Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:03:08.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constraints on ellipsis alternation: A view from the history of English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2015

Joanna Nykiel
Joanna Nykiel*
Affiliation:
University of Silesia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I offer a diachronic perspective on English ellipsis alternation, or the alternation between inclusion and omission of prepositions from remnants under sluicing and bare argument ellipsis. The relative freedom to omit prepositions from remnants has not been stable in English; this freedom is connected to the strength of semantic dependencies between prepositions and verbs. Remnants without prepositions are first attested, but remain less frequent than remnants with prepositions, as late as Early Modern English and gain in frequency following this period. I demonstrate that three constraints—correlate informativity, structural persistence, and construction type—predict ellipsis alternation in Early and Late Modern English. However, predicting ellipsis alternation in present-day English requires semantic dependencies in addition to the three constraints. The constraints can be subsumed under principles of language processing and production (considerations of accessibility, a tendency to reuse structure, and a conventionalized performance preference for efficiently accessing constituents that form processing domains), permitting a unified processing account of ellipsis alternation with cross-linguistic coverage.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , July 2015 , pp. 227 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, Cynthia. (1980). Movement and deletion in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2):261–323.Google Scholar
ARCHER: A representative corpus of historical English registers (1600–1999). (1992–1993). Available at: http://www.alc.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/lel/research/projects/archer/. Accessed November 16, 2011.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. (1990). Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In Sanders, T., Schilperoord, J., & Spooren, W. (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 29–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arregi, Carlos. (2010). Ellipsis in split questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28:539–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltin, Mark, & Postal, Paul M. (1996). More on reanalysis hypotheses. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1):127–145.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben, & Walker, Steven. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4. Accessed September 29, 2014.Google Scholar
Bergh, Gunnar, & Seppännen, Aimo. (2000). Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey. English Language and Linguistics 4(2):295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johannsson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, & Finegan, Edward. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18:355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, & Ford, Marilyn. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1):168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, & Hay, Jennifer. (2008). Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118:245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel, & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel. (2011). Case in adpositional phrases. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William, & McCloskey, Jim. (1995). Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:239–282.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. (2000). Multi-word verbs in Early Modern English: A corpus-based approach. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Complete works of William Shakespeare: His plays and poetry. (1992). Portland: Creative Multimedia. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
Corpus of Early English correspondence sampler. (1998). Compiled by Nevalainen, T., Raumolin-Brunberg, H., Keränen, J., Nevala, M., Nurmi, A., & Palander-Collin Helsinki, M.: Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
A corpus of English dialogues (1560–1760). (2006). Compiled under the supervision of Merja Kytö (Uppsala University) and Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University). Available at: http://www.engelska.uu.se/Research/English_Language/Research_Areas/Electronic_Resource_Projects/A_Corpus_of_English_Dialogues/. Accessed June 24, 2012.Google Scholar
The corpus of Middle English prose and verse. (2006). Available at: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/. Accessed October 10, 2011.Google Scholar
Craik, Fergus I. M., & Lockhart, Robert S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11:671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter, & Jackendoff, Ray. (2005). Simpler syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. (1985). Why Old English had no prepositional passive. English Studies 3:189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. (1993). English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
The dictionary of Old English web corpus. (2009) Edited by diPaolo Healey, A. with Price Wilkin, J., & Xiang, X.. Available at: http://tapor.library.utoronto.ca/doecorpus/. Accessed October 29, 2011.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. (1992). Syntax. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 207–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem, & van der Wurff, Wim. (2000). The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, Marilyn, & Bresnan, Joan. (2013). Studying syntactic variation using convergent evidence from psycholinguistics and usage. In Krug, M. & Schlüter, J. (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallo, David A., Meadow, Nathaniel G., Johnson, Elizabeth L., & Foster, Katherine T. (2008). Deep levels of processing elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection task. Journal of Memory and Language 58:1095–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward, Piantadosi, Steven, Ichinco, Denise, & Fedorenko, Ev. (2012). Evaluating structural overlap across constructions: Inter-subject analysis of co-variation. Paper presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the LSA, Portland, OR. January 5–8.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. (2012). The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan, & Sag, Ivan A. (2000). Interrogative investigations. The form, meaning and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Godfrey, John, & Holliman, Edward. (1993). Switchboard-1 Release 2 LDC97S62. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. DVD.Google Scholar
Goh, Gwang-Yoon. (2001). Why prepositional stranding was so restricted in Old English. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 1(1):1–17.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., & Westenberg, Casper. (2000). Word order structural persistence in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition 75:B27–B39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John. A. (2000). The relative order of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond manner–place–time. Language Variation and Change 11:231–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. A. (2012). The drift of English towards invariable word order from a typological and Germanic perspective. In Nevalainen, T. & Traugott, E. C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 622–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Helsinki corpus of English texts. (1991). Compiled by Rissanen, M., Kytö, M., Kahlas-Tarkka, L., Kilpiö, M., Nevanlinna, S., Taavitsainen, I., Nevalainen, T., and Raumolin-Brunberg, H.. Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Thomas. (2011). Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. (2007). Facilitating memory retrieval in natural language comprehension. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. (2008). The after-effects of linguistic form choice on comprehension. Poster presented at the 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Chapel Hill, March 13–15.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. (2011). Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(3):376–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmeister, Philip, Jaeger, T. Florian, Arnon, Inbal, Sag, Ivan A., & Snider, Neal. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(1–2):48–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmeister, Philip, Jaeger, T. Florian, Sag, Ivan A., Arnon, Inbal, & Snider, Neal. (2007). Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, W. (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base. Berlin: de Gruyter. 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, & Sag, Ivan A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86(2):366–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hornstein, Norbert, & Weinberg, Amy. (1981). Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12(1):55–91.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61:23–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. Florian, & Wasow, Thomas. (2008). Processing as a source of accessibility effects on variation. In Cover, R. T., & Kim, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Ann Arbor: Sheridan Books. 169–180.Google Scholar
Kempley, S. T., & Morton, John. (1982). The effects of priming with regularly and irregularly related words in auditory word recognition. British Journal of Psychology 73:441–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lampeter corpus of Early Modern English tracts (1640–1740). (1999). Compiled by Schmied, J., Claridge, C., & Siemund, R.. Available at: www.tu-chemnitz.de/phil/english/chairs/linguist/real/independent/lampeter/lamphome.htm. Accessed October 3, 2011.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem, & Kelter, Stephanie. (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology 14:78–106.Google Scholar
Literature online.(2004) 3rd ed. Available at: http://lion.chadwyck.co.uk/marketing/index.jsp. Accessed December 15, 2011.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrea. E., & McElree, Brian. (2011). Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from sluicing. Journal of Memory and Language 64:327–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazerolle, Marc J. (2015). AICcmodavg: Model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.0-3. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=AICcmodavg. Accessed January 18, 2015.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and identity in ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. (2004). Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27:661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, David, & Schvaneveldt, Roger. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology 90:227–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nykiel, Joanna. (2013). Clefts and preposition omission in sluicing. Lingua 123:74–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna. (2014a). The ellipsis alternation: Remnants with and without prepositions. Unpublished manuscript. Available at: http://uranos.cto.us.edu.pl/~jnykiel/Projects_and_downloadable_papers_files/paper.pdf.Google Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna. (2014b). Semantic dependencies and the history of ellipsis alternation. In Adams, M., Fulk, R. D., & Brinton, L. (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language VI: Evidence and method in histories of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 51–70.Google Scholar
The Old Bailey proceedings online, 1674–1913. (2012). Version 7.0. Compiled by Hitchcock, T., Shoemaker, R., Emsley, C., Howard, S., & McLaughlin, J., et al. Available at: www.oldbaileyonline.org. Accessed October 16, 2011.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy, Putnam, Michael, & Gross, Thomas. (2012). Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15(4):354–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prat-Sala, Mercé, & Branigan, Holly. P. (2000). Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language 42:168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Rodney, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Goeffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Resnik, Philip. (1996). Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition 61:127–159.Google ScholarPubMed
Rodrigues, Cilene, Nevins, Andrew, & Vicente, Louis. (2009). Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and preposition stranding. In Wetzels, L. & van der Weijer, J. (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2006. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan. A., & Nykiel, Joanna. (2011). Remarks on sluicing. In Mueller, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG11 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Available at: http://csli-publications.stanford.edu. Accessed January 10, 2012.Google Scholar
Stjepanovic, Sandra. (2008). P-stranding under sluicing in a non-P-stranding language? Linguistic Inquiry 37(1):179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suckow, Katja, Vasishth, Shravan, Lewis, Richard, & Smith, Mason. (2006). Interference and memory overload during parsing of grammatical and ungrammatical embeddings. Paper presented at the 19th Annual CUNY Conference On Human Sentence Processing, New York, March 23–25.Google Scholar
Szczegielniak, Adam. (2008). Islands in sluicing in Polish. In Abner, N. & Bishop, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 404–412.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 1(1):113–150.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael, Flanigan, Helen, & Seidenberg, Mark. (1980). Orthographic and phonological activation in auditory and visual word recognition. Memory and Cognition 8:513–520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tily, Harry. (2010). The role of processing complexity in word order variation and change. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1999). A historical overview of complex predicate types. In Brinton, L. J. & Akimoto, M. (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 239–260.Google Scholar
Van Craenenbroeck, Joeren. (2010). Invisible last resort – A note on clefts as the underlying source for sluicing. Lingua 120:1714–1726.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, Julie, & McElree, Brian. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55:157–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Kemenade, Ans. (1987). Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vicente, Louis. (2008). Syntactic Isomorphism and non-isomorphism under ellipsis. Unpublished manuscript, University of California–Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. (2002). Postverbal behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. J., & Labov, William. (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19:29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolk, Christopher, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. (2013). Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30(3):382–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yánez-Bouza, Nuria. (2006). Preposition stranding in eighteenth-century prose. Historical sociolinguistics and sociohistorical linguistics. Vol. 6. Available at: http://www.hum2.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/preposition%20stranding.htm. Accessed August 26, 2012.Google Scholar