Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:51:25.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preposition stranding and ellipsis alternation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2016

JOANNA NYKIEL
JOANNA NYKIEL*
Affiliation:
English Department, University of Silesia, Grota-Roweckiego 5, Sosnowiec 41-200, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ellipsis alternation refers here to the alternation between two kinds of ellipsis remnants whose correlates are prepositional phrases. One kind of remnant includes the preposition hosted by its correlate and the other doesn't. This alternation is now known to be cross-linguistically widespread although it was originally assumed to be banned in languages without preposition stranding under wh-movement. I argue that there is a nonsyntactic relationship between ellipsis alternation and preposition stranding that helps explain the availability and distribution of both types of remnants in terms of general performance preferences. Two pieces of corpus evidence from English are offered in support of this argument. The first piece of evidence reveals that the content of a remnant and its correlate affects ellipsis alternation both in languages without preposition stranding and in English. The second piece of evidence shows that the availability of preposition stranding in English nonelliptical clauses supports the use of prepositionless remnants via structural persistence, that is, reuse of syntactic structure found in antecedent clauses. These data lead me to conclude that ellipsis alternation is subject to a stronger processing constraint in English than in languages without preposition stranding.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 27 - 45
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This work benefited from helpful suggestions by two anonymous ELL reviewers, and from thoughtful discussions with Ivan A. Sag, Joan Bresnan and Jason Merchant. I am also grateful to colleagues at Stanford University and UC Davis for comments on many of the ideas presented here. Special thanks go to John A. Hawkins for comments on an earlier draft and for long hours discussing syntactic variation with me. The research presented here was supported by the American Philosophical Society and by the Polish Ministry of Education under grant no. NN 104 097538

References

Almeida, Diogo & Yoshida, Masaya. 2007. A problem for the preposition stranding generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (2), 349–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Sanders, Ted, Schilperoord, Joost & Spooren, Wilbert (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arregi, Karlos. 2010. Ellipsis in split questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28, 539–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J. & Cleland, Alexandra A.. 2000. Syntactic coordination in dialogue. Cognition 75 (2), B13–B25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bresnan, Joan. 2007. Is knowledge of syntax probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, Sam & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base (Studies in Generative Grammar), 75–96. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene & Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2011. Case in adpositional phrases. MS, CASTL, Tromsø.Google Scholar
Camacho, José. 2002. Wh-doubling: Implications for the syntax of wh-movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 157–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2006. Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. In Cover, Rebecca T. & Yuni, Kim (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31, 73–91. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William & McCloskey, James. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 239–82.Google Scholar
Collins, James, Popova, Daria, Sag, Ivan A. & Wasow, Thomas. 2015. Sluicing and the inquisitive potential of appositives. In Kluck, Marlies, Ott, Dennis & de Vries, Marc (eds.), Parenthesis and ellipsis: Cross-linguistic and theoretical perspectives, 47–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craenenbroeck, Joeren van. 2010a. The syntax of ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch dialects. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Craenenbroeck, Joeren van. 2010b. Invisible last resort: A note on clefts as the underlying source for sluicing. Lingua 120, 1714–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter. 1999. Syntactic nuts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta & Schwarzschild, Roger. 2010. Definite inner antecedents and wh-correlates in sluices. In Staroverov, Peter, Altshuler, Daniel, Braver, Aaron, Fasola, Carlos A. & Murray, Sarah (eds.), Rutgers Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 3, 92–114. New Brunswick, NJ: LGSA.Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2005. The decathlon model of empirical syntax. In Kepser, Stephan & Reis, Marga (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives, 187–208. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Marilyn & Bresnan, Joan. 2013. Using convergent evidence from psycholinguistics and usage. In Krug, Manfred & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 295–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, C. 2007. Indonesian sluicing and verb phrase ellipsis: Description and explanation in a minimalist framework. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lynn & Clifton, Charles Jr. 2006. Ellipsis and discourse coherence. Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (3), 315–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogative. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J. & Westenberg, Casper. 2000. Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition 75, B27–B39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip & Sag, Ivan A.. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86, 366–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kempen, Gerard & Harbusch, Karin. 2005. The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A case study into word order variability in the midfield of German clauses. In Kepser, Stephan & Reis, Marga (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives, 329–50. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempley, Steven T. & Morton, John. 1982. The effects of priming with regularly and irregularly related words in auditory word recognition. British Journal of Psychology 73, 441–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kertz, Laura. 2013. Verb phrase ellipsis: The view from information structure. Language 89 (3), 390–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2015. Syntactic and semantic identity in Korean sluicing: A direct interpretation approach. Lingua 166, 260–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluck, Marlies. 2011. Sentence amalgamation. PhD thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Konieczny, Lars. 2000. Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29, 627–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leung, Tommy. 2014. The Preposition Stranding Generalization and conditions on sluicing: Evidence from Emirati Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 45, 332–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem & Kelter, Stephanie. 1982. Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology 14, 78–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen. C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4, article 226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, Andrea E. & McElree, Brian. 2011. Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from sluicing. Journal of Memory and Language 64, 327–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2005. Revisiting syntactic identity conditions. Workshop on ellipsis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2010. Three kinds of ellipsis. In Recanati, François, Stojanovic, Isidora & Villanueva, Neftali (eds.), Context-dependence, perspective, and relativity, 141–92. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44 (1), 77–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason, Frazier, Lynn, Clifton, Charles Jr & Weskott, Thomas. 2013. Fragment answers to questions: A case of inaudible syntax. In Goldstein, Lawrence (ed.), Brevity, 21–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, David & Schvaneveldt, Roger. 1971. Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology 90: 227–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nykiel, Joanna. 2013a. Clefts and preposition omission in sluicing. Lingua 123: 74–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna. 2013b. Wh-phrases in sluicing: An interaction of the remnant and the antecedent. In Hofmeister, Philip & Norcliffe, Elisabeth (eds.), The core and the periphery: Data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by I. A. Sag, 251–71. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna. 2014. The ellipsis alternation: Remnants with and without prepositions. MS.Google Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna. 2015. Constraints on ellipsis alternation: A view from the history of English. Language Variation and Change 27, 227–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippova, Tatiana. 2014. P-omission under sluicing, [P clitic] and the nature of P-stranding. In Kohlberger, Martin, Bellamy, Kate & Dutton, Eleanor (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XXII, 133–55.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Cilene, Nevins, Andrew & Vicente, Luis. 2009. Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and preposition stranding. In Torck, Daniele & Wetzels, Leo (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2006, 175–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? In Binnick, Robert I., Davison, Alice, Green, Georgia M. & Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–86, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1976. Deletion and logical form. PhD thesis, MIT. [Published in 1980, New York: Garland.]Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. & Nykiel, Joanna. 2011. Remarks on sluicing. In Mueller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG 11 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. (http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG)Google Scholar
Sato, Yosuke. 2011. P-stranding under sluicing and repair by ellipsis: Why is Indonesian (not) special? Journal of East Asian Linguistics 20, 339–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stjepanović, Sandra. 2008. P-stranding under sluicing in a non-P-stranding language? Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1), 179–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szczegielniak, Adam. 2008. Islands in sluicing in Polish. In Abner, Natasha & Bishop, Jason (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 404–12. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11, 113–50.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM] 177). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Flanigan, Helen P. & Seidenberg, Mark. 1980. Orthographic and phonological activation in auditory and visual word recognition. Memory and Cognition 8, 513–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vicente, Luis. 2008. Syntactic isomorphism and non-isomorphism under ellipsis. MS, UCSC.Google Scholar
Wei, Ting-Chi. 2011. Parallelism in Amis sluicing. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 37 (1), 1–44.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. Judith & Labov, William. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19, 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, Masaya, Nakao, Chizuru & Ortega-Santos, Iván. 2015. The syntax of why-stripping. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33, 323–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar