Jason Merchant, University of Chicago, merchant@uchicago.

edu

(4)

Questions of identity
Ellipsis is conditioned by a combination of semantic and syntactic identity conditions Ellipsis (at least sluicing, and VP-ellipsis in English) is the result of deletion at PF the syntax internal to the ellipsis site is regulated by the same principles as non-elliptical syntax These two claims are not incompatible: supposing a specific, local semantic requirement on the deletion site can link traditional licensing and identification concerns (5) (6)

F-closure (slightly simplified) The F-closure of is the result of replacing F-marked parts of with -bound variables, modulo -type shifting. S-Focus condition on VP ellipsis (Schwarzschildian version) An VP can be deleted only if is or is contained in a constituent that is GIVEN. a. b. Abby sang because [Ben]F did. IP IP1 Abby sang because IP2 [Ben]F did [VP sing].

The focus and isomorphism conditions

Rooth 1992, Fiengo and May 1994: (1) redundancy relation 2 !! ! ! XPA ... VPA ... XPE ... VPE ... syntactic (Fiengo & Mays reconstruction) semantic (Rooths ~)

The R-Focus condition requires that [[ IP1 ]]o [[ IP2 ]]f, that is, that sing(a) {sing(x): x De}. The S-Focus condition is also satisfied: the deleted VP is given since the antecedent Abby sang entails the -type shifted deleted VP: x.sing(x). Equivalently, we could compare the containing IPs again, Abby sang entails the result of replacing the F-marked [Ben]F in IP2 by an -bound variable: x.sing(x).

redundancy relation 1

Rooths hypothesis is as follows: ellipsis should be possible exactly in configurations where 1. a verb phrase can be syntactically reconstructed, and 2. some phrase identical with or dominating the reconstructed phrase can be related by the ~ relation to some phrase identical with or dominating the reconstruction antecedent ... . Rooth 1992:18 XPA ~ XPE , in Rooths terms. (2) R-Focus condition on VP ellipsis (Roothian version) A VP in XPE can be deleted only if there is an XPA, where [[ XPA ]]o either is or implies an element of [[ XPE ]]f .

PRONOUNS (7) a. b. Abby saw him after [Ben]F did. IP IP1 Abby saw him2 after IP2 [Ben]F did [VP see him2].

The LF in (7b) will meet the R-Focus condition iff [Abby saw x2 ]]o [ [Ben]F saw x2 ]]f, that [ [ is, if g.see(a, g(x2)) { g.see(y, g(x2)) | y De}. It meets the S-Focus condition iff IP1 entails x.see(x, g(x2)); this will only hold if see(abby, g(x2)) is true.

Same in Schwarzschilds (1999) theory of focus, based on his definition of GIVEN. (3)
GIVENness

DEACCENTING DELETION (see especially Winkler 1997) (8) a. b. c. d. Abby was reading the book while BEN was reading. Abby ate a sandwich after BEN ate. Abby left the party because BEN left. Abby sang her hymn louder than BEN sang.

1. 2.

(Schwarzschild 1999) If a constituent is not F-marked, must be GIVEN. An utterance U counts as GIVEN iff U has a salient antecedent A and, modulo type shifting, A entails the F-closure of U.

Implicational bridging (9) a. Abby called Chuck an idiot after BEN insulted him. b. Abby ate a sandwich after BEN had lunch. c. Abby left the party because BEN took off. (10) [[ Abby was reading the book ]]o [[ Abby was reading ]]o and [[ Abby was reading ]]o [[ BENF was reading ]]f Abby was reading the book entails x.x was reading a. b. c. d. a. b. c. # Abby was reading the book while BEN was coughing. # Abby ate a sandwich after BEN coughed. # Abby left the party because BEN coughed. # Abby sang her hymn louder than BEN coughed. # Abby called Chuck an idiot after BEN coughed. # Abby ate a sandwich after BEN coughed. # Abby left the party because BEN coughed.

(17)

Abby was VPA ! ! V DP | readingD | the

VP !!! PP

(11) Cf. (12)

(13)

P IP | NP while Ben I' | N I VPE | | book was V DP | readingD NP | | the N | book

Ellipsis doesnt allow these possibilities: the following examples are unambiguous (14) a. b. c. d. a. b. c. Abby was reading the book while BEN was. Abby ate a sandwich after BEN did. Abby left the party because BEN did. Abby sang her hymn louder than BEN did. Abby called Chuck an idiot after BEN did. Abby ate a sandwich after BEN did. Abby left the party because BEN did.

N(VPA) = {VP, V, DP, D, NP, N} and N(VPE) = {VP, V, DP, D, NP, N}. Likewise for the dominance relations. By the condition in (16), VPE can be deleted. (18) Abby was ! V VPA ! DP VP !!! P PP IP

(15)

Structural isomorphism to the rescue? (a loose version of Fiengo and Mays 1994 notion of reconstruction) (16) Isomorphism condition on ellipsis Let E be a(n LF) phrase marker. Then, E can be deleted only if there is a(n LF) phrase marker A, A E, such that A and E are structurally isomorphic.

readingD | the

NP while Ben I' | N I VPE | | | book was V | reading

In (18), N(VPA) = {VP, V, DP, D, NP, N', N} but N(VPE) = {VP, V}. Since N(VPA) N(VPE), deletion is not allowed, by the condition (16).

Problems for isomorphism

Sluicing-specific problems 3 4

(25) With an overt correlate (underlined) (19) a. Jack bought something, but I dont know what. b. A few people called, but I cant tell you how many exactly. c. Beth was there, but youll never guess who else. (26) With an implicit correlate (20) a. Jack called, but I dont know {when/how/why/where from}. b. Sallys out hunting guess what! c. A car is parked on the lawn find out whose. (21) CP wh-XP Co [+Q] C' IP

a. b. c. a.

b. c.

[CP Nu gaat [IP zij tnu tgaat ]], maar ik weet niet waarom. now goes she but I know not why Shes going now, but I dont know why. * ... waarom [IP zij] = ... waarom [IP zij nu gaat] [CP Gisteren heeft [IP hij tgisteren met iemand gesproken theeft ], yesterday has he with someone spoken maar ik weet niet met wie. but I know not with who He spoke to someone yesterday, but I dont know who. * ... met wie [IP hij met iemand gesproken] = ... met wie [IP hij gisteren heeft gesproken]

Dutch

[4] Deleted infinitives (27) (28) (29) CP DP2 what C Abby C' IPE I' I VP | was V DP2 | | reading t Decorating for the holidays is easy if you know how! a. * ... how [decorating for the holidays] b. = ... how [to decorate for the holidays] a. Ill fix the car if you tell me how. b. ... how [Ill fix the car] c. = ... how [to fix the car] a. I cant play quarterback: I dont even know how. [Bart, The Simpsons, Homer coaches football episode] b. Close the window! Do I have to tell you how? c. Eat (something), if you can figure out what!

[1] Implicit correlates in sluicing (22) (23) a. b. IPA Abby was reading, but I dont know what. Ben called guess when! but I dont know ! ! !!!!! !! ! !

! ! ! Abby I' ! ! ! I VP | | was V | reading

[5] Modality switches (30) (31) I remember meeting him, but I dont remember when [I met him]. Ich htte ja gern jemandem geholfen, wute aber nicht, wem. < Klein 1993 I have.SUBJ PRT PRT someone helped knew but not who I wouldve gladly helped someone, but I didnt know who. a. ... wem ich (ja gern) geholfen htte. who I PRT PRT helped have.SUBJ b. ... * wem [zu helfen] who to help c. = ... wem [ich helfen sollte] who I help should Bill mentioned his plans to do away with someone, but he didnt mention who [he has plans to do away with]. < Ross 1969:275 John seems to be happy and I can guess why [John is happy]. < Horn 1978:165

N(IPA) = {IP, DP, I', VP, V} N(IPE) = { IP, DP, I', VP, V, DP}. CLMs (1995) solution: sprouting [2] V2 (24) Can Margaret help? I dont see how [Margaret can help] < Rosen 1976:209 (32) (33)

[6] Contrast sluices (34) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. (35) She has five CATS, but I dont know how many DOGS. The channel was 15 feet wide, but I dont know how deep. Max has five Monets in his collection, and who knows how many van Goghs. There are nine women in the play, but I dont know how many men. Shes an absolute idiot: unaware of who she is, or where. [David F. Wallace, The Broom of the System, 1986, Avon Books: New York] Abby knew which of the MEN Peter had invited, but she didnt know which of the WOMEN. We know which streets are being re-paved, but not which avenues. I know how many women are in the play, but I dont know how many men.

Fiengo and Mays 1994 solution: vehicle change which allows the value of the pronominal feature associated with nominals to vary within a reconstruction (see also Giannakidou and Merchant 1998, Safir 1999.) Vehicle change is the name of a problem, not of a solution.

R-expressions in antecedents can license the deletion of pronouns in ellipsis sites. (42) a. b. * [VP arrest [the guy who lives over the garage]3 ] * [VP arrest Alex3 ] [VP arrest [him]3 ]

She has [five CATS]F, but I dont know how many DOGS [IP she has t].

The revised Focus condition and e-GIVENness

VP-ellipsis Purely semantic approach: Dalrymple et al. 1991, Hardt 1993, Hardt et al. 1997, Prst 1993, Prst et al. 1995, Hendriks and de Hoop 1998, and others. (43) e-GIVENness An expression E counts as e-GIVEN iff E has a salient antecedent A and, modulo -type shifting, i. A entails F-clo(E), and ii. E entails F-clo(A) Focus condition on VP ellipsis An VP can be deleted only if is e-GIVEN. a. b. c. d. a. b. c. a. b. Abby was reading the book while BEN was. Abby ate a sandwich after BEN did. Abby left the party because BEN did. Abby sang her hymn louder than BEN did. Abby called Chuck an idiot after BEN did. Abby ate a sandwich after BEN did. Abby left the party because BEN did. = ... after BEN did call Chuck an idiot. ... after BEN did insult Chuck.

A WAY OUT? Maybe isomorphism simply doesnt apply in sluicing as it does in VP-ellipsis. No: The same problems necessitating isomorphism are found under IP-ellipsis as above: (36) (37) (38) a. Abby called Ben an idiot, but I dont know who else she called an idiot. b. Abby called Ben an idiot, but I dont know who else she insulted. # Abby called Ben an idiot, but I dont know who else she dated. Abby called Ben an idiot, but I dont know who else. a. * Abby called Ben an idiot, but I dont know who else she insulted. b. Abby called Ben an idiot, but I dont know who else she called an idiot. Vehicle change in VP-ellipsis and sluicing Vehicle change = The equivalence between (potentially complex) R-expressions and pronouns under ellipsis, both in sluicing and in VP-ellipsis, as in (39). (Fiengo & May 1994) (39) (40) a. They arrested [the guy who lives over the garage]3, though he3 thought they wouldnt. b. They arrested Alex3, though he3 thought they wouldnt. They arrested Alex3, though he3 didnt know why. (44)

(45)

(46)

Principle C violation: (41) a. * He3 thought they wouldnt arrest [the guy who lives over the garage]3. b. * He3 thought they wouldnt arrest Alex3. c. * He3 didnt know why they arrested Alex3.

(47)

Let -clo() stand for the result of applying -type shifting to :

(48)

-clo(VPA) = F-clo(VPA) = x.x called Chuck an idiot

(59)

I know she called some politician an idiot, but I dont know WHICH.

Checking (47a): (49) -clo(VPE) = F-clo(VPE) = x.x called Chuck an idiot Checking (47b): (50) -clo(VPE) = F-clo(VPE) = x.x insulted Chuck -clo(VPE) does not entail F-clo(VPA), so the VP in (47b) is not e-GIVEN, by (43ii).

Not enough: (60) * I know how many politicians she called an idiot, but I dont know WHICH (politicians) [IP she insulted t] Again, we seem to need an LF isomorphism condition to rule this kind of example out (61) Focus condition on IP ellipsis An IP can be deleted only if is e-GIVEN. I know how MANY politicians she called an idiot, but I dont know WHICH (politicians). a. F-clo(IPE) = x.she called x an idiot b. -clo(IPA) = x.she called x an idiot I know she called some politician an idiot, but I dont know WHICH. a. -clo(IPA) = F-clo(IPA) = x.she called x an idiot b. -clo(IPE) = F-clo(IPE) = x.she called x an idiot

A SOLUTION TO THE VEHICLE CHANGE PROBLEM:

(51) They arrested Alex3, though he3 thought they wouldnt arrest him3.

(62) (63) (64) (65)

This deleted VP satisfies the Focus condition just in case him = Alex since [[ Alexi ]]g = [[ himi ]]g, for any g (52) a. b. x.x arrested Alexi x.x arrested himi

Sluicing Focus-alternatives in wh-questions (cf. Romero 1998): (53) a. (know) which P are Q b. (know) how many P are Q c. (know) whether any P are Q (54)
GIVENness

(66) * I know how many politicians she called an idiot, but I dont know WHICH (politicians) [IP she insulted t] (67) a. b. F-clo(IPA) = x.she called x an idiot -clo(IPE) = x.she insulted x

(Schwarzschild 1999) An utterance U counts as GIVEN iff U has a salient antecedent A and, modulo -type shifting, A entails the F-closure of U. S-Focus condition on IP ellipsis (Schwarzschildian version) An IP can be deleted only if is or is contained in a constituent that is GIVEN.

Since (67a) gives rise to entailments which (67b) does not (since she insulted x does not entail she called x an idiot), IPE is not e-GIVEN under (43ii). Therefore, by (61), IPE cannot be deleted.

(55)

THE ISOMORPHISM PROBLEMS REVISITED [1] Implicit arguments (68) (69) [2] V2 Abby was reading, but I dont know what [Abby was reading twhat]. a. F-clo(IPA) = x.Abby was reading x b. -clo(IPE) = x.Abby was reading x

(56) I know how MANY politicians she called an idiot, but I dont know WHICH (politicians). (57) a. b. c. (know) which politicians she called an idiot (know) how many politicians she called an idiot (know) whether she called any politicians an idiot.

(58)

I know Q[she called Q-politicians an idiot] 9 10

(70)

a. b. c.

[CP Nu gaat [IP zij tnu tgaat ]], maar ik weet niet waarom. now goes she but I know not why Shes going now, but I dont know why. * ... waarom [IP zij] = ... waarom [IP zij nu gaat] F-clo(IPA) = r.she goes because-of-r -clo(IPE) = r.she goes because-of-r

(79) (80) (81) (82) (83)

a. I served1 the food, but there were no guests. b. # I served2 the guests, but there was no food. * She served1 the meal, but I dont know WHO she served1 it to. (cf. She served1 the meal, but I dont know who she served1 it TO.) a. b. IPA = she served the meal F-clo(IPE) = x[she served the meal to x]

(71)

a. b.

[4] Deleted infinitives (72) [DP [VP Decorating for the holidays]] is easy if you know how [IP to decorate for the holidays]! See Chierchia 1984 for the equivalencies in the semantics of gerunds and infinitivals [5] Modality switches (73) (74) I remember [DP [VP meeting him]], but I dont remember when [I met him]. a. F-clo(DPA) = I met him b. -clo(IPE) = I met him

* She served1 the meal, but I dont know WHOi she served2 ti the meal. (cf. She served2 someone the meal, but I dont know whoi she served2 ti the meal.) a. b. IPA = she served the meal F-clo(IPE) = x[she served x the meal]

Else-MODIFICATION (84) (85) (86) (87) She called Ben an idiot, but I dont know who else [IP she called t an idiot]. a. b. a. b. a. b. ABBYF called Ben an idiot, but I dont know who else. Abby called BENF an idiot, but I dont know who else. ... but I dont know who else called Ben an idiot. ... but I dont know who else Abby called an idiot. -clo(IPE) = x.x called Ben an idiot F-clo(IPA) = x.x called Ben an idiot

[6] Contrast sluices (75) (76) She has [five CATS]F, but I dont know how many DOGS [IP she has t]. a. b. -clo(IPE) = x.she has x F-clo(IPA) = x.she has x

P-PROBLEMS (from Chung 2005) (88) (89) a. b. a. b. a. b. c. d. e. a. b. c. d. e. John was seen, but I dont know by whom <he was seen t>. *John was seen, but I dont know who <he was seen by t>. Bill is upset. Guess about what <hes upset>. Bill is upset. *Guess what <hes upset about>. Theyre jealous, but its unclear of who. Joe was murdered, but we dont know by who. Last night he was very afraid, but he couldnt tell us of what. Mary was flirting, but they wouldnt say with who. Were donating our car, but its unclear to which organization. *Theyre jealous, but its unclear who(m). *Joe was murdered, but we dont know who(m). *Last night he was very afraid, but he couldnt tell us what. *Mary was flirting, but they wouldnt say who(m). *Were donating our car, but its unclear which organization.

SOME NEW PROBLEMS? ARGUMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIONS (77) a. b. (78) a. b. * She served the soup, but I dont know who(m). (cf. She served the soup, but I dont know to whom.) She served the students, but I dont know what. serve1: server < meal (diner) > DP PPto serve2: server < diner (meal) > DP DP (< CLM 1995)

(90)

(Levin and Rappaport 1988)

(91)

11

12

Chungs lexico-syntactic requirement: (92) Every lexical item in the numeration of the sluice that ends up (only) in the elided IP must be identical to an item in the numeration of the antecedent CP. (93) a. b. She read something, but were not sure by which author. ?*She read, but were not sure by which author.

Or maybe it's a argument-structure identity requirement? Neo-Davidsonian? Problems from Hartman Brussels presentation: reciprocally entailing predicates (there is an x who has a younger sibling there is a y who has an older sibling): what we need is a semantic representation that distinguishes these (i.e., a lambda representation, not purely based on entailments). In fact, this was proposed in Sag and Hankamer 1984: (94) Delete VPb in Sb only if (1) cb is the Kaplan-context for Sb (2) ca is the Kaplan-context of some sentence Sa not subsequent to Sb in discourse. (3) there is some VPa in Sa such that twf[ [[ VP(b ]]cbwtf = [[ VP(a ]]cawtf ]

Deathknell for deletion?

Q: Does a semantic theory of ellipsis require us to assume theres no syntax in the ellipsis site? A: It better not...

Summary
General semantic, not structural condition on ellipsis: (95) Focus condition on ellipsis A constituent can be deleted only if is e-GIVEN.

e-GIVENness incorporates two-way entailment requirements Obviates the need for a theory of vehicle change Can be imposed at a single, local point in the structure; no need for an ellipsis module

References
Chao, Wynn. 1987. On ellipsis. PhD thesis, UMass Amherst [published 1988 by Garland]. Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3:239-282.

Dalrymple, Mary, S. Shieber, and F. Pereira. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14.4. Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547-619. Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. MIT Press: Cambridge. Frampton, John and Samuel Gutmann. 1999. Cyclic computation: A computationally efficient Minimalist syntax. Syntax 2:1-27. Giannakidou, Anastasia and Jason Merchant. 1998. Reverse sluicing in English and Greek. The Linguistic Review 15: 233-256. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1992. Questions, queries, and facts: A semantics and pragmatics for interrogatives. PhD thesis, Stanford. Grosu, Alexander. 1994. Three studies in locality and case. Routledge: London. Hardt, Daniel et al. 1997. SALT paper. Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. (Distributed as IRCS Report 93-23.) Heim, Irene and Angelika Krazter. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell: London. Hendriks, Petra and Helen de Hoop. 1998. On the interpretation of semantic relations in the absence of syntactic structure. University of Groningen Cognitive Science and Engineering Prepublications 1998-3. Horn, Laurence. 1978. Remarks on Neg-raising. In Peter Cole (ed.) Pragmatics (Syntax and semantics, vol. 9), pp. 129-220. Academic Press: New York. Johnson, Kyle. 1997. What VP-ellipsis can do and what it can't, but not why. GLOT. Kennedy, Chris and Jason Merchant. To appear. Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18.1. Klein, Wolfgang. 1993. Ellipse. In v. Stechow et al. (eds.) Handbuch der Syntax. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin. Ladusaw, William and David Dowty. 1988. Toward a nongrammatical account of thematic roles. In W. Wilkins (ed.), Syntax and semantics 21: Thematic relations, pp. 62-74. Academic Press: New York. Levin. Lori. 1982. Sluicing: A lexical interpretation procedure. In Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Pp. 590-654. MIT Press: Cambridge. Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis. Oxford Univ. Press: Oxford. Prst, Hub. 1993. Gapping and VP anaphora. PhD thesis, Univ. of Amsterdam. Prst, Hub, Remko Scha, and Martin van den Berg. 1994. Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 17: 261-327. Romero, Maribel. 1997. Recoverability conditions for sluicing. In F. Corblin et al. (eds.) Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics, pp. 193-216. Peter Lang: Bern. Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. PhD thesis, UMass, Amherst. Rooth, Mats. 1992. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.), Proceedings of Stuttgarter ellipsis workshop, SFB 340 and IBM. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Bericht 29-1992. Rosen, Carol. 1976. Guess what about? In Ford et al. (eds.), NELS 6:205-211. Ross, John. 1969. Guess who? In Binnick et al. (eds.), CLS 5:252-286. Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction in A'- chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 587-626. Sag, Ivan and Jorge Hankamer. 1984. Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. L&P 7: 325-345. Schwabe, Kerstin. 1999. On shared indefinite expressions in coordinative structures. Ms., ZAS, Berlin.

13

14

Schwabe, Kerstin. To appear. Coordinate ellipsis and information structure. In K. Schwabe and N. Zhang (eds.) Proceedings of Ellipsis in Conjunction workshop. Niemeyer; Tbingen. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AVOIDF, and constraints on the placement of focus. Natural Language Semantics. Tancredi, Chris. 1992. Deletion, deaccenting, and presupposition. PhD thesis, MIT. Tomioka, Satoshi. 1995. [Focus]F restricts scope: Quantifiers in VP ellipsis. In Proceedings of SALT 5. Cornell University: Ithaca. van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Foris: Dordrecht. Wilder, Chris. 1995. Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. Geneva Generative Papers 2: 23-61. Winkler, Susanne. 1997. Ellipsis and information structure in English and German: The phonological reduction hypothesis. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, Nr. 121. .

15

16