixth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 154–167. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano. 2004. The semantic contribution of wh-words and type shifts: Evidence from free relatives crosslinguistically. In Proceedings of SALT XIV, ed. Young, Robert B., 38–55. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano, Pearl, Lisa. 2009. The nominal nature of Where, When, and How: Evidence from free relatives. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1): 155–164.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Amount relatives. Language 53(3): 520–542.Google Scholar
Carlson, Katy. 2003. Parallelism and prosody in the processing of ellipsis sentences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2013. Syntactic identity and sluicing: How much and why. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1): 1–44.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2010. NPI-licensing in temporal clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28(4): 877–910.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen, and Steedman, Mark. 1985. On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In Natural language parsing, ed. Dowty, David, Karttunen, Lauri and Zwicky, Arnold, 94–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Bare plural subjects and the derivation of logical representations. Linguistic Inquiry 23(3): 353–380.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10(2): 211–243.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Kotek, Hadas. 2016. A streamlined approach to online linguistic surveys. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34(2): 481–495.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2001. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 2004. Would you believe it? The king of France is back! In Descriptions and beyond, ed. Reimer, Marga and Bezuidenhout, Anne, 315–341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33(1): 63–96.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny, and Nissenbaum, Jon. 1999. Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18, ed. Bird, Sonya, Carnie, Andrew, Haugen, Jason D. and Norquest, Peter, 132–144. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny, and Nissenbaum, Jon. 2003. VP ellipsis and the position of adverbs. Snippets 7: 7–8.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny, and Takahashi, Shoichi. 2005. MaxElide and the re-binding problem. In Proceedings of SALT 15, ed. Georgala, Effi and Howell, Jonathan, 223–240. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 1978. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles. 2001. Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy α. Syntax 4(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles. 2005. The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax 8(2): 121–174.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles. 2006. Ellipsis and discourse coherence. Linguistcs and Philosophy 29(3): 415–346.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles. 2011. Dynamic interpretation: Finding an antecedent for VPE. In Processing linguistic structure: University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 38, ed. Harris, Jesse and Grant, Margaret, 23–36. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Clifton, Charles, and Munn, Alan. 2000. Parsing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29(4): 343–370.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grodner, Daniel, Gibson, Edward, and Watson, Duane. 2005. The influence of contextual contrast on syntactic processing: Evidence for strong-interaction in sentence comprehension. Cognition 95(3): 275–296.Google Scholar
Hackl, Martin, Koster-Hale, Jorie, and Varvoutis, Jason. 2012. Quantification and ACD: Evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics 29(2): 145–206.Google Scholar
Hall, David P., and Caponigro, Ivano. 2010. On the semantics of temporal when-clauses. In Proceedings of SALT 20, ed. Li, Nan and Lutz, David, 544–563. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel, and Romero, Maribel. 2004. Ellipsis and the structure of discourse. Journal of Semantics 21(4): 375–414.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. WCO, ACD, and QR of DPs. Linguistic Inquiry 33(4): 659–664.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite Noun Phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. Reuland, Eric J. and ter Meulen, Alice G. B., 21–42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit [Articles and definiteness]. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenüssischen Forschung [Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research], ed. von Stechow, Arnim and Wunderlich, Dieter, 487–535. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hestvik, Arild. 1995. Reflexives and ellipsis. Natural Language Semantics 3(2): 211–237.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2008. Direct compositionality and variable-free semantics: The case of antecedent-contained deletion. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. Johnson, Kyle, 30–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline, and Gibson, Edward. 2014. Processing of ACD gives no evidence for QR. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 24, 156–176.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2008. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4): 434–446.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1974. Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1(1–3): 181–194.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2000. Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(6): 533–575.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kim, Christina S., Kobele, Gregory M., Runner, Jeffrey T., and Hale, John T.. 2011. The acceptability cline in VP ellipsis. Syntax 14(4): 318–354.Google Scholar
Lappin, Shalom, and Reinhart, Tanya. 1988. Presuppositional effects of strong determiners: A processing account. Linguistics 26(6): 1021–1038.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3): 335–392.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 2004. Sentence-final adverbs and “scope”. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 34, ed. Moulton, Keir and Wolf, Matthew, Vol. 1, 23–44. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1990. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 20, ed. Carter, Juli, Déchaine, Rose-Marie, Philip, Bill, and Sherer, Tim, 318–332. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1): 339–359.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. Baeuerle, R., Schwarze, C., and von Stechow, Arnim. Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Matsuo, Ayumi. 2001. Asp-shell Structure in VP-ellipsis and ACD. In Proceedings of WCCFL 20, ed. Megerdoomian, Karine and Bar-el, Leora Anne, 20, 386–399. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1981. The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses. Lingua 53(2): 99–149.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. Johnson, Kyle, 132–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1): 77–108.Google Scholar
Morzycki, Marcin. 2008. Nonrestrictive modifiers in nonparenthetical positions. In Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse, ed. Kennedy, Chris and McNally, Louise, 101–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2008. Small antecedents: Syntax or pragmatics? In Proceedings of the thirty-seventh annual meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, ed. Elfner, Emily and Walkow, Martin, vol. 1, 45–58. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Ni, Weijia. 1996. Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes 11(3): 283–334.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, Philip. 1997. Fact, Proposition, Event. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 1989. Processing indefinite noun phrases in quantified sentences. In Five College Cognitive Science Paper, vol. 89. Amherst, MA: Five College Cognitive Science Program.Google Scholar
Potsdam, Eric. 1998. A Syntax for Adverbs. In Proceedings of the twenty-seventh Western Conference on Linguistics, ed. van Gelderen, Elly and Samiian, Vida, 397–411. Fresno: Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2002. The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as and appositive-which. Syntax 5(1): 55–88.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. <http://www.R-project.org>..>Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 117–121.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sailor, Craig. 2014. The variables of VP ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2004. Conditionals as definite descriptions. Research on Language and Computation 2(3): 417–462.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Phillippe. 2005. Minimize Restrictors! Notes on definite descriptions, Condition C, and epithets. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, ed. Maier, Emar, Bary, Corien, and Huitink, Janneke, 385–416. Nijmegen: Nijmegen Centre of Semantics.Google Scholar
Sedivy, Julie C. 2002. Invoking discourse-based contrast sets and resolving syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language 46(2): 341–370.Google Scholar
Sedivy, Julie C. 2003. Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast: Evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(1): 3–32.Google Scholar
Shaer, Benjamin. 2000. Syntactic position and the readings of ‘manner’ adverbs. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics 17, ed. Fabricius-Hansen, Catherine, Lang, Ewald, and Maienborn, Claudia, 265–286. Berlin: Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 2014. On the universal principles of tense embedding: The lesson from ‘before’. Journal of Semantics 31(2): 263–313.Google Scholar
Spivey-Knowlton, Michael, and Sedivy, Julie C. 1995. Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition 55(3): 227–267.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and Philosophy, ed. Munitz, M. and Unger, P., 197–214. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5): 701–721.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 2002. Temporal prepositional phrases with quantifiers: Some additions to Pratt and Francez (2001). Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5–6): 755–800.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 2009. Tenses in compositional semantics. In The expression of time, ed. Klein, Wolfgang and Li, P., 129–166. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stroik, Thomas. 1990. Adverbs as V-sisters. Linguistic Inquiry 21(1): 654–661.Google Scholar
Stroik, Thomas. 1996. Minimalism, scope, and VP structure. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Tancredi, Christopher. 1992. Deletion, deaccenting and presupposition. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Vanden Wyngærd, G., and Zwart, J.-W.. 1991. Reconstruction and Vehicle Change. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1: 151–160.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1974. Rule ordering in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar