Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis

Arregui, Ana; Clifton, Charles; Frazier, Lyn; Moulton, Keir

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.005

Cited by 86 publications

(168 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This model (Table 3) confirms that the problematic properties pointed out by the reviewer were not responsible for carrying the results we report. Arregui et al (2006) Our findings confirm one interesting aspect of Arregui et al (2006): we also find that Passive-Active order is judged more acceptable than Active-Passive order, across sentences with and without ellipsis. This is reflected in our model as an interaction between Antecedent voice and Mismatch.…”

Section: Additional Analyses Of Experiments 1 Datasupporting

confidence: 79%

“…However, not all instances of identity-violating VPE appear to be equal. As noted by Hardt (1993), Kehler (2000), Kennedy and Merchant (2000) and Arregui et al (2006), among others, the relative weakness or absence of structural mismatch effects in (3) suggests that, at least under certain conditions, strict structural identity may not be required. 3 (3) a.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…However, a less than perfect match can make VPE harder to interpret (i.e. recover a meaning for), and therefore degraded in terms of acceptability (for other proposals linking processing complexity with degraded acceptability, see Arregui et al 2006;Hofmeister et al 2013). We refer to this as a structural constraint, since it essentially builds into the semantic representation information about voice alternations, which we take to be a canonical syntactic alternation.…”

Section: What a Theory Of Vpe Should And Shouldn't Account Formentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The division of labor in explanations of verb phrase ellipsis

Kim

Runner

2017

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we will argue that, of the various grammatical and discourse constraints that affect acceptability in verb phrase ellipsis (VPE), only the structural parallelism constraint is unique to VPE. We outline (previously noted) systematic problems that arise for classical structural accounts of VPE resolution, and discuss efforts in recent research on VPE to reduce explanations of acceptability in VPE to general well-formedness constraints at the level of information structure (e. In two magnitude estimation experiments, we show that-in line with Kehler's predictions-degradation due to structural mismatch is modulated by coherence relation. On the other hand, we consistently find residual structural mismatch effects, suggesting that the interpretation of VPE is sensitive to structural features of the VPE antecedent. We propose that a structural constraint licenses VPE, but that sentences violating this constraint can nevertheless be interpreted. The variability in acceptability is accounted for not by additional constraints on VPE in the grammar, but by the numerous general biases that affect sentence and discourse well-formedness, such as information structural constraints (as proposed by Kertz 2013), discourse coherence relations (Kehler 2000), sensitivity to Question Under Discussion structure (e.g. Ginzburg and Sag in English , and thematic role bias at the lexical level (e.g. McRae et al. in J Mem Lang 38:283-312, 1998). We test the prediction that thematic role bias (Experiment 3) and QUD structure (Experiment 4) will influence both elliptical and non-elliptical sentences alike, while structural mismatch continues to degrade elliptical sentences alone. Our proposal differs from existing proposals in cutting the explanatory pie in a different way with respect to how variations in acceptability are accounted for. We suggest that degradation can result from at least two distinct and separable sources: violating construction-specific grammatical constraints, or from complexity differences in interpretation related to very general discourse level information.

show abstract

Section: Additional Analyses Of Experiments 1 Datasupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: What a Theory Of Vpe Should And Shouldn't Account Formentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The division of labor in explanations of verb phrase ellipsis

Kim

Runner

2017

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, syntactic identity effects are observed regardless of whether the ellipsis is contained in a single sentence, or crosses a sentence boundary. This is important because, although some version of Hestvik's or Frazier and Clifton's (Arregui et al 2006) accounts might be able to explain patterns of acceptability in Voice mismatches, these would not extend to cross-sentential ellipsis. According to the coherence account, syntactic parallelism effects appear because interpreting the Resemblance relation requires matching up arguments with parallel roles in the two VPs.…”

Section: Experiments 3: Discourse Coherence Effects Within and Across mentioning

confidence: 99%

Strict Identity, Coherence, and Parallelism in VP Ellipsis

Kim

Runner

2009

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, sluicing always includes Voice, since it is TP-269 ellipsis, and so the identity condition dictates that E and A must have the same voice specification, thus 270 7 A second, less elegant option is to follow Hartman (2009) in proposing that voice mismatches in VP-ellipsis are generally bad, and that the exceptions identified by Kehler and Merchant are cases where we "go beyond the grammar" to use flawed antecedents in the right discourse conditions (cf. Arregui et al 2006). 8 As a reviewer notes, the proposed account seems to predict that voice mismatches ought not to be compatible with scope reconstruction back into the VP, and (i) indicates that this prediction is unfulfilled as the indefinite seems to allow a non-specific reading.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic identity, Parallelism and accommodated antecedents

Thoms

2015

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analyses of the ellipsis identity condition must account for the fact that some syntactic mismatches between an 4 ellipsis site E and its antecedent A are possible while others are not. Previous accounts have suggested that the 5 relevant distinction is between different kinds of heads, such that some heads in the ellipsis site may mismatch while 6 others may not, and they have dealt with this sensitivity to a set of "special heads" with a built-for-purpose syntactic 7 identity condition which holds over and above semantic identity to constrain ellipsis. In this article I argue against 8 this approach and pursue an alternative which holds that identity is syntactic but "loose" in a precisely defined way. 9I show that the relevant generalization that accounts for syntactic identity effects in sluicing and VP-ellipsis-like 10 constructions concerns the position of variables in the antecedent, rather than the feature content of syntactic heads. 11I propose an implementation of syntactic identity which allows for the accommodation of additional antecedents, 12 with these being derived by a grammatical algorithm for generating alternatives, and I show that this implementation 13 derives the right kinds of looseness while restricting mismatches with respect to the position of variables, thus deriving 14 both the tolerable and intolerable mismatches between E and A without recourse to a specific condition regulating the 15 content of special heads. Much work on the ellipsis identity condition has revolved around the analysis of syntactic mismatches 20 between the ellipsis site E and its antecedent A. These fall into two broad categories: tolerable mismatches, 21 and intolerable mismatches. The existence of tolerable mismatches indicate that the identity condition 22 cannot be one of strict isomorphism between E and A, but rather something looser, and they have been used 23 by some (e.g. Merchant 2001, Merchant 2005, Potsdam 2007, Thoms 2013 to argue in favour of a strictly 24 semantic formulation of the identity condition, which allows the relevant differences in syntactic form. 26(1) a. I remember meeting him, but I don't remember when I met him. 27b. Decorating for the holidays is easy if you know how to decorate for the holidays. 28However, recent work (e.g. Chung 2013, Merchant 2013b, Saab to appear) has concentrated on demonstrat- 29ing the existence of intolerable mismatches: that is, mismatches between E and A which seem to cause the 30 identity condition to fail (attested by the ungrammaticality of certain construals of ellipses). The intolera-31 ble mismatches in question are of significance because they seem not to be ruled out by semantic identity 32 * For discussion and feedback I thank Matt Barros, Patrick Elliott, Anikó Liptḱ, Andrés Saab and the audience at the Leiden "identity in ellipsis" workshop, as well as four reviewers whose insightful comments improved this paper substantially. For help with data I thank Gillebrde MacMillan and all the staff and other members of the Gaelic-speaking community ...

show abstract

Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis

Cited by 86 publications

References 23 publications

The division of labor in explanations of verb phrase ellipsis

The division of labor in explanations of verb phrase ellipsis

Strict Identity, Coherence, and Parallelism in VP Ellipsis

Syntactic identity, Parallelism and accommodated antecedents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About