Kempson, Cann, Gregoromichelaki, and Chatzikyriakidis (henceforth KCGC) report on a theory of ellipsis in the idiom of Dynamic Syntax, and contrast it with other approaches. Underlying this contrast is the assumption that other grammatical traditions either must, or at least choose to, treat all sentence fragments as instances of ellipsis. This assumption is discussed further in Kobele [2016]. We think that the question of whether to analyze a particular sentence fragment in terms of ellipsis should be influenced by empirical considerations. Standard diagnostics for the presence of ellipsis (as laid out for example in Merchant [2013b]) would not suggest that most of what is discussed is in fact elliptical. Fragments themselves come in many stripes, and some may have sentential sources (and thus be thought of as elliptical, such as fragment answers, as analyzed in Merchant [2004]), and many others may not (such as names, titles, and clarificational phrases, among the many others listed in Merchant [2010]). Merchant [2016] scrutinizes the fragments in KCGC from this perspective. We will not here attempt to undertake this work, but rather restrict our attention to cases such as VP-ellipsis or predicate ellipsis that all approaches agree form central elliptical explicanda. In this response we take a step back, and focus on the basic idea on which KCGC’s theory of ellipsis is based. This fundamental idea is in fact shared by many of the approaches KCGC critique. We set out some basic parameters of this space, and describe how different theoretical choices influence possible descriptions of elliptical phenomena. Finally, we discuss what kinds of constructions pose difficulties for this approach to ellipsis, describe how the analysis of Kobele [2015] deals with them, and suggest that KCGC’s particular implementation of this approach to ellipsis may flounder here.

中文翻译：

---

省略号的动力学

Kempson，Cann，Gregoromichelaki和Chatzikyriakidis（此后称为KCGC）报告了动态句法成语中的省略号理论，并将其与其他方法进行了对比。这种对比的基础是这样一个假设，即其他语法传统必须或者至少选择将所有句子片段视为省略号。这种假设在Kobele [2016]中有进一步讨论。我们认为，是否应根据省略号来分析特定句子片段的问题应受到经验因素的影响。对于省略号的存在进行标准诊断（例如在Merchant [2013b]中进行的布局）不会表明所讨论的大多数内容实际上都是椭圆形的。片段本身有很多条纹，有些片段可能具有句子来源（因此被认为是椭圆形的，例如片段答案，（如Merchant [2004]中分析的那样），而其他很多则可能没有（例如Merchant [2010]中列出的许多其他名称，例如标题，标题和说明性短语）。Merchant [2016]从这个角度审查了KCGC中的片段。在这里，我们不会尝试进行这项工作，而是将注意力集中在诸如VP-省略号或谓词省略号这样的情况下，即所有方法都同意通过中心椭圆表示。在此回应中，我们退后一步，重点介绍KCGC省略号理论所基于的基本思想。实际上，这一基本思想已被KCGC的许多批评方法所共有。我们列出了该空间的一些基本参数，并描述了不同的理论选择如何影响椭圆现象的可能描述。最后，