The Real-Time Processing of Sluiced Sentences

Abstract

Ellipsis refers to an element that is absent from the input but whose meaning can nonetheless be recovered from context. In this cross-modal priming study, we examined the online processing of Sluicing, an ellipsis whose antecedent is an entire clause: The handyman threw a book to the programmer but I don’t know which book the handyman threw to the programmerellipsis. To understand such an elliptical construction, the listener arguably must ‘fill in’ the missing material (“the handyman threw___ to the programmer”) based on that which occurs in the antecedent clause. We aimed to determine the point in time in which reconstruction of the sluiced sentence is attempted and whether such a complex antecedent is re-accessed by the ellipsis. Out of the two antecedent constituents for which we probed, only the Object (programmer) was found active in the elliptical clause, confirming that an antecedent is attributed to the sluice in real time. Possible reasons for the non-observation of the Subject (handyman) are considered. We also suggest that ellipses are detected earlier in coordinated than subordinated sentences.

The role of parallelism in the real-time processing of anaphora

“…Experimental evidence has repeatedly demonstrated that an elliptical clause is processed more quickly following a parallel antecedent (Arregui, Clifton, Frazier, & Moulton, 2006; Dickey & Bunger, 2011; Mauner, Tanenhaus, & Carlson, 1995; Tanenhaus & Carlson, 1990). Furthermore, an antecedent seems to be re-activated earlier in elliptical constructions conjoined by a parallelism-implying conjunction (“and”) than in elliptical sentences otherwise conjoined (Poirier, Wolfinger, Spellman, & Shapiro, 2010; Shapiro & Hestvik, 1995). …”

“…Intriguingly, ellipsis in these constructions is posited even before its existence can be unequivocally inferred from the input. In contrast, it is delayed in constructions conjoined by conjunctions that are not associated with parallelism (Poirier et al, 2010; Shapiro & Hestvik, 1995, Exp. 2).…”

Keep it local (and final): Remnant preferences in “let alone” ellipsis

“…–have very different properties, there is widespread evidence that they are biased to associate with the most local constituent, possibly due to default focus placement on the most embedded constituent (Carlson et al, 2009). In the case of sluicing in (14a), there is a bias to associate the wh -element who with the object correlate, someone , which is the nearest possible candidate, instead of the subject somebody (Frazier & Clifton, 1998; Poirier, Wolfinger, Spellman, & Shapiro, 2010). Although this bias can be partly counteracted by focal stress on non-local correlates (Carlson et al, 2009), as well as other indicators of discourse prominence, there is a processing cost associated with retrieving a structurally dispreferred correlate (Carlson, 2001, 2002, 2013; Stolterfoht et al, 2007; Harris, 2014).…”

Verb gapping: An action-gap compatibility study

“…Though the issue as to the reconstruction mechanism is not yet settled, findings from studies on verb-phrase ellipsis and on sluicing, i.e. elision of an entire clause except for a wh-word (e.g., Humphrey ordered something but Spencer doesn't know what Humphrey ordered) converge in suggesting that the elided element is reconstructed in real time -immediately when or shortly after encountering the ellipsis (e.g., Callahan, Walenski, & Love, 2012;Poirier, Wolfinger, Spellman, & Shapiro, 2010;Shapiro & Hestvik, 1995;Shapiro, Hestvik, Lesan, & Garcis, 2003: Yoshida, Dickey, & Sturt, 2013.…”