Bare Argument Ellipsis and Focus

| University of Tübingen
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027257161 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027266569 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
This monograph explores the syntax and information structure of bare argument ellipsis. The study concentrates on stripping, which is identified as a subtype of bare argument ellipsis typically associated with focus sensitive particles or negation. This monograph presents a unified account of stripping located at the syntax-information structure interface and argues for a licensing mechanism which is strongly tied to the focus properties of the construction. Under this view, types of bare argument ellipsis such as stripping and pseudostripping, which have received different treatments in the literature, are shown to be subject to the same licensing mechanism. This analysis is also extended to instances of bare argument ellipsis in embedded contexts, which have received little attention in the literature so far. Integrating theoretical and experimental reasoning, this study presents a series of experiments investigating the extraction, prosody and context properties of stripping and thus arrives at a comprehensive and unified account.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 233]  2016.  xi, 182 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
ix–x
Index of abbreviations
xi–xii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–10
Chapter 2. Types of bare argument ellipsis
11–28
Chapter 3. State of the art
29–54
Chapter 4. Licensing stripping
55–96
Chapter 5. Experimental evidence
97–118
Chapter 6. Embedded stripping
119–146
Chapter 7. Conclusion and outlook
147–152
References
153–162
Appendix
163–180
Index
181–182
References

References

Altmann, H.
1976Die Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik (Linguistische Arbeiten 33). Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. and L. Vieu
2005Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua 115, 591–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bader, M.
1998Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In: J. Fodor and F. Ferreira (eds.), Reanalysis in Sentence Processing, 1–46. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C.L.
1991The syntax of English not: The limits of core grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 387–429.Google Scholar
Baltazani, M.
1999Focus in Greek. Ms.Google Scholar
Bard, E., D. Robertson and A. Sorace
1996Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72 (1), 32–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, J.
1990What Bavarian negative concord reveals about the syntactic structure of German. In: J. Mascaró (ed.), Grammar in Progress, 13–23. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996Directionality and Logical Form: On the Scope of Focusing Particles and Wh-in-Situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, D.
2006Koordinationsellipsen im Spracherwerb: Die Verarbeitung potentieller Gapping-Strukturen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, D.
1994Mittelfeldreport. In: V.B. Haftka (ed.), Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation?, 79–96. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997aThe great scope inversion conspiracy. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 175–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997bThe Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent. (Routledge Studies in German Linguistics 3.) London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, D. and H. Hartmann
2001The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19, 229–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, D. and G.S. Waters
1999Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1), 77–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, K.
2001The effects of parallelism and prosody in the processing of gapping structures. Language and Speech 44, 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Parallelism and Prosody in the Processing of Ellipsis Sentences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carlson, K, M. W. Dickey and C. Kennedy
2005Structural economy in the processing and representation of gapping sentences. Syntax 8, 208–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W.L.
1976Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In: C.N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chao, W.
1988On Ellipsis. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1977On wh-movement. In: P.W. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax, 71–132. San Francisco, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1993A minimalist program for lingustic theory. In: K. Hale and S. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995The Minimalist Program. (Current Studies in Linguistics 28.) Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001Derivation by phase. In: M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (Current Studies in Linguistics 36.), 1–52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002An interview on minimalism. In: A. Belletti, L. Rizzi (eds.), On Nature and Language, 92–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. and M. Halle
1968The Sound Pattern of English: New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Chung, S., W. Ladusaw and J. McCloskey
1995Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3, 239–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P.W.
1991Topicalization, inversion, and complementizers in English. In: D. Delfitto, M. Evaraert, A. Evers, and F. Stuurman (eds.) Going Romance, and Beyond: Fifth Symposium on Comparative Grammar, 1–43. OTS Working Papers 91–002. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Culicover, P.W. and R. Jackendoff
2005Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P.W. and M. Rochemont
1983Stress and focus in English. Language 59, 123–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M., S. Shieber and F. Pereira
1991Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 399–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Depiante, M.A.
2000The Syntax of Deep and Surface Anaphora: A Study of Null Complement Anaphora and Stripping/Bare Argument Ellipsis. Ph.D. diss., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Diesing, M.
1992Indefinites. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Drubig, H.B.
1992Zur Frage der grammatischen Repräsentation thetischer und kategorischer Sätze. In: J. Jacobs (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 4), 142–195. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994Island Constraints and the Nature of Focus and Association with Focus. Technical Report, Sonderforschungsbereich 340, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
2003Towards a typology of focus and focus constructions. Linguistics 41 (1), 1–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Phases and the typology of focus constructions. In: K. Schwabe, and S. Winkler (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form (Linguistik Aktuell.), 33–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, K.
1998Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74, 245–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erben, J.
1972Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Abriss. 11., völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage. München: Max Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
Ernst, T.
1992The phrase structure of English negation. The Linguistic Review 9, 109–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N.
1987Right node raising. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 105–113.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G.
1990Scrambling as NP-movement. In: G. Grewendorf and W. Sternefeld (eds.), Scrambling and Barriers, 113–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Quirky subjects and other specifiers. In: I. Kaufmann and B. Stiebels (eds.), More than Words, 227–250. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, S.
2005Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua 115, 1525–1550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics 33 (3), 269–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Thermometer judgements as linguistic evidence. In: C.M. Riehl and A. Rothe (eds.), Was ist linguistische Evidenz?, 69–89. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
Féry, C. and M. Krifka
2008Information structure. Notional distinctions, ways of expression. In: P. van Sterkenburg (ed.), Unity and Diversity of Languages, 123–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flämig, W.
1991Grammatik des Deutschen. Einführung in die Struktur- und Wirkungszusammenhänge. Erarbeitet auf der theoretischen Grundlage der “Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik“. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.D.
2002aProsodic disambiguation in silent reading. In: M. Hirotani (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 32, 113–132. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
2002bPsycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. In: B. Bel and I. Marlin (eds.), Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference, 83–88. Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.Google Scholar
Fox, D.
2000Economy and Semantic Interpretation. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 35.) Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. and C. Clifton
1998Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 13, 499–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy a. Syntax 4 (1), 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. and K. Rayner
1982Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14 (2), 178–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frey, W.
2001About the whereabouts of indefinites. Theoretical Linguistics 27, 137–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004A medial topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte 198, 153–190.Google Scholar
2006Contrast and movement to the German prefield. In: V. Molnár and S. Winkler (eds.), The Architecture of Focus (Studies in Generative Grammar 82), 235–264. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Peripheral adverbial clauses, their licensing and the prefield in German. In: E. Breindl, G. Ferraresi, and A. Volodina (eds.), Satzverknüpfung – Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion, 41–77. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012On two types of adverbial clauses allowing root-phenomena. In: L. Aelbrecht, L. Haegeman, and R. Nye (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, 405–429. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gates, D.L. and O.D. Seright
1967Negative-contrastive constructions in Standard Modern English. American Speech 42 (2), 136–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geilfuß-Wolfgang, J.
1996Über gewisse Fälle von Assoziation mit Fokus. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (= Linguistische Arbeiten 358).Google Scholar
Gergel, R.
2005Modals and Ellipsis: Diachronic and Synchronic Evidence. Ph.D. diss., University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
2009Modality and Ellipsis: Diachronic and Synchronic Evidence. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. and R. Cooper
2004Clarification, ellipsis, and the nature of contextual updates in dialogue. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 297–365. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C.
1986The natural semantics of too. Journal of Pragmatics 10, 635–644. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Green, G.M.
1968On too and either, and not just on too and either, either. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 4, 22–39.Google Scholar
1973The lexical expression of emphatic conjunction: Theoretical implications. Foundations of Language 10, 197–248.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G.
2005The discourse configurationality of scrambling. In: J. Sabel and M. Saito(eds.), The Free Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity, 75–135. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haftka, B.
1994Wie positioniere ich meine Position? In: B. Haftka (ed.), Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation?, 139–159. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H.
1993Deutsche Syntax – generativ. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Haider, H. and I. Rosengren
1998Scrambling. Sprache und Pragmatik 49, 1–104.Google Scholar
2003Scrambling – Non-triggered chain formation in OV languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15, 203–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holler, A.
2008German dependent clauses from a constraint-based perspective. In: C. Fabricius-Hansen and W. Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ vs. ‘Coordination’ in Sentence and Text, 187–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
1967Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3, 199–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, J.
1973Unacceptable ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 17–68.Google Scholar
1979Deletion in Coordinate Structures. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. and I.A. Sag
1976Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391–426.Google Scholar
Hardt, D.
1993Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning and Processing. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hardt, D. and M. Romero
2004Ellipsis and the structure of discourse. Journal of Semantics 21, 375–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, J., A. Konietzko and M. Salzmann
. to appear. On the limits of non-parallelism in ATB-movement. In: S. Featherston and Y. Versley (eds.) Firm Foundations: Quantitative Approaches to Grammar and Grammatical Change. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hartmann, K.
2000Right Node Raising and Gapping: Interface Conditions on Prosodic Deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartung, N.
2012Und-Koordination in der frühen Kindersprache: Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung. Ph.D. diss., University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Heim I. and A. Kratzer
1998Semantics in Generative Grammar. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Höhle, T.
1982Explikationen für “normale Betonung“ und “normale Wortstellung“. In: W. Abraham (ed.), Satzglieder im Deutschen. Vorschläge zur syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung, 75–153. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1988VERUM-Fokus. Sprache und Pragmatik 5, 2–7.Google Scholar
1992Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In: J. Jacobs (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik (Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 4), 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R.D. and G.K. Pullum
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R.A.
1976Conjunction reduction, gapping and right node raising. Language 52, 535–562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1971Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 21–35.Google Scholar
1972Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J.
1982Syntax und Semantik der Negation im Deutschen. München: Fink.Google Scholar
1983Fokus und Skalen: zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991Negation. In: A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 560–596. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1997I-Topikalisierung. Linguistische Berichte 168, 91–133.Google Scholar
Jäger, A.
2008History of German Negation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K.
1996/2003Gapping: In Search of the Middle Field. Ms., Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
2001What VP ellipsis can do, what it can’t, but not why. In: M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 439–479. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, J.
1984Obligatory too in English. Language 60, 510–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keller F., M. Corley, S. Corley, L. Konieczny and A. Todirascu
1998WebExp: A Java Toolbox for Web-Based Psychological Experiments. Technical Report HCRC/TR-99, Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C.
2003Ellipsis and syntactic representation. In: K. Schwabe and S. Winkler (eds.), The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures, 29–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J.-B. and I.A. Sag
2002Negation without head-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20 (2), 339–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiziak, T.
2010Extraction Asymmetries: Experimental Evidence from German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W.
1993Ellipse. In: J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld andT. Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol 1, 763–799. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Klima, E.
1964Negation in English. In: J.A. Fodor and J. Katz (eds.), The Structure of Language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kolokonte, M.
2008Bare Argument Ellipsis and Information Structure. Ph.D. diss., University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Konietzko, A. and S. Winkler
2010Contrastive ellipsis: Mapping between syntax and information structure. Lingua 120 (6), 1436–1457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, E.
1991aThe Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Croom Helm. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991bGradpartikeln. In: A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 786–803. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1993Focus particles. In: J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, 978–987. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krifka, M.
1998Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29 (1), 75–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Additive particles under stress. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 8, 111–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S.
1972Gapping: Functional sentence perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 3 (3), 269–320.Google Scholar
Laka, M.I.
1990Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Lang, E.
2004Schnittstellen bei der Konnektoren-Beschreibung. In: H. Blühdorn, E. Breindl and U.H. Waßner (eds.), Brücken schlagen: Grundlagen der Konnektorensemantik (Linguistik – Impulse und Tendenzen 5), 45–92. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, S.
1996The Interpretation of Ellipsis. In: S. Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 145–175. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H.
1981On two recent treatments of disjoint reference. Journal of Linguistic Research 1 (4), 48–58.Google Scholar
Lechner, W.
2001Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19 (4), 683–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Ellipsis in Comparatives. (Studies in Generative Grammar 72) Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenerz, J.
1977Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Levin, L.
1982Sluicing: A lexical interpretation procedure. In: J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 590–654. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lobeck, A.
1995Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
López, L.
1999VP-ellipsis in Spanish and English and the features of AUX. Probus 11, 263–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
López, L. and S. Winkler
2000Focus and topic in VP-anaphora constructions. Linguistics 38, 623–664. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Variation at the syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from gapping. In: K. Schwabe and S. Winkler (eds.), The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 61), 227–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martins, A.M.
1994Enclisis, VP-deletion and the nature of Sigma. Probus 6, 173–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J.D.
1991Contrastive negation and metalinguistic negation. In: L.M. Dobrin, L. Nichols and R.M. Rodriquez (eds.), Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Part Two: The Parasessions on Negation, 189–206. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Merchant, J.
2001The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 1.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003Remarks on Stripping. Ms. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
2004Fragments and Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661–738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006“Small structures” – A sententialist perspective. In: L. Progovac, K. Paesani, E. Casielles and E. Barton (eds.), The Syntax of Nonsententials, 73–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Variable island repair under ellipsis. In: K. Johnson (ed.), Topics in Ellipsis, 132–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, J, L. Frazier, T. Weskott and C. Clifton
2013Fragment answers to questions: A case of inaudible syntax. In: L. Goldstein (ed.) Brevity, 21–35. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molnár, V.
1998Topic in focus: On the syntax, phonology, semantics and pragmatics of the so-called “contrastive topic” in Hungarian and German. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45 (1–2), 89–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Contrast from a contrastive perspective. In: I. Kruijff-Korbayova and Mark Steedman (eds.), Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, ESSLLI 2001 Workshop Proceedings, 99–114. Helsinki: The University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
2006On different kinds of contrast. In: V. Molnár and S. Winkler (eds.), The Architecture of Focus (Studies in Generative Grammar 82.), 197–233. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molnár, V. and S. Winkler
2010Edges and gaps: Contrast at the interfaces. Lingua 120, 1392–1415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J.
1973Sentence fragments and the notion ‘sentence’. In: B.J. Kachru, R.B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pitrangeli and S. Saporta (eds.), Issues in Linguistics, 719–751. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
1989Sentence fragments revisited. Chicago Linguistics Society: Papers from the Parasession on Language in Context 25, 228–241.Google Scholar
Müller, G. and W. Sternefeld
1994Scrambling as A-bar movement. In: N. Corver and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Studies on Scrambling. Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena, 331–386. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munn, A.
1993Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Neijt, A.
1979Gapping. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nykiel, J. and I. Sag
2011Remarks on sluicing. In: S. Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG11 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Oehrle, R.T.
1987Boolean properties in the analysis of gapping. In: G.J. Huck and A.E. Ojeda (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 20: Discontinuous Constituency, 203–240. San Diego, California: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ormelius-Sandblom, E.
1997Die Modalpartikeln ja, doch und schon. Zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. (= Lunder germanistische Forschungen 61). Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y.
1989Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Potsdam, E.
1997NegP and subjunctive complements in English. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 533–541.Google Scholar
Progovac, L.
2006The syntax of nonsententials: Small clauses and phrases at the root. In: L. Progovac, K. Paesani, E. Casielles and E. Barton (eds.), The Syntax of Nonsententials, 33–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radó, J., J. Heim and S. Winkler
2012Complex Sluicing and Focus. Ms. University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Reich, I.
2007Asymmetrische Koordination im Deutschen. Habilitation, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
2009aAsymmetrische Koordination im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2009bEllipse und die Struktur von Diskursen – Anaphora und Gapping. Talk, 15.01.2009, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
2011Ellipsis. In: C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. (= Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science). 1849–1874. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reich, I. and M. Reis
2013Koordination und Subordination. In: J. Meibauer, M. Steinbach, and H. Altmann (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen, 536–569. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T.
1981Definite NP anaphora and C-command domains. Linguistic Inquiry 12 (4), 605–635.Google Scholar
1982Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1991Elliptical conjunctions: Non-quantificational LF. In: A. Kasher (ed.), The Chomskyan Turn, 360–384. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1995Interface Strategies. (OTS Working Papers.) Utrecht: Research Institute of Language and Speech.Google Scholar
Reis, M.
1997Zum syntaktischen Status unselbstständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In: C. Dürscheid and Karl-Heinz Ramers (eds.), Sprache im Fokus: Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, 121–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
2005On the syntax of so-called focus particles in German – A reply to Büring and Hartmann 2001. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23, 459–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reis, M. and I. Rosengren
1992What do wh-imperatives tell us about wh-movement? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 79–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997A modular approach to the grammar of additive particles: The case of German auch. Journal of Semantics 14, 237–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Repp, S.
2005Interpreting Ellipsis: The Changeable Presence of the Negation in Gapping. Ph.D. diss., Humboldt-University Berlin.Google Scholar
2008When the negative goes missing: The role of the information structure in gapping coordinations with but. In: A. Steube (ed.), The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures: Event Structure and Information Structure, 359–388. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009Negation in Gapping. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, M.
1986Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, M.
1985Association with Focus, Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
1992aA theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992bEllipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In: S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop 1992, (Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 ‘Sprach-theoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik’ 29.) Universität Stuttgart/Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Rosengren, I.
1997The thetic/categorical distinction revisited once more. Linguistics 35, 439–479. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J.R.
1967Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
1969Guess who? In: R. Binnick, A. Davison, G. Green and J. Morgan (eds.), Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Sag, I.
1976Deletion and Logical Form. Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sasse, H.- J.
1987The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25, 511–580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmeh, K., P.W. Culicover, J. Hartmann and S. Winkler
2015Discourse function ambiguity of fragments: A linguistic puzzle. In: S. Winkler (ed.), Ambiguity: Language and Communication, 199–216. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwabe, K. and S. Winkler
(eds.) 2003The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E.O.
1984Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shopen, T.
1972A Generative Theory of Ellipsis. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Siegel, M.E.A.
1984Gapping and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 15 (3), 523–530.Google Scholar
Stainton, R.J.
1995Non-sentential assertions and semantic ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 281–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Utterance meaning and syntactic ellipsis. Pragmatics and Cognition 5, 51–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004In defense of non-sentential assertion. In: Z. Szabe (ed.), Semantics vs. Pragmatics, 383–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2006Neither fragments nor ellipsis. In: L. Progovac, K. Paesani, E. Casielles and E. Barton (eds.), The Syntax of Nonsententials, 93–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, I.
2005On the syntax of DP coordination. Combining evidence from reading-time studies and agrammatic comprehension. In: S. Kepser and M. Reis (eds.), Linguistic Evidence. Empirical, Theoretical and Compu-tational Perspectives (Studies in Generative Grammar: Vol. 85.)., 507–527. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Zur Verarbeitung koordinierter Strukturen. Ph.D. diss., University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Stolterfoht, B.
2005Processing Word Order Variations and Ellipses: The Interplay of Syntax and Information Structure during Sentence Comprehension (Max-Planck-Series in Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences 55). Leipzig: Max-Planck-Institut für Kognitions- und Neurowissenschaften.Google Scholar
Taglicht, J.
1993Focus and background. In: J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 998–1006. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
te Velde, J.R.
2006Deriving Coordinate Symmetries: A Phase-Based Approach Integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, T.
1972Anaphoric Relations in English. Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
1979Anaphora in Generative Grammar. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, G.
1989Syntactic Saturation Phenomena and the Modern Germanic Languages. Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Weiß, H.
2002A quantifier approach to negation in natural languages. Or why negative concord is necessary. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25 (2), 125–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilder, C.
1994Coordination, ATB and ellipsis. In: C.J.W. Zwart (ed.), Minimalism and Kayne‘s Asymmetry Hypothesis (Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 37.), 291–329. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
1997Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. In: A. Alexiadou and T. Hall (eds.), Studies in Universal Grammar and Typological Variation, 59–107. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E.
1977Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 692–696. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1978Across the board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9 (1), 31–43.Google Scholar
Winkler, S.
2000Silent copy and polarity focus in VP ellipsis. In: K. Schwabe and N. Zhang (eds.), Ellipsis in Coordination, 221–247. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Ellipsis and Focus in Generative Grammar. (Studies in Generative Grammar 81.) Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012aChapter 2: English. In: M. Krifka and R. Musan (eds), The Expression of Information Structure, 71–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012bFocus in reduced weil-clauses in German. In: J. Brandtler, et al. (eds.), Discourse & Grammar: A Festschrift in Honor of Valéria Molnár, 487–500. Lund: Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.Google Scholar
2016Current issues of information structure Chapter 20: Ellipsis. In: C. Féry and S. Ishihara (eds), The (Oxford) Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zifonun, G., L. Hoffmann and B. Strecker
1997Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Band 1–3. (Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache; Band 7.1). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Al-Horais, Nasser
2017. On Negation and Focus in Standard Arabic: Interface-based Approach. Journal of Universal Language 18:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Reich, Ingo
2018.  In Handbuch Pragmatik,  pp. 240 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 2020. 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.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2016027569 | Marc record