Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-wfgm8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-02T13:55:27.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

At the Syntax-Discourse Interface: Verb Phrase Ellipsis Interpretation in Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Jeffrey Geiger  and
Ming Xiang
Jeffrey Geiger*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Ming Xiang*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
Geiger, 185 East Sixth Street Pomona College LGCS, Edmunds 206 Claremont, CA 91711, [jeffrey.geiger@pomona.edu]
Xiang, 1115 East 58th Street Rosenwald Hall 205B Chicago, IL 60637, [mxiang@uchicago.edu]
Get access

Abstract

A central question of language comprehension concerns the interaction between linguistic form and broader representations of discourse in the interpretation of context-sensitive expressions. This interaction is instantiated in the interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis (VPE), where previous work has shown that the linguistic antecedent and the broader context are both considered in resolution. Using a novel experimental paradigm, we investigated VPE interpretation in discourses where the antecedent and the broader context make different information available for inclusion in the interpretation of the ellipsis site. Our results point to a complex interaction between linguistic antecedents and the broader discourse context in interpretation, putting considerable constraints on the set of possible models for VPE resolution. This work contributes to a better understanding of both the connections between and the boundaries separating linguistic structure and mental models of discourse contexts.

Keywords

verb phrase ellipsismeaning in contextsyntax-discourse interfacediscourse comprehensionexperimental pragmatics

Information

Type
Research Report
Information
Language , Volume 97 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. e89 - e110
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-1827404. We would like to thank the referees and editors of Language, as well as Chris Kennedy, Jason Merchant, and the Language Processing Lab at the University of Chicago for their many helpful comments. All remaining errors are due to the authors.

References

Arregui, Ana, Clifton, Charles Jr., Frazier, Lyn; and Moulton, Keir. 2006. Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 55. 232–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.005.10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben; and Walker, Steven. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67. 1–48. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.10.18637/jss.v067.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Leon, and Goodman, Noah D.. 2015. The strategic use of noise in pragmatic reasoning. Topics in Cognitive Science 7. 336–50. DOI: 10.1111/tops.12144.10.1111/tops.12144CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bürkner, Paul-Christian. 2017. brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software 80. 1–28. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v080.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Shieber, Stuart M.; and Pereira, Fernando C. N.. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 399–452. DOI: 10.1007/BF00630923.10.1007/BF00630923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drummond, Alex. 2020. Ibex Farm manual. Online: https://github.com/addrummond/ibex/blob/master/docs/manual.md.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frank, Michael C., and Goodman, Noah D.. 2012. Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science 336(6084).998. DOI: 10.1126/science.1218633.10.1126/science.1218633CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franke, Michael. 2009. Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.313416.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, and Levy, Roger. 2017. Noisy-context surprisal as a human sentence processing cost model. Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 688–98. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/E17-1065.Google Scholar
Geiger, Jeffrey, and Xiang, Ming. 2017. ‘Context can!‘: Contextual accommodation in exophoric and anaphoric verb phrase ellipses. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 47(2). 35–44.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward, Bergen, Leon; and Piantadosi, Steven T.. 2013. Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110. 8051–15. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1216438110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, Noah D., and Stuhlmüller, Andreas. 2013. Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 5. 173–84. DOI: 10.1111/tops.12007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307. DOI: 10.2307/416535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haïk, Isabelle. 1987. Bound VPs that need to be. Linguistics and Philosophy 10. 503–30. DOI: 10.1007/BF00628068.10.1007/BF00628068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 391–428. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177933.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation. Online: https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI9331786/.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2003. Binding without pronouns (and pronouns without binding). Resource-sensitivity, binding, and anaphora, ed. by Kruijff, Geert-Jan M. and Oehrle, Richard T., 57–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-0037-6_3.10.1007/978-94-010-0037-6_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2011. Game-theoretical pragmatics. Handbook of logic and language, 2nd edn., ed. by van Benthem, Johan F. and Meulen, Alice ter, 467–91. London: Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53726-3.00009-8.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2000. Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 23. 533–75. DOI: 10.1023/A:1005677819813.10.1023/A:1005677819813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence in discourse. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, and Rohde, Hannah. 2013. A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics 39. 1–37. DOI: 10.1515/tl-2013-0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertz, Laura. 2008. Focus structure and acceptability in verb phrase ellipsis. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 27. 283–91. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/27/paper1842.pdf.Google Scholar
Kertz, Laura. 2013. Verb phrase ellipsis: The view from information structure. Language 89. 390–428. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2013.0051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Christina S., Kobele, Gregory M., Runner, Jeffrey T.; and Hale, John T.. 2011. The acceptability cline in VP ellipsis. Syntax 14. 318–54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00160.x.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00160.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassiter, Daniel, and Goodman, Noah D.. 2017. Adjectival vagueness in a Bayesian model of interpretation. Synthese 194. 3801–13. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-015-0786-1.10.1007/s11229-015-0786-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2008. A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. EMNLP '08: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 234–43. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D08-1025.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, Kanan B., Geiger, Jeffrey, Kennedy, Christopher; and Xiang, Ming. 2018. Interpretations of VP anaphora through reference to salient events. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 3:38. DOI: 10.3765/plsa.v3i1.4326.10.3765/plsa.v3i1.4326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3.10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 77–108. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00120.10.1162/LING_a_00120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2019. Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, ed. by van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen and Temmerman, Tanja, 19–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.2.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Philip, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2014. Exophoric VP ellipsis. The core and the periphery: Data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by Ivan A. Sag, ed. by Hofmeister, Philip and Norcliffe, Elisabeth, 5–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Poppels, Till, and Kehler, Andrew. 2019. Reconsidering asymmetries in voice-mismatched verb phrase ellipsis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1):60. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.738.Google Scholar
Ryskin, Rachel, Futrell, Richard, Kiran, Swathi; and Gibson, Edward. 2018. Comprehenders model the nature of noise in the environment. Cognition 181. 141–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sag, Ivan A. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/16401.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Hankamer, Jorge. 1984. Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy 7. 325–45. DOI: 10.1007/BF00627709.10.1007/BF00627709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1977. Does she or doesn't she? Linguistic Inquiry 8. 763–67. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178025.Google Scholar
Thoms, Gary. 2015. Syntactic identity, parallelism, and accommodated antecedents. Lingua 166. 172–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.04.005.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2012. Ellipsis, identity, and accommodation. Brussels: KU Leuven, ms. Online: https://www.crissp.be/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/paper_ellipsis_and_accommodation.pdf.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Webber, Bonnie. 1978. A formal approach to discourse anaphora. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 101–39. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177974.Google Scholar