Clausal ellipsis
Deletion or selective spell-out?
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.
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
References
Barbiers, Sjef
1995 The syntax of interpretation, University of Leiden/HIL: PhD thesis.
Barbiers, Sjef
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.
Barbiers, Sjef
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.
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.
Bayer, Josef
2017 “
Clitic denn and wh-movement.”
Wiener Linguistische Gazette 821 [
Festschrift für Martin Prinzhorn]: 1–11.
Bayer, Josef
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.
Bayer, Josef
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.
Bayer, Josef, and Hans-Georg Obenauer
2011 “
Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types.”
The Linguistic Review 281: 449–491.
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.
Boone, Enrico
2014 The syntax and licensing of gapping and fragments, University of Leiden: PhD thesis.
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.
Broekhuis, Hans, and Norbert Corver
2016 Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and verb phrases, volume 31. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Broekhuis, Hans, and Norbert Corver
2019 Syntax of Dutch. Coordination and Ellipsis. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
[URL].
Den Dikken, Marcel
1995 “
Extraposition as intraposition, and the syntax of English tag questions.” Unpublished ms. Free University (Amsterdam).
Hankamer, Jorge
1971 Constraints on deletion in syntax, Yale University: PhD thesis.
Hankamer, Jorge
1979 Deletion in coordinate structures. New York/London: Garland Publishing Inc.
Hentschel, Elke
1986 Funktion und Geschichte der deutschen Partikeln: “Ja”, “doch”, “halt” und “eben”. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Johnson, Kyle
2009 “
Gapping is not (VP-)ellipsis.”
Linguistic Inquiry 401: 289–328.
Johnson, Kyle
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.
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.
Merchant, Jason
2001 The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Merchant, Jason
2004 “
Fragments and ellipsis.”
Linguistics and Philosophy 271: 661–738.
Neijt, Anneke
1979 Gapping. A contribution to sentence grammar, University of Utrecht: PhD thesis.
Ott, Dennis, and Volker Struckmeier
2018 “
Particles and deletion.”
Linguistic Inquiry 491: 393–407.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
1993 Dutch syntax. A minimalist approach, University of Groningen: PhD thesis.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
1997 Morphosyntax of verb movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Colley, Justin & Itai Bassi
2022.
A prosodic theory of possible ellipsis remnants.
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7:1
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.