Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis
Section snippets
Experiment 1
To test the VP recycling hypothesis, 16 sentences like those in (9) were tested in an online acceptability judgment study. Each sentence had four forms.
- (9)
a. None of the astronomers saw the comet, /but John did. (Available verb phrase)
b. Seeing the comet was nearly impossible, /but John did. (Embedded verb phrase)
c. The comet was nearly impossible to see, /but John did. (Verb phrase with trace)
d. The comet was nearly unseeable, /but John did. (Negative adjective)
In all forms, the final clause had
Experiment 2
Although we attribute the differences among the four conditions of Experiment 1 [examples (9a)–(9d)] to differences in difficulty of comprehending the ellipsis, it is possible that some or all of the differences are due to differences in difficulty of comprehending the initial (pre-ellipsis) clause itself. Experiment 2 was designed to evaluate this possibility (and to provide a replication of Experiment 1 using a somewhat different technique) by obtaining acceptability judgments of sentences
Experiment 3
To further test the recycling hypothesis, Experiment 3 contrasted antecedents that appear inside verbal vs nominal gerundive subjects. Before turning to the experiment, we discuss the differences between these two structures. Gerunds are noun-like constructions derived from verbs, and exhibit characteristics of both nouns and verbs. They can appear in the syntactic positions normally reserved for nouns. In this experiment, they are subjects, and can take predicates like other noun phrases.
Experiment 4
As in the case of Experiment 1, it is possible that the results of Experiment 3 reflect a difference in the difficulty of comprehending an initial clause with a nominal gerund, rather than the difficulty of comprehending a verbal ellipsis following a nominal gerund. Experiment 4 tests this hypothesis in the same way as Experiment 2 did, by obtaining acceptability ratings for the sentences used in Experiment 3 with and without a final elliptical clause. Experiment 4 also permits another
Experiment 5
We introduce Experiment 5 by discussing when ungrammaticality is relatively acceptable, emphasizing the role of the speaker. We have argued that the grammar of ellipsis requires a syntactically matching antecedent for the elided constituent. This implies that ellipsis is ungrammatical when no syntactically matching antecedent is available, despite the actual occurrence of such examples in naturally-occurring speech (see Kehler, 2002, in particular). If so, then the acceptable examples of
The recycling hypothesis
The central idea behind the recycling hypothesis is that an antecedent verb phrase is copied and, if it is of the wrong shape, it is then altered. The alteration is presumably on a par with reanalysis operations when an unconscious repair of the initial syntactic structure is needed (see Fodor & Ferreira, 1998). The recycling or fixing up of the copied structure should be easy to the extent that the following hold:
- •
it involves only a few steps,
- •
those steps are defined by the grammar,
- •
the copied
Conclusions
Five experiments have been presented that suggest verb phrase ellipsis without a matching antecedent in a standard verb phrase position may be relatively acceptable depending on various characteristics of the example. When a matching verb phrase was available, just not in verb phrase position, then participants judged the ellipsis examples relatively acceptable. When an antecedent was available but needed to be revised, then an intermediate level of acceptability was seen. When there was not
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by Grant HD-18708 to the University of Massachusetts.
References (33)
Some effects of grammatical transformations on the recall of English sentences
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
(1963)- Abney, S., 1987. The english noun phrase in its sentential aspect. MIT doctoral...
- Black, M., Coltheart, M., Byng, S., 1987. Forms of coding in sentence comprehension during reading. In M. Coltheart...
Remarks on Nominalization
Syntactic blends in English parole
(1987)- et al.
Ellipsis and higher-order unification
Linguistics and Philosophy
(1991) Lexical storage and retrieval
- et al.
Parsing coordinates and ellipsis. Copy α
Syntax
(2001) - Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (in press). Ellipsis and discourse coherence. Linguistics and...
Interpreting elliptical verb phrases
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
The everyday use of anaphoric expressions: Implications for the “mental models” theory of text comprehension
Bound VPs that need to be
Linguistics and Philosophy
Deep and surface anaphora
Linguistic Inquiry
Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis
Linguistics and Philosophy
Cited by (78)
Ellipsis interference revisited: New evidence for feature markedness effects in retrieval
2022, Journal of Memory and LanguageCitation Excerpt :A critical assumption of this study was that passive and active cues should behave similarly in retrieval (i.e., both are deployed and both trigger interference). However, there were several reasons to think that active and passive ellipsis might behave differently based on evidence from acceptability judgments (Arregui et al., 2006) and computational modeling (Parker, 2018). Previous findings of markedness effects in retrieval, such as the singular-plural asymmetry for agreement attraction (e.g., Bock & Eberhard, 1993; Eberhard, 1997; Harley & Ritter, 2002; Wagers et al., 2009), further suggest that passive and active ellipsis might behave differently with respect to attraction due to differences in the markedness of passive vs. active ellipsis features.
Remnant connectivity in pseudogapping: Experimental evidence for a direct generation approach
2023, Journal of LinguisticsVoice mismatch and contrast in French Right-Node Raising
2023, Journal of LinguisticsEllipsis, contradiction and voice mismatch
2024, GlossaVoice-mismatch asymmetry in Korean why-stripping*1
2023, Linguistic ResearchFocus Structure and Voice Mismatch in Pseudogapping
2023, Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics