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