Syntactic Theory Ellipsis: VP , pseudogapping, gapping, sluicing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Syntactic Theory

Ellipsis: VP , pseudogapping, gapping, sluicing Clayton Greenberg

Department of Language Science and Technology, Saarland University

26 January 2017

• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 1 / 16

How to read these slides

Green: important terms Blue: definitions Blue ≈: approximate definitions Purple: acceptable examples Red: unacceptable examples *Starred ungrammatical examples Italic naturally unpronounced elements Strike-out elements that were deleted

• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 2 / 16

Green statements (partial)

Ungrammatical : blocked by specific mechanisms of the grammar Condition A : anaphors must be bound in binding domain Condition B : pronouns must NOT be bound in binding domain Condition C : R-expressions cannot be bound at all PRO : Caseless ⇒ no binding domain, unpronounced c-command : your sister(s) and their children Displacement : uttered position = interpret position Structure-sharing : dependent on multiple heads (positions) VP-internal subjects : subject gets θ-role at spec-VP , Case at spec-TP Spell-Out : where LF and PF diverge Question at LF : quantifier, domain, predicate Subjacency : don’t cross > 1 bounding domain Obligatory control : matrix subject must = embedded subject Non-obligatory control : matrix subject may = embedded subject Blocked control : matrix subject must = embedded subject

• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 3 / 16

4 types of ellipsis

1 VP-ellipsis: a full, non-finite VP is omitted from PF (elided)

She will [VP hive-five Daniel], but I won’t [VP high five Daniel].

2 Pseudogapping: part of a non-finite VP is elided

She will [VP high-five Daniel], but she won’t [VP high-five Samson].

3 Gapping: T and V (and adjuncts) are elided from non-initial conjuncts

Some [T ′ have high-fived Daniel] and others [T ′ have high-fived Ben].

4 Sluicing: all but wh-word elided from consituent question

She will high-five someone, but I don’t know [CP who she will high-five].

• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 4 / 16

A theoretical motivation question

Does the ellipsis site bear semantic and phonetic features at Spell-Out?

• If yes, they must be deleted at PF: Deletion Hypothesis
• If no, semantic features must be added at LF: Interpretation Hypothesis
• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 5 / 16

VP-ellipsis with the deletion hypothesis

TP TP NP she T′ T will VP V high-five NP Daniel CC but TP NP I T′ T won’t VP V high-five NP Daniel

• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 6 / 16

VP-ellipsis with the interpretation hypothesis

TP TP NP she T′ T will VPi V high-five NP Daniel CC but TP NP I T′ T won’t VP ei

• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 7 / 16

The big problem with VP-ellipsis

TP NP Ryan T′ T

• past

VPi V kissed NP N everyone CP C that TP NP Steven T′ T did VP ei

• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 8 / 16

What are our options?

Does the ellipsis site bear semantic and phonetic features at Spell-Out?

• If yes, the string to delete contains the antecedent

= ⇒ Antecedent Contained Deletion or ACD

• If no, the interpretation function creates a new gap

= ⇒ infinite regress

• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 9 / 16

Some solutions

• Prepose the quantified NP (May 1985)

Jorge thought he kissed everyone that Kevin did [VP e]. Everyone that Kevin did, Jorge thought he kissed For every person x such that Kevin thought he kissed x, Jorge thought he kissed x.

• Extrapose the relative clause (Baltin 1987)

Jorgej [thought he [[everyone that Kevin did [e]]i [ VP tj [ VP kissed ti ]]] The man [CP who/that//

0 [TP Mary asked about]] [VP finally showed up]

The man [VP finally showed up [CP who/that//

0 [TP Mary asked about]]

I visited everyone [CP who/that//

0 [TP you did]]]

• Invent / repurpose a spec position (Hornstein 1994)
• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 10 / 16

Strict and sloppy interpretation

Charles scratched his arm and Devin did too. Sloppy: Charlesi scratched hisi arm and Devinj scratched hisj arm, too. Strict: Charlesi scratched hisi arm and Devinj scratched hisi arm, too.

• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 11 / 16

Sluicing and ACD

TP NP John T′ T was VP V′ V kissing NP someone PP P without CP C / TP NP PRO T′ T

• pres

VP V knowing NP N who CP NP who C′ C / TP NP John T′ T was VP V kissing NP who

• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 12 / 16

VP-ellipsis and island constraints

• The man who didn’t leave knows the man who did.
• John didn’t immediately open the door–

first he shut the window, then he did.

• We left before they started playing party games.

*What did you leave before they started playing? *What did you leave before they did?

• *Devin suspected everyone that Casey believed the claim that Eric did.
• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 13 / 16

VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping

VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping are in complementary distribution.

• She will [VP high-five Daniel], but I won’t [VP high five Daniel].
• *She will [VP high-five Daniel], but I won’t [VP high-five Daniel].
• She will [VP high-five Daniel], but she won’t [VP high-five Samson].
• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 14 / 16

VP-ellipsis and gapping

VP-ellipsis and gapping block each other? =

⇒ they are not-related.

• Ben [T ′ might shower], but Jack [T ′ can’t shower], and

Austin [T ′ can’t get dressed].

• Ben [T ′ might shower], but Jack [T ′ can’t [VP e], and

Austin [T ′ can’t get dressed].

• Ben [T ′ might shower], but Jack [T ′ can’t shower]
• r Austin e get dressed].
• Ben [T ′ might shower], but Jack [T ′ can’t [VP e]
• r Austin e get dressed].
• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 15 / 16

Utterance boundaries

• Sluicing:

Someone is at the door. Guess who is at the door.

• VP-ellipsis / pseudogapping:

A: Who can go to the store? B: John can go to the store.

• Gapping:

A: Did Kevin go to the store? B: *No, Owen to the supermarket.

• Comparative deletion:

A: Did Matt see cows? B: Yes, but Jack saw more horses than Eric saw.

• C. Greenberg (UdS LST)

Ellipsis 26 January 2017 16 / 16