Article published in:
Romance Perspectives on Construction Grammar
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Francisco Gonzálvez-García
[Constructional Approaches to Language 15] 2014
► pp. 227–265

Chapter 7. A Romance perspective on gapping constructions

| CNRS-University of Paris-7 Diderot, France
| CNRS-University of Paris-7 Diderot, France
| University of Rennes 2, France
Focusing on two Romance languages, French and Romanian, we provide a detailed analysis of gapping and present several empirical arguments for preferring a construction-based approach of gapping (with semantic reconstruction of ellipsis) over alternative accounts that rely on movement or deletion. We then study parallelism constraints and show that syntactic parallelism is less strict than what is usually assumed, while discourse parallelism is clearly required. Syntax is not completely ignored though, as each remnant is required to match some subcategorization frame of the verbal predicate its correlate depends on. We show how those core properties can be accounted for within a construction-based framework relying on inheritance hierarchies of typed feature structures, such as HPSG in its more recent versions.
Published online: 28 August 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.15.07abe
References

References

Abeillé, A.
(2003) A lexicalist and construction-based approach to coordinations. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 5–25). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2005) Les syntagmes conjoints et leurs fonctions syntaxiques. Langages, 160, 42–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, A., & Godard, D.
(2003) Les prédicats complexes dans les langues romanes. In D. Godard (Ed.), Les langues romanes. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Abeillé, A., & Mouret, F.
(2010) Quelques contraintes sur les coordinations elliptiques en français. Revue de sémantique et de pragmatique, 24, 177–207.Google Scholar
Barbu, A.M.
(2004) Statutul semiadverbelor din cadrul complexului verbal. In G. Pană Dindelegan (Ed.), Tradiţie şi inovaţie în studiul limbii române (pp. 625–634). Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Beck, S.
(1997) On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 229–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bîlbîie, G.
(2008) A syntactic account of Romanian correlative coordination from a Romance perspective. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-­Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 25–45). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2011) Grammaire des constructions elliptiques: Une étude comparative des phrases sans verbe en roumain et en français. (Ph.D. Dissertation). Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
Bîlbîie, G., & Winterstein, G.
(2011) Expressing contrast in Romanian: The conjunction iar . In J. Berns, H. Jacobs, & T. Scheer (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2009: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Nice 2009 (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bîlbîie, G.
in prep.). Gapping and right node raising in the English Penn Treebank.Manuscript, LLF & Université Paris 7.
Boas, H.C., & Sag, I.A.
(Eds.) (2012) Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Borsley, R.
(2005) Against ConjP. Lingua, 115, 461–482. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chao, W.
(1987) On ellipsis. (Ph.D. Dissertation). University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chaves, R.
(2005) A linearization-based approach to gapping. In G. Jäger, P. Monachesi, G. Penn, & S. Wintner (Eds.), FG-MOL 2005: The 10th conference on Formal Grammar and the 9th Meeting on Mathematics of Language (pp.207–220).University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Coppock, E.
(2001) Gapping: In defense of deletion. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, & S. Neuvel (Eds.), Papers from the 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 133–148). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R.
(2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M., Sheiber, S., & Pereira, F.
(1991) Ellipsis and higher order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 399–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elugardo, R., & Stainton, R.
(2005) Introduction. In R. Elugardo, & R. Stainton (Eds.), Ellipsis and nonsentential speech (pp. 1–26). Netherlands: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., & Kay, P.
(1996) Construction Grammar coursebook. Unpublished manuscript, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gardent, C.
(1991) Gapping and VP ellipsis in a unification-based grammar. (Ph.D. Dissertation). University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J.
(2012) The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I.A.
(2000) Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Grévisse, M., & Goosse, A.
(1991) Le bon usage (11ème éd.). Louvain: Duculot.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J.
(1971) Constraints on deletion in syntax. (Ph.D. Dissertation). Yale University.Google Scholar
Hartmann, K.
(2000) Right node raising and gapping. Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., Payne, J., & Peterson, P.
(2002) Coordination and supplementation. In R. Huddleston, & G.K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp. 1273–1362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ionescu, E.
(2004) Understanding Romanian negation: Syntactic and semantic approaches in a declarative perspective. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Jasinskaja, K., & Zeevat, H.
(2009) Explaining conjunction systems: Russian, English, German. In A. Riester, & T. Solstad (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, vol. 5 of SinSpeC. Working Papers of the SFB 732 (pp. 231–245). University of Stuttgart.
Johnson, K.
(1994) Bridging the gap. Manuscript, University of Massachusettsat Amherst.Google Scholar
(1996) In search of the English middle field. Manuscript, University of Massachusettsat Amherst.Google Scholar
(2009) Gapping is not (VP-) ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(2), 289–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, A.
(2002) Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Konietzko, A., & Winkler, S.
(2010) Contrastive ellipsis: Mapping between syntax and information structure. Lingua, 120, 1436–1457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S.
(1976) Gapping: A functional analysis. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(2), 300–318.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1974) Syntactic amalgams. Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting (pp. 321–344). Chicago Linguistic Society.
Merchant, J.
(2001) The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 661–738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Ph., & Sag, I.A.
(1997) French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 573–639. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molnár, V., & Winkler, S.
(2010) Edges and gaps: The role of contrast in the theory of grammar. Lingua, 120, 1392–1415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Monachesi, P.
(1999) A lexical approach to Italian cliticization. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mouret, F.
(2005) La syntaxe des coordinations corrélatives en français. Langages, 160, 67–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) A phrase structure approach to argument cluster coordination. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 247–267). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2007) Grammaire des constructions coordonnées. Coordinations simples et coordinations à redoublement en français contemporain. Lille: ANRT.Google Scholar
Morgan, J.
(1973) Sentence fragments and the notion ‘sentence’. In B.B. Kachru, R.B. Lees, Y. Malkier, D. Pietrangeli, & S. Saporta (Eds.), Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane (pp. 719–751). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Munn, A.
(1992) A null operator analysis of ATB gaps. The Linguistic Review, 9, 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neijt, A.
(1979) Gapping. A contribution to sentence grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Repp, S.
(2009) Negation in gapping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rigaud, N.
(2010) L’art du vide: Pour une approche descriptive des phénomènes elliptiques. (Ph.D. Dissertation). Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Ross, J.
(1967) Constraints on variables in syntax. (Ph.D. Dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
(1970) Gapping and the order of constituents. In M. Bierwisch, & K. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in linguistics (pp. 249–259). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sag, I.A.
(1976) Deletion and logical form. (Ph.D. Dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
(1997) English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 33, 431–484. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Coordination and underspecification. In J.B. Kim, & S. Wechsler (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 267–291). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2012) Sign-based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In H.C. Boas, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp. 69–201). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, I.A., Gazdar, G., Wasow, T., & Weisler, S.
(1985) Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 117–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, M.
(1984) Gapping and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 523–530.Google Scholar
Steedman, M.
(1990) Gapping as constituent coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 207–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar