What ellipsis can do for phases, and what it can't, but not why

The study of ellipsis, being a mismatch between form and meaning, has already proven to have consequences for our understanding of language in general, as it has helped us gain insights in other domains of the grammar. This paper focuses on one of these domains, namely the notion of Spell-Out and the theory of phases that has been developed within the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, 2001, 2005). Several authors have been tempted to tie ellipsis to Phase Theory, as ellipsis would be non-pronunciation at PF instead of pronunciation. In other words, ellipsis is the flip coin of Spell-Out, and the two differ only at PF. Although attractive, this proposal will be pointed out to run into empirical problems with regards to extraction possibilities. The data suggest that the difference between ellipsis and non-ellipsis is not simply decided at PF, but in the syntax already. At the same time, however, this paper aims to maintain the intuition behind the link between ellipsis and phases. It explores the chunks of structure that are targeted by both operations as well as their triggers

VP-Ellipsis is not licensed by VP-Topicalization

Starting from the observation that the constraints on VP-ellipsis (VPE) closely match those on VP-topicalization (VPT), Johnson (2001) proposes a movement account for VPE: in order for a VP to be deleted, it must first undergo topicalization. We show that although this proposal is attractive, making VPE dependent on VPT is problematic because VPE and VPT are not distributionally equivalent. While VPT targets the left periphery and consequently is subject to constraints on movement, VPE is not so restricted. We outline some alternatives for capturing the observed parallelism in the licensing of VPT and VPE

To be or not to be elided: VP ellipsis revisited

The main question that this paper addresses is: what happens to non-finite auxiliaries under English VP ellipsis (VPE)? Do they remain overt like finite auxiliaries, or do they disappear together with lexical verbs? Akmajian and Wasow (1975) and Sag (1976) observed the following pattern: non-finite have always stays overt, being is obligatorily elided, and be and been are optionally elided. We provide an analysis for this pattern. As preliminaries for our account we follow Chomsky (1993) and Lasnik (1995b) in assuming that English auxiliaries carry uninterpretable inflectional features which force the auxiliary to raise to the relevant inflectional head for feature checking at PF. As we argue that VPE includes the progressive projections in the ellipsis site, but nothing higher, the have and being data automatically fall out: have is base-generated outside the ellipsis site, so is never elided, whilst being’s landing site is inside the ellipsis site, so being is always elided. For be and been, which are base-generated in the ellipsis site and raise out of it to get their inflectional features checked, we take an optional raising approach: in non-elliptical sentences raising is obligatory, otherwise the derivation crashes at PF because of unchecked features. Ellipsis contexts, on the other hand, provide the option of not raising for be and been, because ellipsis then deletes be and been in their base positions, along with their unchecked features, avoiding the PF violation. We extend this account to other phenomena, such as VP fronting, pseudo-clefts and predicate inversion.status: publishe

Agreeing to remain silent: the syntactic licensing of ellipsis

Taking data from Dutch and British English as a starting point, the present paper presents a theory of ellipsis licensing. Section 1 introduces the two basic approaches to ellipsis, namely proform and deletion, and the extraction test used in the literature to decide between them. In section two I present data from Dutch and British English providing a puzzle for the test. Section 3 puts forward my analysis involving deletion. I argue that ellipsis is syntactically licensed by an Agree relation between an ellipsis feature and a head licensing ellipsis and that it occurs in the course of the derivation, as soon as the licensor is merged. This analysis accounts for the extraction puzzle and can be applied to other elliptical phenomena as well (see Aelbrecht 2010)

The syntactic licensing of ellipsis

This monograph presents a theory of ellipsis licensing in terms of Agree and applies it to several elliptical phenomena in both English and Dutch. The author makes two main claims: The head selecting the ellipsis site is checked against the head licensing ellipsis in order for ellipsis to occur, and ellipsis – i.e., sending part of the structure to PF for non-pronunciation – occurs as soon as this checking relation is established. At that point, the ellipsis site becomes inaccessible for further syntactic operations. Consequently, this theory explains the limited extraction data displayed by ‘Dutch modals complement ellipsis’ as well as British English do: These ellipses allow subject extraction out of the ellipsis site, but not object extraction. The analysis also extends to phenomena that do not display such a restricted extraction, such as sluicing, VP ellipsis, and pseudogapping. Hence, this work is a step towards a unified analysis of ellipsis