Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 49–72

An experimental approach to parallelism in ellipsis

The case of pro-drop in Romance gapping

| University of Bucharest
| University of Lille
The present study investigates parallelism constraints in Romance gapping with pro-drop. We provide empirical evidence from two acceptability judgment tasks in Romanian and Spanish, that syntactic parallelism in gapping is less strict than traditionally assumed. Parallelism constraints are stronger at the discourse and information structure levels than at the syntactic level. Our experimental findings show that gapping with pro-drop is as acceptable as without pro-drop, challenging the double foci analysis and supporting the topic-focus pattern for gapping constructions. At the semantic level, our data show that the contrast in gapping is not always established explicitly; more generally, they show that one cannot make a correlation between contrast and subject (null vs overt) expression in Romance.
Keywords: gapping, parallelism, pro-drop, constructional approach, Romance, Romanian, Spanish, acceptability judgments
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Syntactic parallelism in gapping
  • 3.Experimental studies on pro-drop and gapping
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • 4.A construction-based analysis of gapping
  • 5.Implications for the information structure and semantics of gapping
    • 5.1Implications for information structure
    • 5.2Implications for the semantic contrast
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.03bil
References (61)
References
Abeillé, Anne, Gabriela Bîlbîie & François Mouret. 2014. A Romance perspective on gapping constructions. In Hans Boas & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds.), Romance perspectives on construction grammar [Constructional approaches to language], 227–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis, Susana Fernández-Solera, Lyn Frazier & Charles Clifton. 2002. Null vs. overt pronouns and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish. Journal of Italian Linguistics 14(2). 151–169.Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biezma, María. 2014. Multiple focus strategies in pro-drop languages: Evidence from ellipsis in Spanish. Syntax 17(2). 91–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bîlbîie, Gabriela. 2017. Grammaire des constructions elliptiques: Une étude comparative des phrases sans verbe en roumain et en français. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Bîlbîie, Gabriela & Grégoire Winterstein. 2011. Expressing contrast in Romanian: The conjunction iar . In Janine Berns, Haike Jacobs & Tobias Scheer (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2009: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Nice 2009, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bîlbîie, Gabriela & Israel de la Fuente. 2019. Can gapping be embedded? Experimental evidence from Spanish. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1). 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bîlbîie, Gabriela, Israel de la Fuente & Anne Abeillé. 2019. Embedded gapping? A cross-linguistic perspective. Poster presented at the 32nd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Boulder, CO, March 29–31.
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax (1st edn.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Ash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen & Stephen Wechsler. 2015. Lexical-functional syntax (2nd edn.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Katy. 2001. The effects of parallelism and prosody in the processing of gapping structures. Language and Speech 44(1). 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Parallelism and prosody in the processing of ellipsis sentences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Centeno, Naiara. 2011. Gapping and determiner sharing in Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dagnac, Anne. 2016. Gapping also needs vP-coordination: An argument from French NPI licensing. The Linguistic Review 33(4). 503–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drummond, Alex. 2013. Ibex farm. [URL] (20 August, 2018).
Filiaci, Francesca, Antonella Sorace & Manuel Carreiras. 2014. Anaphoric biases of null and overt subjects in Italian and Spanish: A cross-linguistic comparison. Language and Cognitive Processes 29(7). 825–843.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Lori Taft, Tom Roeper, Charles Clifton & Kate Ehrlich. 1984. Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition 12. 421–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Alan Munn & Charles Clifton. 2000. Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29(4). 343–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García-Marchena, Oscar. 2018. Polar verbless clauses and gapping subordination in Spanish. In Eric Fuβ, Marek Konopka, Beata Trawiński & Ulrich H. Waβner (eds.), Grammar and corpora 2016, 169–182. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Ivan A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 1985. Subcategorization and parallelism. Theoretical Linguistics 12(1). 231–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. In René Dirven & Vilém Fried (eds.), On acceptable violations of parallelism constraints. Functionalism in linguistics, 425–457. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1971. Constraints on deletion in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
. 1973. Unacceptable ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 4(1). 17–68.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina. 2000. Right node raising and gapping. Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X′ Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2009. Gapping is not (VP)-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 289–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. In search of the English middle field. University of Massachusetts Amherst. 2004.Google Scholar
. 2014. Gapping. University of Massachusetts Amherst. 2014.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Konietzko, Andreas & Susanne Winkler. 2010. Contrastive ellipsis: Mapping between syntax and information structure. Lingua 120. 1436–1457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1976. Gapping: A functional analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 7(2). 300–318.Google Scholar
Levin, Nancy & Ellen Prince. 1986. Gapping and causal implicature. Papers in Linguistics 19. 351–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manning, Christopher & Ivan A. Sag. 1999. Dissociations between argument structure and grammatical relations. In Gert Webelhuth, Jean-Pierre Koenig & Andreas Kathol (eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation, 63–77. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mayol, Laia. 2010. Contrastive pronouns in null-subject Romance languages. Lingua 120(10). 2497–2514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(6). 661–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mouret, François. 2006. A phrase structure approach to argument cluster coordination. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG’06), 247–267. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 72. 751–773. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R foundation for statistical computing. [URL]
Repp, Sophie. 2009. Negation in gapping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17(3). 501–557.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Focus. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–297. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 1970. Gapping and the order of constituents. In Manfred Bierwisch & Karl Erich Heidolph (eds.), Progress in linguistics, 249–259. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Gerald Gazdar, Thomas Wasow & Steven Weisler. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3. 117–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1977. Constraints on coordination. Language 53. 86–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwabe, Kerstin. 2000. Coordinate ellipsis and information structure. In Kerstin Schwabe & Ning Zhang (eds.), Ellipsis in conjunction, 247–269. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva, Gonçalo. 2014. Gapping in European Portuguese. In Martin Kohlberger, Kate Bellamy & Eleanor Dutton (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (ConSOLE XXII), 156–166. Leiden: The Leiden University Center for Linguistics.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1990. Gapping as constituent coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2). 207–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2003. The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic implications. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, 321–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1978. Across the board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 31–43.Google Scholar
Winkler, Susanne. 2005. Ellipsis and focus in generative grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Ellipsis and information structure. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 359–382. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Reiner, Tabea
2024. A constructionist analysis of gapping against the background of generative analyses. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 43:1 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.