Verb phrase ellipsis

Last updated
Forward VPE in English. VPE English Example.png
Forward VPE in English.

In linguistics, 'Verb phrase ellipsis' (VP ellipsis or VPE) is a type of grammatical omission where a verb phrase is left out (elided) but its meaning can still be inferred from context. For example, "She will sell sea shells, and he will <sell sea shells> too" is understood as "She will sell sea shells, and he will sell sea shells too" (tree structure illustrated to the right). VP ellipsis is well-studied, particularly in English, where auxiliary verbs (e.g., will, can, do) play a crucial role in recovering the omitted verb phrase. [1] [2] [3] The reliance on auxiliary verbs gives English a distinctive mechanism for VP ellipsis, making it one of the most researched languages in this area. [4] VP ellipsis can occur partially (e.g. argument ellipsis) or as a whole verb phrase. For instance, Japanese employs a phenomenon known as verb-stranding VP ellipsis, where the verb remains while the rest of the phrase is elided. [5] [6] This cross-linguistic perspective reveals that VP ellipsis is not unique to English, but varies in its structural realization across languages.

Contents

VP Ellipsis in English

Elided VP Introduction

With English grammar, VP ellipsis must be introduced by an auxiliary verb (be, can, do, don't, could, have, may, might, shall, should, will, won't, would, etc.) or by the infinitive particle to. [7] Under VPE, the finite auxillary and modal verbs cannot be elided. [8] In the examples below, the elided material of VP ellipsis is indicated using subscripts, strikethrough represents that the material has been moved, the antecedent to the ellipsis is bolded, and asterisk (*) signals an ungrammatical sentence:

VP ellipsis of the verb "laugh" in English She will not laugh but he will.png
VP ellipsis of the verb "laugh" in English
  (1a) You might do it, but I won't <do it>.
  (1b) *You might do it, but I <do it>.
  (2a) She will not laugh, but he will <laugh>.
  (2b) *She will not laugh, but he <laugh>.
  (3a) Susan has been cheating, and Fred has <been cheating> too.
  (3b) *Susan has been cheating, and Fred <been cheating> too.
  (4a) Larry is not telling the truth, neither is Jim <telling the truth>.
  (4b) *Larry is not telling the truth, neither Jim <telling the truth>.

Attempts at VP ellipsis that lack an auxiliary verb fail, unless the infinitive particle to is retained:

VP ellipsis requiring the infinitive particle "to" Infinitive particle to.png
VP ellipsis requiring the infinitive particle "to"
  (6a) Sam wants to eat, and Fred wants to <eat> also.
  (6b) *Sam wants to eat, and Fred wants <to eat> also.
  (7a) Josh likes to sleep late, and Hillary likes to <sleep late> also.
  (7b) *Josh likes to sleep late, and Hillary likes <to sleep late> also.

A particularly frequent construction in which VP ellipsis (obligatorily) occurs is in tag questions:

VP ellipsis in a tag question Jeremy likes beer doesn't he.png
VP ellipsis in a tag question
  (8a) Jeremy likes beer, doesn't he <like beer>?
  (8b) Susan will write the paper, won't she <write the paper>?

Apparent exceptions to the restriction that VP ellipsis can only occur in the context of an auxiliary verb or infinitive particle are analyzed as instances of null complement anaphora:

VP ellipsis analyzed as null complement anaphora Null complement anaphora.png
VP ellipsis analyzed as null complement anaphora
  (9)   Question: Did you refuse to be promoted?
         Answer: Yes, I refused <to be promoted>.

Operation Forwards & Backwards

VP ellipsis can be said to operate either forwards or backwards: it operates forwards when the antecedent to the ellipsis precedes the ellipsis (as in the above examples) and backwards when the antecedent follows the ellipsis. It can also be said to operate either upwards or downwards (or neither). It operates upwards when the antecedent appears in a clause that is subordinate to the clause containing the ellipsis, and downwards when the ellipsis appears in a clause subordinate to the clause containing the antecedent. In the above examples, the two clauses are coordinated, so neither is subordinate to the other, and hence the operation of the ellipsis is neither upward nor downward.

Combinations of these directions of operation of ellipsis are illustrated with the following examples. In these examples, the subordinate clause who say they will help is a relative clause that modifies the noun people. This relative clause is extraposed out of the subject in examples (11a) and (11b) in order to illustrate the remaining combinations:

(10a) The people who say they will help never do <help>.- Forwards and upwards
(10b) The people who say they will <help> never do help. - Backwards and downwards
(11a) The people never do help who say they will <help>. - Forwards and downwards
(11b) *The people never do <help> who say they will help. - Backwards and upwards

Three of the four combinations are acceptable. However, as the fourth example shows, VP ellipsis is impossible when it operates both backwards and upwards.

Antecedent-contained Ellipsis

An aspect of VP ellipsis that has been the subject of much theoretical analysis occurs when elided VP appears to be contained inside its antecedent. The phenomenon is called antecedent-contained ellipsis or antecedent-contained deletion (ACD). This is displayed in both examples below where the antecedent is represented by bolded font. Canonical cases of antecedent-contained ellipsis occur when the elided material appears inside a quantified object NP. This can be seen in the second example where the quantified object NP is underlined. Quantifiers (ex. every) attach to nouns (ex. thing) to specify a subgroup. [9] The elided material is represented in the same format as previous examples.

Antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) He is thinking the same thing I am.png
Antecedent-contained deletion (ACD)
Antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) with quantified object NP They said everything that we did.png
Antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) with quantified object NP
(12)   He is thinking the same thing I am <thinking>.
(13)   They said every thing that we did<say>.

ACD unfortunately gives rise to 2 issues. The first is that the elided VP must be parallel, or identical, in form with the antecedent. The second is that since the antecedent contains the VPE site, whenever the antecedent is copied in, the VPE is automatically also included. Combined, these two factors result in an infinite regress: [10]

ACD giving rise to infinite regress Infinite regress.png
ACD giving rise to infinite regress
(14)   Eventually, Daisy [VP knew how to prepare every dish that her dad did [<know how to prepare every dish that her dad did> [<know how to prepare every dish that her dad did>...]]]

One means of addressing ACD infinite regress that is pursued in some phrase structure grammars is to assume quantifier raising (QR). [11] [12] Quantifier raising involves moving a quantifier to a higher position in the structure, leaving behind a trace which it binds to. Crucially, the landing site of QR in ACD sentences must be below the subject position. [10] It is seen as a covert process because it leaves the spoken word order unchanged. [13] An alternative explanation, pursued in dependency grammars, is to assume that the basic unit of syntax is not the constituent, but rather the catena. [14] With this analysis, the antecedent to the ellipsis does not need to be a complete constituent (an entire verb phrase), but can be merely a catena (the verbs say and thinking in the above examples), which need not contain the ellipsis.

Argument-contained Ellipsis

As noted above, VP ellipsis is generally impossible if it would operate both backwards and upwards. There are also certain other restrictions on the possibility of ellipsis, although a complete theoretical analysis may be lacking. Two examples of environments in which ellipsis fails are now given: [15]

(15)   *A proof that God exists does <exist>. - Failed upward ellipsis
(16)   *A proof that God does <exist>exists.- Failed argument-contained ellipsis

The inability of VP ellipsis to occur in these cases has been explored in terms of so-called argument contained ellipsis. [16] The ellipsis appears inside an argument of the predicate represented by the antecedent to the ellipsis. A satisfactory account of the inability of VP ellipsis to occur in these sentences is lacking.

VP Ellipsis in Other Languages

Cross-Linguistic Evidence for VP Ellipsis

English VP ellipsis is particularly well-studied, not because it is unique, but due to the language's global research prominence. [17] Its reliance on auxiliary verbs like do, can, and will to license ellipsis gives it a structured mechanism not found in languages like Mandarin, where semantic and pragmatic factors dominate. [18] The flexibility of English allows for greater variation in the licensing and interpretation of VP ellipsis, which may explain its prominence in linguistic studies. [19]

While English VP ellipsis is the most studied, evidence suggests the phenomenon occurs in other languages, though its mechanisms vary. [19] In English, VP ellipsis often relies on auxiliary verbs like can or will and operates under syntactic constraints:

 (17) "John will sing, and Mary will too."

Argument Ellipsis in Japanese

Unlike languages such as English, which rely on true VPE, Japanese does not exhibit verb-stranding VPE. Instead, Japanese typically uses argument ellipsis, where specific elements like objects or subjects are omitted, while the verb remains. This is supported by research arguing against the application of VPE mechanisms in Japanese syntax. [20]

Japanese Argument Ellipsis Example. Japanese.png
Japanese Argument Ellipsis Example.


(18) 太郎は自分がピアノを弾くと思ったが、次郎もそう思った。

  (Tarō ga piano o hiku to omotta, Jirō mo hiku to omotta.)
  "Tarō thought he plays the piano, and Jirō thought so too."


In this example, while the object ピアノ (piano) is omitted, the verb 弾く (play) remains overt. Tanaka (2023) argues that this does not support the existence of verb-stranding VP-ellipsis (VPE) in Japanese. Instead, it is more appropriately analyzed as argument ellipsis, where specific arguments (e.g., objects) are omitted while the verb phrase remains intact. [20]

The strict Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) order in Japanese and the absence of auxiliary verbs to syntactically license ellipsis further challenge the notion of verb-stranding VPE. Tanaka highlights that Japanese instead relies on mechanisms like argument omission and pro-drop to achieve ellipsis-like interpretations [20]

VP Ellipsis in Mandarin Chinese

Mandarin Forward VPE Example. Mandarin1.png
Mandarin Forward VPE Example.

In Mandarin Chinese, VP ellipsis works similar in English that both omits the verb phrase and rely on auxiliary verb. However research suggests that Mandarin speakers tends to interpret VP ellipsis primarily through semantic and pragmatic cues rather than syntactic reconstruction. [21]

(19) 我會唱歌和他也會。

  (Wǒ huì chànggē, hé tā yě huì.)
  "I can sing, and he can too."

Here, the auxiliary verb 會 (huì, "can") appears to license the omission of the verb phrase 唱歌 (chànggē, "sing"). However, Cai et al. (2013) argue that this example does not rely on syntactic ellipsis in the same manner as English. [21] Instead, Mandarin VP ellipsis is interpreted pragmatically, relying on context and semantic cues. The presence of the adverb 也 (yě, "also") explicitly marks agreement or inclusion, providing additional clarity to the omitted content.

Unlike English, Mandarin does not require auxiliary verbs to syntactically license VP ellipsis. Rather, the omission of the verb phrase is contextually resolved, reflecting a greater reliance on discourse coherence and pragmatic inference.

VP Ellipsis in Language Acquisition

Language acquisition often refers to a child learning to speak their first language, which is most often the language of their caregivers. Language acquisition involves many stages of learning—some of which are required before mastery of new information may occur.

Children acquiring VP ellipsis typically go through two stages: in stage one, they use a full sentence; in stage two—after they have mastered intonation and modal auxiliaries—they are able to use VP ellipsis. [22]

Pre-mastery

Intonation or inflection on the edge of the phrase marks where the elided material has been deleted from the phonological form: until children master where and how to use intonation in a sentence to mark the elided material, they respond in full sentences. [22]

VPE Pre-Mastery Example. I like Linda's cookies full sentence.png
VPE Pre-Mastery Example.
(21)   I like Linda's cookies and Rebecca likes Linda's cookies too.

Mastery

Children master the use of modal auxiliaries before they effectively use verb phrase ellipsis because modal auxiliaries license ellipsis. [22]

VPE Mastery Example. I like Linda's cookies VP ellipsis.png
VPE Mastery Example.
(22)   I like Linda's cookies, and Rebecca does<like Linda's cookies> too.

The above sentence shows the use of both intonation (bold italicized font) and the modal auxiliary (does)--both of which are required for English verb phrase ellipsis.

Intonation on the modal auxiliary marks the edge of the phrase, from which the elided material has been deleted from the phonological form: that is, although the elided material remains in the logical form, it is not in the phonological form. [22]

Despite using fewer words than a complete sentence, a sentence which employs verb phrase ellipsis requires more steps to be understood. [23] This complexity is due to the processing challenges involved with referring back to the unpronounced syntactic structure. [23]

VP Ellipsis Importance

As seen in the examples above, VP ellipsis can be used to avoid redundancy in language. For example, "I like Linda's cookies, and Rebecca does too" is a much more concise sentence than "I like Linda's cookies, and Rebecca likes Linda's cookies too." VP ellipsis acts as a mechanism of grammatical reduction and contributes to clarity in language. [24] It is related to human cognitive mechanisms such as working memory and is used to reduce cognitive demands placed on the speaker for the speaker as well as language processing difficulty for the listener. [24]

Cognitive Load

For speakers, VPE is used to lighten the load by reducing the number of words and amount of syntax required in working memory while constructing a sentence. [25] For listeners, retrieval of the elided VP from memory has been found to be cue-dependent and not memory-dependent. [26] The further apart two syntactically related units are, the greater the demand of processing their cognitive load is.

VPE As a Diagnostic Tool

As VPE is related of cognitive and language development, it can be used diagnosis language and cognitive deficits. If someone is unable to use VPE, this may be the cause of working memory or language retrieval issues. [26] On the other hand, if someone is unable to comprehend sentences with VPE, this may be due to speed and/or cue-processing deficits.

See also

Related Research Articles

In linguistics, syntax is the study of how words and morphemes combine to form larger units such as phrases and sentences. Central concerns of syntax include word order, grammatical relations, hierarchical sentence structure (constituency), agreement, the nature of crosslinguistic variation, and the relationship between form and meaning (semantics). Diverse approaches, such as generative grammar and functional grammar, offer unique perspectives on syntax, reflecting its complexity and centrality to understanding human language.

An auxiliary verb is a verb that adds functional or grammatical meaning to the clause in which it occurs, so as to express tense, aspect, modality, voice, emphasis, etc. Auxiliary verbs usually accompany an infinitive verb or a participle, which respectively provide the main semantic content of the clause. An example is the verb have in the sentence I have finished my lunch. Here, the auxiliary have helps to express the perfect aspect along with the participle, finished. Some sentences contain a chain of two or more auxiliary verbs. Auxiliary verbs are also called helping verbs, helper verbs, or (verbal) auxiliaries. Research has been conducted into split inflection in auxiliary verbs.

Lexical semantics, as a subfield of linguistic semantics, is the study of word meanings. It includes the study of how words structure their meaning, how they act in grammar and compositionality, and the relationships between the distinct senses and uses of a word.

In linguistics, a verb phrase (VP) is a syntactic unit composed of a verb and its arguments except the subject of an independent clause or coordinate clause. Thus, in the sentence A fat man quickly put the money into the box, the words quickly put the money into the box constitute a verb phrase; it consists of the verb put and its arguments, but not the subject a fat man. A verb phrase is similar to what is considered a predicate in traditional grammars.

In syntactic analysis, a constituent is a word or a group of words that function as a single unit within a hierarchical structure. The constituent structure of sentences is identified using tests for constituents. These tests apply to a portion of a sentence, and the results provide evidence about the constituent structure of the sentence. Many constituents are phrases. A phrase is a sequence of one or more words built around a head lexical item and working as a unit within a sentence. A word sequence is shown to be a phrase/constituent if it exhibits one or more of the behaviors discussed below. The analysis of constituent structure is associated mainly with phrase structure grammars, although dependency grammars also allow sentence structure to be broken down into constituent parts.

In linguistics, a pro-verb is a word or partial phrase that substitutes for a contextually recognizable verb phrase, obviating the need to repeat an antecedent verb phrase. A pro-verb is a type of anaphora that falls within the general group of word classes called pro-forms. Many languages use a replacement verb as a pro-verb to avoid repetition: English "do", French: faire, Swedish: göra.

In syntax, sluicing is a type of ellipsis that occurs in both direct and indirect interrogative clauses. The ellipsis is introduced by a wh-expression, whereby in most cases, everything except the wh-expression is elided from the clause. Sluicing has been studied in detail in the early 21st century and it is therefore a relatively well-understood type of ellipsis. Sluicing occurs in many languages.

In linguistics, ellipsis or an elliptical construction is the omission from a clause of one or more words that are nevertheless understood in the context of the remaining elements. There are numerous distinct types of ellipsis acknowledged in theoretical syntax. Theoretical accounts of ellipsis seek to explain its syntactic and semantic factors, the means by which the elided elements are recovered, and the status of the elided elements.

In linguistics, an argument is an expression that helps complete the meaning of a predicate, the latter referring in this context to a main verb and its auxiliaries. In this regard, the complement is a closely related concept. Most predicates take one, two, or three arguments. A predicate and its arguments form a predicate-argument structure. The discussion of predicates and arguments is associated most with (content) verbs and noun phrases (NPs), although other syntactic categories can also be construed as predicates and as arguments. Arguments must be distinguished from adjuncts. While a predicate needs its arguments to complete its meaning, the adjuncts that appear with a predicate are optional; they are not necessary to complete the meaning of the predicate. Most theories of syntax and semantics acknowledge arguments and adjuncts, although the terminology varies, and the distinction is generally believed to exist in all languages. Dependency grammars sometimes call arguments actants, following Lucien Tesnière (1959).

Antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), also called antecedent-contained ellipsis, is a phenomenon whereby an elided verb phrase appears to be contained within its own antecedent. For instance, in the sentence "I read every book that you did", the verb phrase in the main clause appears to license ellipsis inside the relative clause which modifies its object. ACD is a classic puzzle for theories of the syntax-semantics interface, since it threatens to introduce an infinite regress. It is commonly taken as motivation for syntactic transformations such as quantifier raising, though some approaches explain it using semantic composition rules or by adoption more flexible notions of what it means to be a syntactic unit.

In generative linguistics, PRO is a pronominal determiner phrase (DP) without phonological content. As such, it is part of the set of empty categories. The null pronoun PRO is postulated in the subject position of non-finite clauses. One property of PRO is that, when it occurs in a non-finite complement clause, it can be bound by the main clause subject or the main clause object. The presence of PRO in non-finite clauses lacking overt subjects allows a principled solution for problems relating to binding theory.

In linguistics, inversion is any of several grammatical constructions where two expressions switch their typical or expected order of appearance, that is, they invert. There are several types of subject-verb inversion in English: locative inversion, directive inversion, copular inversion, and quotative inversion. The most frequent type of inversion in English is subject–auxiliary inversion in which an auxiliary verb changes places with its subject; it often occurs in questions, such as Are you coming?, with the subject you being switched with the auxiliary are. In many other languages, especially those with a freer word order than that of English, inversion can take place with a variety of verbs and with other syntactic categories as well.

In linguistics, locality refers to the proximity of elements in a linguistic structure. Constraints on locality limit the span over which rules can apply to a particular structure. Theories of transformational grammar use syntactic locality constraints to explain restrictions on argument selection, syntactic binding, and syntactic movement.

In linguistics, gapping is a type of ellipsis that occurs in the non-initial conjuncts of coordinate structures. Gapping usually elides minimally a finite verb and further any non-finite verbs that are present. This material is "gapped" from the non-initial conjuncts of a coordinate structure. Gapping exists in many languages, but by no means in all of them, and gapping has been studied extensively and is therefore one of the more understood ellipsis mechanisms. Stripping is viewed as a particular manifestation of the gapping mechanism where just one remnant appears in the gapped/stripped conjunct.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sloppy identity</span> Concept in linguistics

In linguistics, sloppy identity is an interpretive property that is found with verb phrase ellipsis where the identity of the pronoun in an elided VP is not identical to the antecedent VP.

In linguistics, a catena is a unit of syntax and morphology, closely associated with dependency grammars. It is a more flexible and inclusive unit than the constituent and its proponents therefore consider it to be better suited than the constituent to serve as the fundamental unit of syntactic and morphosyntactic analysis.

Pseudogapping is an ellipsis mechanism that elides most but not all of a non-finite verb phrase; at least one part of the verb phrase remains, which is called the remnant. Pseudogapping occurs in comparative and contrastive contexts, so it appears often after subordinators and coordinators such as if, although, but, than, etc. It is similar to verb phrase ellipsis (VP-ellipsis) insofar as the ellipsis is introduced by an auxiliary verb, and many grammarians take it to be a particular type of VP-ellipsis. The distribution of pseudogapping is more restricted than that of VP-ellipsis, however, and in this regard, it has some traits in common with gapping. But unlike gapping, pseudogapping occurs in English but not in closely related languages. The analysis of pseudogapping can vary greatly depending in part on whether the analysis is based in a phrase structure grammar or a dependency grammar. Pseudogapping was first identified, named, and explored by Stump (1977) and has since been studied in detail by Levin (1986) among others, and now enjoys a firm position in the canon of acknowledged ellipsis mechanisms of English.

Stripping or bare argument ellipsis is an ellipsis mechanism that elides everything from a clause except one constituent. It occurs exclusively in the non-initial conjuncts of coordinate structures. One prominent analysis of stripping sees it as a particular manifestation of the gapping mechanism, the difference between stripping and gapping lies merely with the number of remnants left behind by ellipsis: gapping leaves two constituents behind, whereas stripping leaves just one. Stripping occurs in many languages and is a frequent occurrence in colloquial conversation. As with many other ellipsis mechanisms, stripping challenges theories of syntax in part because the elided material often fails to qualify as a constituent in a straightforward manner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English clause syntax</span> Clauses in English grammar

This article describes the syntax of clauses in the English language, chiefly in Modern English. A clause is often said to be the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition. But this semantic idea of a clause leaves out much of English clause syntax. For example, clauses can be questions, but questions are not propositions. A syntactic description of an English clause is that it is a subject and a verb. But this too fails, as a clause need not have a subject, as with the imperative, and, in many theories, an English clause may be verbless. The idea of what qualifies varies between theories and has changed over time.

In syntax, verb-initial (V1) word order is a word order in which the verb appears before the subject and the object. In the more narrow sense, this term is used specifically to describe the word order of V1 languages. V1 clauses only occur in V1 languages and other languages with a dominant V1 order displaying other properties that correlate with verb-initiality and that are crucial to many analyses of V1. V1 languages are estimated to make up 12–19% of the world’s languages.

References

  1. Hankamer, J. and I. Sag 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391–428.
  2. Hardt, D. F. (1993). Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing
  3. Johnson, Kyle (2001), "What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What it Can't, But Not Why", The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp. 439–479, doi:10.1002/9780470756416.ch14, ISBN   978-0-470-75641-6 , retrieved 2021-04-05
  4. Bos, Johan; Spenader, Jennifer (2011-02-25). "An annotated corpus for the analysis of VP ellipsis". Language Resources and Evaluation. 45 (4): 463–494. doi: 10.1007/s10579-011-9142-3 . ISSN   1574-020X.
  5. Goldberg, L. 2005. Verb-stranding VP ellipsis: A cross-linguistic study. Doctoral Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.
  6. Nomura, Masashi (2005). "Verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis in Japanese". Linguistic Inquiry. 36 (2). MIT Press: 262–274. doi:10.1162/0024389053710707 (inactive 17 December 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of December 2024 (link)
  7. Kroeger, Paul R. (2004-04-08). Analyzing Syntax. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511801693. ISBN   978-0-521-81623-6.
  8. Aelbrecht, Lobke & Harwood, William. (2015). To be or not to be elided: VP ellipsis revisited. Lingua 153. 66–97
  9. Generalized Quantifiers. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2019.
  10. 1 2 Cummins, C., & Syrett, K. (03/19/2019). Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics Oxford University Press. doi : 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198791768.013.34
  11. Kennedy, C. 1997. Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry 28/4, 662-688.
  12. Wilder, C. 2003. Antecedent containment and ellipsis. In The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, ed. by K. Schwabe and S. Winkler, 79-119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  13. May, Robert. (1977) "Logical Form and Conditions on Rules." In Kegl, J. et al. eds. Proceedings of NELS VII, pp. 189 - 207. MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
  14. Osborne, Timothy (2019-07-15). A Dependency Grammar of English: An introduction and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/z.224. ISBN   978-90-272-0345-8. S2CID   198331442.
  15. Wasow, T. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
  16. Kennedy, Christopher (2001-01-01), Johnson, Kyle (ed.), "Argument Contained Ellipsis", Topics in Ellipsis (1 ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 95–131, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511487033.005, ISBN   978-0-521-81508-6 , retrieved 2021-04-05
  17. Kim, C. S.; Runner, J. T. (2018). "The division of labor in explanations of verb phrase ellipsis". Linguistic Inquiry. 49 (3): 485–525. doi:10.1162/ling_a_00277.
  18. Cai, Zhenguang G.; Pickering, Martin J.; Sturt, Patrick (2013). "Processing verb-phrase ellipsis in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence against the syntactic account". Language and Cognitive Processes. 28 (6): 810–828. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.665932.
  19. 1 2 Bos, Johan; Spenader, Jennifer (2011). "An annotated corpus for the analysis of VP ellipsis". Language Resources and Evaluation. 45 (4): 463–494. doi: 10.1007/s10579-011-9142-3 .
  20. 1 2 3 Tanaka, Hidekazu (2022). "Against verb-stranding VP-ellipsis in Japanese: reply to Funakoshi (2016)". Journal of East Asian Linguistics. 32: 1–28. doi: 10.1007/s10831-022-09250-6 .
  21. 1 2 Cai, Z. G., Pickering, M. J., & Sturt, P. (2013). Processing verb-phrase ellipsis in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence against the syntactic account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(6), 810–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.665932
  22. 1 2 3 4 Thornton, Rosalind (2010). "Verb Phrase Ellipsis in Children's Answers to Questions". Language Learning and Development. 6 (1): 1–31. doi:10.1080/15475440903328146. S2CID   143090260 via www.tandfonline.com.
  23. 1 2 Xiang, Ming; Grove, Julian; Merchant, Jason (2019-06-21). "Structural priming in production through 'silence': An investigation of verb phrase ellipsis and null complement anaphora". Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics. 4 (1): 67. doi: 10.5334/gjgl.726 . ISSN   2397-1835.
  24. 1 2 Dai, Zheyuan; Liu, Haitao; Yan, Jianwei (2023-12-01). "Revisiting English written VP-ellipsis and VP-substitution: a dependency-based analysis". Linguistics Vanguard. 9 (1): 13–23. doi:10.1515/lingvan-2022-0088. ISSN   2199-174X.
  25. Haitao Liu (2008). "Dependency Distance as a Metric of Language Comprehension Difficulty". Journal of Cognitive Science. 9 (2): 159–191. doi:10.17791/jcs.2008.9.2.159. ISSN   1598-2327.
  26. 1 2 Martin, Andrea E.; McElree, Brian (2009). "Memory operations that support language comprehension: Evidence from verb-phrase ellipsis". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 35 (5): 1231–1239. doi:10.1037/a0016271. ISSN   1939-1285. PMC   2849635 . PMID   19686017.

Notes