Abstract
Recent studies reveal that the values of finiteness, tense, modality and polarity in a clause elided under sluicing may be distinct from their correlates in the antecedent clause. Focusing on CP ellipsis in Hebrew (an instance of Argument Ellipsis), we first demonstrate that it is distinct from both Null Complement Anaphora and (null) pronominalization, and then show that the values of force (declarative, imperative, interrogative) can be distinct between the antecedent and the missing clause as well. Possible mismatches are bidirectional, ruling out “subset” theories of identity in ellipsis and challenging certain accounts of the semantics of polar questions. Implications for the general theory of ellipsis are discussed and evaluated.
Funding source: ISF
Award Identifier / Grant number: 495/20
Acknowledgement
The material in this article has been presented at the linguistics colloquia of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Queen Mary University of London, and Ulster University, at IGG 48 in Florence, GLOW 48 in Vienna and at the “You’re on Mute” web seminar. I am grateful to the audiences in all these venues for their helpful feedback. Thank you also two anonymous TLR reviewers, Jason Merchant, Deniz Rudin, Rajesh Bhatt, Rodrigo Ranero, Klaus Abels and especially Richard Stockwell, for valuable comments on earlier drafts.
-
Research funding: This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 495/20).
References
Ahn, Hee-Don & Sungeun Cho. 2021. On the distribution of missing arguments and adjuncts under the pro approach. Language Research 1. 111–142. https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2021.57.1.111.Search in Google Scholar
Alcázar, Asier & Mario Saltarelli. 2014. The syntax of imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511794391Search in Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav, Daniel Hardt & James McCloskey. 2021. The Santa Cruz sluicing data set. Language 97. e68–e88. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0009.Search in Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav, Daniel Hardt & James McCloskey. 2022. The domain of formal matching in sluicing. UCSC Ms.10.1162/ling_a_00495Search in Google Scholar
AnderBois, Scott. 2011. Issues and alternatives. UCSC PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef. 2007. On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and German. In Wim van der Wurff (ed.), Imperative clauses in generative grammar: Studies in honour of Frits Beukema, 95–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.103.03barSearch in Google Scholar
Barros, Matthew. 2014. Sluicing and identity in ellipsis. Rutgers University PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Barros, Matthew & Hadas Kotek. 2019. Ellipsis licensing and redundancy reduction: A focus-based approach. Glossa 4(1). 100, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.811.Search in Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Veneeta Dayal. 2020. Polar question particles: Hindi-Urdu kya:. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38. 1115–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09464-0.Search in Google Scholar
Biezma, María. 2009. Alternative vs. polar questions: The cornering effect. In Satoshi Ito Cormany & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 19, 37–54. Ithaca: Cornell Linguistics Club.10.3765/salt.v19i0.2519Search in Google Scholar
Biezma, María & Kyle Rawlins. 2012. Responding to Alternative and polar questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 35. 361–406.10.1007/s10988-012-9123-zSearch in Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1978. Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In Henry Hiz (ed.), Questions, 87–105. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9509-3_3Search in Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Restrictive relatives in modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 219–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00133282.Search in Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2011. Rescue by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the that-trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00027.Search in Google Scholar
Brucart, José María. 1987. La Elisión Sintáctica en Español. Barcelona: Bellaterra.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Hsu-Te. 2013. Argument ellipsis, classifier phrases, and the DP parameter. UCONN PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.10.21236/AD0616323Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2006. Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. In Rebecca T. Cover & Yuni Kim (eds.), Proceedings of BLS 31, 73–91. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v31i1.896Search in Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2013. Syntactic identity in sluicing: How much and why. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00118.Search in Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw & James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3. 239–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01248819.Search in Google Scholar
Cyrino, Sonia & Gabriela Matos. 2006. Null complement anaphora in romance: Deep or surface anaphora? In Jenny Doetjes & Paz González (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2004, 95–120. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.278.06cyrSearch in Google Scholar
Depiante, Marcela A. 2001. On null complement anaphora in Spanish and Italian. Probus 13. 193–221. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2001.003.Search in Google Scholar
Depiante, Marcela A. 2019. Null complement anaphora. In Jeoren Van Craenenbroeck & Tanja Temmerman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 657–680. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.28Search in Google Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1982. On the syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Texas Linguistics Forum 19. 1–48.Search in Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1992. Resumptive pronouns in islands. In Helen Goodluck & Michael Rochemont (eds.), Island constraints, 89–108. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-017-1980-3_4Search in Google Scholar
Fujiwara, Yoshiki. 2022. Movement approach to ellipsis. UCONN PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Griffiths, James & Anikó Lipták. 2014. Contrast and island sensitivity in clausal ellipsis. Syntax 17. 189–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12018.Search in Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in montague English. Foundations of Language 10. 41–53.Search in Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye. 2000. Force, negation and imperatives. The Linguistic Review 18. 289–325. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2001.004.Search in Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 391–428.Search in Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1993. Interrogatives. In Ken Hale & Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 195–227. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 3–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00351935.Search in Google Scholar
Keshev, Maayan & Aya Meltzer-Asscher. 2017. Active dependency formation in islands: How grammatical resumption affects online sentence processing. Language 93. 249–269.10.1353/lan.2017.0036Search in Google Scholar
Keshev, Maayan & Aya Meltzer-Asscher. 2019. A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37. 621–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9416-1.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Soowon. 1999. Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects and NP ellipsis. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8. 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008354600813.10.1023/A:1008354600813Search in Google Scholar
Kroll, Margaret. 2019. Polarity reversals under sluicing. Semantics and Pragmatics 12. 18. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.18.Search in Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2009. Against broad subjects in Hebrew. Lingua 119. 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.004.Search in Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2011. Alleged broad subjects in Hebrew: A rejoinder to Doron and Heycock. Lingua 121. 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.002.Search in Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2020a. A scope argument against T-to-C movement in sluicing. Syntax 23. 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12204.Search in Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2020b. Constraining head-stranding ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 51. 281–318. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00347.Search in Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2023. Argument ellipsis as external merge after TRANSFER. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 41. 793–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09552-3.Search in Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2023. Type-restricted argument ellipsis and generalized quantifiers. Linguistic Iinquiry. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00489.Search in Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Kenshi Funakoshi. 2018. Ellipsis in transformational grammar. In Jeoren van Craenenbroeck & Tanja Temmerman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 46–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.3Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Wooseung. 2014. Argumental gaps in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 22. 1–29.10.24303/lakdoi.2014.22.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 2015. Identity in ellipsis: An introduction. Lingua 166. 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.003.Search in Google Scholar
Marušič, Franc, Petra Mišmaš, Vesna Pleničar & Tina Šuligoj. 2018. Surviving sluicing. In Denisa Lenertová, Roland Meyer, Radek Šimík & Luka Szucsich (eds.), Advances in Slavic linguistics 2016, 193–215. Berlin: Language Science Press.Search in Google Scholar
Medeiros, David J. 2015. Embedded ancient Greek imperatives: A feature transfer analysis. Syntax 18. 124–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12028.Search in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2019. Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & Tanja Temmerman (eds.), Handbook of ellipsis, 19–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.2Search in Google Scholar
Murguia, Elixabete. 2004. Syntactic identity and locality restrictions on verbal ellipsis. University of Maryland PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Murphy, Andrew. 2016. Subset relations in ellipsis licensing. Glossa 1(1). 44, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.61.Search in Google Scholar
Park, Myung-Kwan. 2013. The syntax of clausal and verbal pro-form/ellipsis in Korean: Focusing on mit- ‘believe’ and sayngkakha- ‘think’ verbs. Studies in Generative Grammar 23. 221–242. https://doi.org/10.15860/sigg.23.2.201305.221.Search in Google Scholar
Park, Myung-Kwan & Yongsuk Yoo. 2013. Asymmetry between CP and TP ellipsis and its consequences on extractability: Evidence from Korean. Language Research 49. 205–226.Search in Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2010. Nested interrogatives and the locus of wh. In Phoevos E. Panagiotidis (ed.), The complementizer phase: Subjects and operators, 200–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584352.003.0009Search in Google Scholar
Ranero, Rodrigo. 2021. Identity conditions on ellipsis. University of Maryland PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. A second COMP position. In Adriana Belletti, Luciana Brandi & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Theory of markedness in generative grammar, 517–557. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 287–296. Amsterdam: North-Holland.10.1163/9780585473949_016Search in Google Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris & Donka F. Farkas. 2015. Polarity particle responsesd as a window into the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language 91. 359–414. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0017.Search in Google Scholar
Rudin, Deniz. 2019. Head-based syntactic identity in sluicing. Linguisic Inquiry 50. 253–283. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00308.Search in Google Scholar
Saab, Andrès. 2008. Hacía una Teoria de la Identidad Parcial en la Ellipsis. University of Buenos Aires PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Saab, Andrès. 2016. Ineffable narratives in Spanish: Another case of overgeneration by e-GIVENness. Probus 28. 367–389. https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2014-0014.Search in Google Scholar
Saab, Andrès. 2022. Grammatical silences from syntax to morphology: A model for the timing of ellipsis. In Anikó Lipták & Güliz Güneş (eds.), The derivational timing of ellipsis, 170–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198849490.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Rsearch 43. 203–227.Search in Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 2017. Ellipsis. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa & Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax, 701–750. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614516613-020Search in Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru & Duk-Ho An. 2010. A comparative syntax of ellipsis in Japanese and Korean. In Hiroki Maezawa & Azusa Yokogoshi (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Fornmal Linguistics (WAFL 6), 287–307. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Search in Google Scholar
Sakamoto, Yuta. 2020. Silently structured silent argument. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.259Search in Google Scholar
Sato, Yosuke & Simin Karimi. 2016. Subject-object asymmetries in Persian argumenr ellipsis and the anti-agreement theory. Glossa 1. 1–31.10.5334/gjgl.60Search in Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. Binding resumptive pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 10. 261–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00584129.Search in Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 443–468.Search in Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 2014. Topicalization and focalization: A preliminary exploration of the Hebrew left periphery. In Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque & Endo Yoshio (eds.), On peripheries: Exploring the clause initial and clause final positions, 327–341. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Search in Google Scholar
Sichel, Ivy. 2014. Resumptive pronouns and competition. Lingiuistic Inquiry 45. 655–693. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00169.Search in Google Scholar
Simpson, Andrew, Arumina Choudhury & Mythili Menon. 2013. Argument ellipsis and the licensing of covert nominals in Bangla, Hindi and Malayalam. Lingua 134. 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.06.007.Search in Google Scholar
Soltan, Usama. 2020. On null objects in Egyptian Arabic. Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 12. 04–259. https://doi.org/10.1163/18776930-01202001.Search in Google Scholar
Stigliano, Laura. 2022. The silence of syntax: A theory of ellipsis licensing and identity. University of Chicago PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 2014. Argument ellipsis, anti-agreement and scrambling. In Mamuro Saito (ed.), Japanese syntax in comparative perspective, 88–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945207.003.0004Search in Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 2020. Derivational argument ellipsis. The Linguistic Review 37. 47–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2034.Search in Google Scholar
Temmerman, Tanja. 2019. When the sluice is not alone: On the syntax of WH+non-WH sluicing in Dutch. Presentation at the “Sluicing and Ellipsis at 50” conference, University of Chicago.Search in Google Scholar
Thoms, Gary. 2013. Lexical mismatches in ellipsis and the identity condition. In Stefan Keine & Shayne Sloggett (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 42, 559–572. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Search in Google Scholar
van Rooij, Robert & Marie Šafár̆ová. 2003. On polar questions. In Robert Young & Yuping Zhou (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 13, 292–309. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Club.10.3765/salt.v13i0.2887Search in Google Scholar
Vicente, Luis. 2018. Sluicing and its subtypes. In Jeoren van Craenenbroeck & Tanja Temmerman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 479–503. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.22Search in Google Scholar
Weir, Andrew. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. UMASS PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Yun, Jiwon. 2013. Wh-indefinites: Meaning and prosody. Cornell University PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Rafaella. 2008. Encoding the addressee in the syntax: Evidence from English imperative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26. 185–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9029-6.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
