Abstract:Gapping elides a finite verb in the non-initial conjunct of a coordinate structure while VP ellipsis deletes a whole VP after an auxiliary. Unlike these two, pseudogapping elides most of the VP except one remnant. Pseudogapping additionally differs from gapping and VP ellipsis, in that it involves ellipsis of part of a non-finite VP. In this paper we provide a Construction Grammar account of pseudogapping that captures its similarities with as well as differences from other related elliptical constructions lik… Show more
“…If Merchant 2013 is right, “larger” ellipsis should not allow for voice mismatch. Indeed, sluicing Example (8b) and gapping Example (8d) do not exhibit such acceptable mismatches.
But contrary to Merchant (2013)’s predictions, in a corpus study, Miller (2014), as well as Kim & Runner (2022), found attested examples of voice mismatch with pseudogapping (Example (9a)), that should not be possible under a raising remnant analysis (Kuno 1981) (NP, Noun Phrase, PP, Prepositional Phrase; VP, Verb Phrase):
We can conclude that structural identity-based approaches may either accept (Merchant 2013) or reject (Arregui et al 2006) voice mismatch, and have a hard time predicting which cases of voice mismatch are acceptable and which are not. It also remains to be tested whether voice mismatch is acceptable for other types of ellipsis than VP ellipsis and pseudogapping.…”
Right-Node Raising is generally considered to impose stricter identity conditions than other kinds of ellipsis, such as VP ellipsis, according to Hankamer & Sag 1976 and Hardt 1993. In this paper, we investigate voice mismatch in French Right-Node Raising (RNR) through a corpus study and two experiments. We show that RNR with voice mismatch can be found in a written corpus (frTenTen 2012) and that many examples involve coordination of a reflexive active and a short passive form. We suggest this is because semantic contrast (here, between self and external agent) plays a role according to Hartmann (2000) and Abeillé and Mouret (2010). We ran two acceptability judgement experiments to test voice mismatch and semantic contrast. We did not find any penalty for voice mismatch with VP ellipsis but an interaction with semantic contrast. We also found an effect of semantic contrast when coordinating an active and a passive VP without participle ellipsis. We conclude that voice mismatch is acceptable with RNR and propose a Head-driven Phrase-Structure Grammar (HPSG) analysis, following Chaves (2014) and Shiraïshi et al. (2019).
“…If Merchant 2013 is right, “larger” ellipsis should not allow for voice mismatch. Indeed, sluicing Example (8b) and gapping Example (8d) do not exhibit such acceptable mismatches.
But contrary to Merchant (2013)’s predictions, in a corpus study, Miller (2014), as well as Kim & Runner (2022), found attested examples of voice mismatch with pseudogapping (Example (9a)), that should not be possible under a raising remnant analysis (Kuno 1981) (NP, Noun Phrase, PP, Prepositional Phrase; VP, Verb Phrase):
We can conclude that structural identity-based approaches may either accept (Merchant 2013) or reject (Arregui et al 2006) voice mismatch, and have a hard time predicting which cases of voice mismatch are acceptable and which are not. It also remains to be tested whether voice mismatch is acceptable for other types of ellipsis than VP ellipsis and pseudogapping.…”
Right-Node Raising is generally considered to impose stricter identity conditions than other kinds of ellipsis, such as VP ellipsis, according to Hankamer & Sag 1976 and Hardt 1993. In this paper, we investigate voice mismatch in French Right-Node Raising (RNR) through a corpus study and two experiments. We show that RNR with voice mismatch can be found in a written corpus (frTenTen 2012) and that many examples involve coordination of a reflexive active and a short passive form. We suggest this is because semantic contrast (here, between self and external agent) plays a role according to Hartmann (2000) and Abeillé and Mouret (2010). We ran two acceptability judgement experiments to test voice mismatch and semantic contrast. We did not find any penalty for voice mismatch with VP ellipsis but an interaction with semantic contrast. We also found an effect of semantic contrast when coordinating an active and a passive VP without participle ellipsis. We conclude that voice mismatch is acceptable with RNR and propose a Head-driven Phrase-Structure Grammar (HPSG) analysis, following Chaves (2014) and Shiraïshi et al. (2019).
“…Note that the wh ‐question in (25) basically asks who is the person ( x ) that Mimi met (QUD) and the information about this person functions as a salient utterance and that the fragment NP Anna can be a proper answer to such a question. Unlike the clausal approaches with move‐and‐delete operations, the DI approach accepted here introduces no syntactic structure at the putative ellipsis site and fragments are the sole daughter of an S‐node, directly generated from the following independently motivated construction in English (see Ginzburg & Sag 2000; Abeillé & Kim 2022; Kim & Runner 2022, among others): …”
Section: A Discourse‐based Direct Interpretation Approachmentioning
Across languages, polarity particles like yes and no can be used as a response to the polar (yes/no) question. This paper offers a discourse‐based account for the distribution and interpretation of response particles in languages like English and Korean. The paper supports the view that response particles are anaphoric in nature and their interpretation is determined by the salient antecedent evoked by the context in question. The paper also suggests that the parametric differences between English‐style polarity‐based and Korean‐style truth‐based answering systems have to do with tight interactions between the anaphoric nature of response particles and discourse structure, rather than with the position of negation in syntactic structures. This direction, formalized in the framework of HPSG, offers a simpler account for the parametric differences between the two different answering systems as well as other related puzzles concerning variations in contextual bias.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
