Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2014
Edited by Anita Auer and Björn Köhnlein
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 31] 2014
► pp. 13–25

The licensing condition on clausal ellipsis

| Leiden University
This paper is concerned with the correct characterization of the licensing condition on clausal ellipsis and how it relates to the distribution of ellipsis. I argue, essentially following López (2000), that ellipsis is licensed when the ellipsis clause bears a relation to an antecedent in the discourse component. A relation between two discourse units can be established in two ways: (1) Either there holds a direct relation between the two discourse units or (2) there holds an anaphoric relation mediated by a discourse anaphor. In this paper, I show how this two-way distinction in setting up discourse relations accounts for the two-way split we find in the distribution of ellipsis.
Keywords: Sluicing, discourse component, licensing condition on ellipsis, Gapping, Fragments
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 10 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.31.02boo
References (19)
AnderBois, Scott. 2011. Sluicing as anaphora to issues. Proceedings of SALT 201. 451–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Laure Vieu. 2005. Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua 115(4). 591–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik. 2008. Subordination and coordination in syntax, semantics, and discourse: Evidence from the study of connectives. In Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine & Wiebke Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’ in Sentence and Text. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 281. 195–217.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1979. Deletion in coordinate structure. Garland Pub.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2(1). 21–35.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2009. Gapping is not (VP-)ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 401. 289–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jeong-Seok. 1997. Sluicing in English. Studies in Generative Grammar 71. 153–193.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. 3rd Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics . 1–25.
Levin, Nancy & Ellen Prince. 1986. Gapping and causal implicature. Research on Language & Social Interaction 191. 351–364.Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2000. Ellipsis and discourse-linking. Lingua 1101. 183–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Temmerman, Tanja. 2013. The syntax of Dutch embedded fragment answers: On the PF-theory of islands and the wh/sluicing correlation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 311. 235–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thoms, Gary. 2010. ‘Verb floating’ and VP-ellipsis: Towards a movement account of ellipsis licensing. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 101. 252–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Webber, Bonnie, Aravind Joshi, Matthew Stone & Alistair Knott. 2003. Anaphora and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics 29(4). 545–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar