Article published in:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2020
Edited by Elena Tribushinina and Mark Dingemanse
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 37] 2020
► pp. 23–37

Clausal ellipsis

Deletion or selective spell-out?

| Meertens Institute
| Universität Konstanz
This article compares two alternatives to the standard movement-and-deletion approach to clausal ellipsis, which postulates deletion of TP after the remnants of ellipsis are (sometimes exceptionally) A′-moved into the left periphery of the clause. One alternative is the in-situ approach, which denies the involvement of movement in the derivation of clausal ellipsis; it claims that clausal ellipsis can apply to any run-of-the-mill syntactic structure and simply deletes the familiar/given information from the propositional domain of the clause. Another alternative is the selective spell-out approach; it denies the involvement of deletion and states that the remnants undergo regular A′-movement into the specifiers of specific semantically relevant functional projections (CP, FocusP, NegP, etc.), which are subsequently selected for spell-out. This article argues that the selective spell-out approach is superior to the two deletion approaches.
Keywords: clausal ellipsis, A′-movement, deletion, spell-out, discourse particles
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The movement-and-deletion approach (MDA)
    • 1.2The selective spell-out approach (SSA)
    • 1.3The in-situ approach (ISA)
    • 1.4Organization of the remainder of the paper
  • 2.Why the in-situ approach fails?
  • 3.Why the selective spell-out approach is superior?
  • 4.The distribution of German discourse particles
  • 5.Appendix: Two issues related to the Dutch discourse particle dan
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00035.bro
References
Barbiers, Sjef
1995 The syntax of interpretation, University of Leiden/HIL: PhD thesis.Google Scholar
2010 “Focus particle doubling.” Structure preserved. Studies in syntax for Jan Koster, ed. by Jan-Wouter Zwart and Mark De Vries. 21–29. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Syntactic doubling and deletion as a source of variation.” Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, ed. M. Carme Picallo. 197–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef
2012 “From modal particle to interrogative marker. A study of German denn .” Functional Heads, ed. by Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro and Cecilia Poletto. 13–28. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 “Clitic denn and wh-movement.” Wiener Linguistische Gazette 821 [Festschrift für Martin Prinzhorn]: 1–11.Google Scholar
2018 “Criterial Freezing in the syntax of particles.” Freezing. Theoretical approaches and empirical domains, ed. by Jutta Hartmann, Marion Jäger, Andreas Konietzko and Susanne Winkler. 225–263. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 “Why doubling discourse particles?” Linguistic variation: structure and interpretation, ed. by Ludovico Franco and Paolo Lorusso. 47–72. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef, and Hans-Georg Obenauer
2011 “Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types.” The Linguistic Review 281: 449–491. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, Tanmoy, and Andrew Simpson
2012 “Sluicing in Indo-Aryan: An investigation of Bangla and Hindi.” Sluicing: cross-Linguistic perspectives, ed. by Jason Merchant and Andrew Simpson. 183–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boone, Enrico
2014 The syntax and licensing of gapping and fragments, University of Leiden: PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans
2018 “The syntax of Dutch gapping.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 2018, ed. by Janine Berns and Bert Le Bruyn. 19–33. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, and Norbert Corver
2016 Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and verb phrases, volume 31. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 Syntax of Dutch. Coordination and Ellipsis. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://​library​.oapen​.org​/handle​/20​.500​.12657​/25972. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel
1995 “Extraposition as intraposition, and the syntax of English tag questions.” Unpublished ms. Free University (Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge
1971 Constraints on deletion in syntax, Yale University: PhD thesis.Google Scholar
1979 Deletion in coordinate structures. New York/London: Garland Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
Hentschel, Elke
1986 Funktion und Geschichte der deutschen Partikeln: “Ja”, “doch”, “halt” und “eben”. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Kyle
2009 “Gapping is not (VP-)ellipsis.” Linguistic Inquiry 401: 289–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 “Gapping.” The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax [2nd, revised edition], ed. by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. 1745–1783. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S.
1998 “Overt vs. covert movement.” Syntax 11: 128–191. Also published as chapter 13 in Parameters and universals. Oxford University Press 2000.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2001 The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2004 “Fragments and ellipsis.” Linguistics and Philosophy 271: 661–738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neijt, Anneke
1979 Gapping. A contribution to sentence grammar, University of Utrecht: PhD thesis. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ott, Dennis, and Volker Struckmeier
2018 “Particles and deletion.” Linguistic Inquiry 491: 393–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
1993 Dutch syntax. A minimalist approach, University of Groningen: PhD thesis.Google Scholar
1997 Morphosyntax of verb movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar