The division of labor in explanations of verb phrase ellipsis

Abstract

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.

Reconsidering asymmetries in voice-mismatched VP-ellipsis

“…The goal of Experiment 2 was to assess whether the passive penalty found in Experiment 1 is an ellipsis-specific effect. Broadly consistent with the result of previous studies (Kim et al 2011;SanPietro, Xiang & Merchant 2012;Kim & Runner 2018), the results confirm that it is. Whereas the results in the ellipsis condition revealed the same significant effect for passive ellipsis clauses seen in Experiment 1, there was no analogous significant effect in the no-ellipsis condition.…”

“…[ A -> P] This finding, which was first reported by Arregui et al (2006: Experiment 5), has been replicated in several subsequent studies (Parker 2017;Kim & Runner 2018;Xiang & Klafka 2018). 2 We henceforth refer to this pattern as the Mismatch Asymmetry.…”

“…In addition to the stimuli used in Experiment 1 exemplified in (7) and (8), a no-ellipsis condition was added with variants in which the elided VP was made overt, as in (10). Following Kim & Runner (2018), the overt VP was reduced linguistically as much as possible, e.g., by pronominalizing NPs wherever it was felicitous to do so, in order to mitigate a potential independent penalty associated with producing overt material that could have been elided. 10a.…”

“…Such examples hence challenge syntactic analyses, since the required VP is not available in this case either. 1 The issues surrounding the status of examples that involve mismatch have inspired a considerable amount of experimental work that has sought to obtain more fine-grained measurements of acceptability, generally by utilizing acceptability rating tasks (Arregui et al 2006;Kim et al 2011;SanPietro, Xiang & Merchant 2012;Kertz 2013;Kim & Runner 2018;inter alia). This research has uncovered two significant patterns.…”

English fragments, Minimize Domains, and Minimize Forms

“…[8] Verb Phrase ellipsis is similarly rarer with non-linguistic antecedents than linguistic ones (Hankamer & Sag, 1976, Miller & Pullum, 2014Schachter, 1977), and with structurally mismatched antecedents than with structurally matched ones (Arregui et al, 2006;Grant et al, 2012;Kertz, 2013aKertz, , 2013bKim & Runner, 2017;Miller, 2011;Miller & Hemforth, 2014;Miller & Pullum, 2014).…”