Ellipsis in Construction Grammar

Goldberg, Adele Ε.; Perek, Florent

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.8

Cited by 13 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Crucially, however, this ameliorating effect for gapping was, once again, modulated by the semantics of the embedding predicates. Our hypothesis was that embedding under non-factive verbs should be more acceptable than under factive ones, and, within factive predicates, [18] Previous corpus studies on English gapping (Meyer 1995;& Meyer 2006) observe that gapping has a very low frequency and occurs much more often in written than spoken language; in particular, it is restricted to formal registers (see also Goldberg & Perek 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…a fragment) to a clausal meaning. In this approach, each elliptical construction may have its specific constraints Goldberg & Perek 2018). 22 As an illustration, we present the main ingredients of a syntactic analysis couched within Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) 23 (cf.…”

Section: Towards a Construction-based Fragment Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24 (43) (a) So you don't have to trust me or me, you. (Goldberg & Perek 2018: 202, ( 51)) (b) So you don't have to trust me or I don't have to trust you. (Goldberg & Perek 2018: 202, (51)) 25 (c) You want (for) me to trust you.…”

Section: Towards a Construction-based Fragment Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Factivity and complementizer omission in English embedded gapping

Bîlbîie¹,

Fuente²,

Abeillé³

2022

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking as a starting point the variation in introspective judgments on embedded gapping in English in the literature, the main goal of this paper is to test the ‘No Embedding Constraint’ experimentally. Building on a first experimental study designed to measure the interaction between that-omission and factivity in English embedded complement clauses, we conducted two experiments testing the role of the complementizer in embedded gapping, paying special attention to the semantic nature of the matrix predicates (non-factives vs semi-factives vs true factives). Our results show, on the one hand, that the ‘No Embedding Constraint’ makes too strong claims that are not backed up by our experimental findings, and, on the other hand, that embedded gapping is affected by both the presence/absence of that and by the semantic class of the matrix predicate in English. In particular, embedded gapping seems to be more acceptable under non-factive verbs, especially in the absence of a complementizer. Both constraints (that-omission and factivity) can be accounted for by a constructionist fragment-based analysis, where the gapped clause is a non-finite phrase that has to address the same Question Under Discussion as its source. This explains, in turn, why embedded gapping under true factive predicates is considered significantly less acceptable. We show that the acceptable cases of embedded gapping involve true syntactic embedding (so, the matrix clause has no parenthetical use). We conclude that English has the same sensitivity to the semantic class of the matrix predicate as other languages, but that the requirements on the presence/absence of that are English specific.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Towards a Construction-based Fragment Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factivity and complementizer omission in English embedded gapping

Bîlbîie¹,

Fuente²,

Abeillé³

2022

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… [8] See also Goldberg & Perek (2019) for an outline of a Construction Grammar analysis of ellipsis where ellipsis, like pronominal anaphora, is resolved via a mechanism that points back to a target phrase in the antecedent, building on Martin & McElree’s (2011) proposal (see below). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis and the cue-based theory of sentence processing

Nykiel¹,

Kim²,

Sim³

2022

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is concerned with case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis. We begin by considering available crosslinguistic data that indicate that variation in case marking on a fragment is delimited by the argument structure of the lexical head that assigns case to the fragment’s correlate in the antecedent clause. We then offer experimental evidence for a case-matching preference in Korean when a fragment and its correlate may differ in case marking. This case-matching preference corresponds to a known case of mandatory case-matching in Hungarian, but their relationship is not predicted by any of the existing syntactic accounts of case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis. We propose a novel perspective on fragments that derives case-matching effects, including optional and mandatory case matching, from the predictions of cue-based retrieval. Two further acceptability judgment studies are offered in support of our proposal.

show abstract

“…The use of "alongside" suggests that these different bits of information are not of the same kind and can therefore still be kept apart. Indeed, Goldberg and Perek (2019), in a recent book chapter in which they approach ellipsis from a Construction Grammar perspective, make a distinction between form, function and register (the latter not included in function).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%