Identity in ellipsis: an introduction

(1)

Editorial

Identity

in

ellipsis:

An

introduction

Ellipsisisaphenomenonwherebycertainpartsofsentencesareleftunexpressed.Theunexpressedmaterialcan correspondtovariouskindsofsyntacticchunks.Withrespecttosyntacticcategoryandconstituentsize,theycanbea noun/nounphrase,apredicate,ortheentireclausetotheexclusionofasingleconstituent(knownasnominalellipsis, predicateellipsisandclausalellipsisrespectively).Thefollowingexampledemonstratesthewell-studiedverbphrase/ post-auxiliaryellipsisinEnglish:

(1) Johnmightlikethismovie,andBillmight,too.

Therearevariousaspectstothetheoreticalinterestthatsurroundsellipsis.Oneaspectisconcernedwiththequestionof howthemissingmaterialisrepresentedinthegrammar.Accordingtonon-structuralapproaches,theellipsis‘‘site’’,i.e. themissingverbphrasefollowingmightin(1),hasnointernalstructureorcorrespondstoananaphoricelementwhose resolutionisjustlikethatofotheranaphors(seeforexampleDalrympleetal.,1991;Hardt,1993;GinzburgandSag,2000;

CulicoverandJackendoff,2005).Structuralapproachesontheotherhandassumesomekindofnon-atomicstructure

beingpresentintheellipsissite.Insomeaccounts,thisstructureispresentinthesyntax,butfailstobepronounced(Ross,

1969;Lasnik,2001;Merchant,2001amongothers),whilstinotheraccountstheellipsissiteisemptyinthesyntaxbutis

filledatLFbymaterialthatiscopied/re-usedfromelsewhereinthediscourse(Williams,1977;FiengoandMay,1994;

Chungetal.,1995,2011amongothers).

Identityinellipsisconcernsthequestiontowhatextenttheelidedmaterialneedstobeidenticaltoitsantecedentinthe precedingdiscourse.Inmany(butnotall)casesofellipsis,thereisalinguisticexpressionintheimmediatelypreceding discourse thatfunctionsas the antecedentforthe ellipsis.Inexample (1),ellipsisofthe predicatelikethismovieis dependent on the availability of a structurally and interpretationally similar predicate antecedentin the immediately precedinglinguisticdiscourse(hereandin manyexamplesbelow, elidedmaterialisindicated bystrikeout,following structuralapproaches,andantecedentsaremarkedbyitalics).

(2) Johnmightlikethismovie,andBillmightlikethismovie,too.

Itseemsintuitivetosaythattheelidedphraseanditsantecedentareinsomesenseidentical:theybothinvolvethesame predicatelikethismovie.Thissimilarityisclearlyaconditiononthesuccessfulapplicationonellipsis.Afterall,ifthereisno suchsimilarity,ellipsisisnotallowed:anexamplelike(1)doesnotallowellipsisofitspredicateifthatpredicateisenjoythis movieorlikethatmovie---whilesuchpredicateswouldbewell-formedinthesecontextswhenpronounced:

(20) Johnmightlikethismovie,andBillmight,too.

≠Johnmightlikethismovie,andBillmightenjoythismovie,too.

≠Johnmightlikethismovie,andBillmightlikethatmovie,too.

Itisnotaprioriclearhowtodefinethekindofsimilarityandthedegreeofsimilaritythatmustexistbetweentheelided material and its antecedent for the ellipsis to be well formed. In structuralapproaches---which this introductionwill predominantly focuson---the questfor identity boils down tospecifying whether identityis requested tohold in the (morpho)syntacticortheinterpretationalcomponentofthegrammar(includingdiscourserepresentationandinformation

www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Lingua166(2015)155--171

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.003

(2)

structure),orboth.Theoriesbasedonsyntacticidentityadheretotheviewthatidentityiscalculatedonthebasisof syntacticrepresentations,includingLF-representationsderivedfromsurfacesyntacticstructure.Inacaselike(1)/(2), thiswouldmeanthatthedeletedpredicateisformallyidenticaltothepredicatephrasein theantecedent:theverb anditsargumentarethesameandhavethesamestructuralrelationtoeachother.Semantictheoriesofidentityon theotherhandproposethattheunpronouncedmaterialissimilartothemeaningoftheantecedentmaterial,requiring for example that the antecedent and elided material be truth-conditionally equivalent. If identity is syntactic, antecedentandelidedmaterialshouldbefoundinthesamekindofsyntacticcontextsandshowthesamesyntactic composition. If identity is defined withrespect to meaning, thesyntactic contexts/syntactic composition couldbe different, as long as the formal differencesdo nottranslate into a semantic onethat makes the meanings non-identical.

Todecidebetweentheseoptions,researchontheidentityconditionhasconcentratedonfindingthelimitsoftolerable andintolerablesemanticandformalmismatches(termsborrowedfromThoms2015)betweentheantecedentandits presumedellipticalcounterpart.Forinstance,anelidedlexicalpredicatecanmismatchinform.In(3a),inflectedlikescan antecedetheinfinitivallike,representingatolerablemismatch.In(3b)ontheotherhand,weseeacaseofanintolerable mismatch:theelidedauxiliarybecannotdeviateinthesamewayfromitsantecedentis.

(3) a. JohnlikesthismovieandBillmightlikethismovie,too.

b. * JohnisfondofthismovieandBillmightbefondofthismovie,too.

Thepurposeofthisintroductionistohighlightthecoretenetsofsyntacticandsemanticidentitytheories,andtoreview somedatathatfrequentlyfigureasargumentsforeach.Duetospacelimitations,thisintroductionwillnotbeabletodo justicetothefullrangeofproposalsandempiricalobservationsandtheirhistoricaldevelopment,norwillitbeabletoplace theissuesinthefastgrowingpsycholinguisticliteratureonprocessingandparsingellipsis(seeamongothersArregui

etal., 2006; SanPietroetal., 2008; Frazier,2013; Aparicio et al.,2014and references found inthere). For further

informationonidentityinellipsisthereaderisreferredspecificallytovanCraenenbroeckandMerchant(2013),Barros

(2014)andtoworksintroducingellipsisphenomenafromvariousperspectives,suchasLappin(1996),Johnson(2001,

2008),Merchant(2001,2013b),Aelbrecht(2015)andtheforthcomingTheOxfordHandbookofEllipsiseditedbyJeroen

vanCraenenbroeckandTanjaTemmerman.

1. Syntacticapproaches

Syntacticapproachestoellipsisidentityholdthatellipticalmaterialanditsantecedentshouldbeisomorphicintheir syntax,definedoverphrasemarkersofsomesort,suchassurfacesyntacticorLFrepresentations.Syntacticaccountsof ellipsisidentityhavebeenputforwardinbothearlydaysofgenerativesyntaxandmorerecenttimes,amongothersby

Chomsky(1964,1965),Ross(1967),Sag(1976),Williams(1977),Kitagawa(1991),FiengoandMay(1994),Chungetal.

(1995,2011),Lasnik(1995),Fox(2000),Tomioka(2008),Tanaka(2011b),Johnson(2012a),Merchant(2013a).

Accordingtosyntactictheoriesofidentity,ellipsiscanonlyapplyifthe elidedmaterialisrepresentedbyaphrase markerthatisisomorphictothecorrespondingphrasemarkerintheantecedent.Foranexamplelike(1),isomorphism requiresstrict lexical and structuralidentity between the representation of the antecedent predicate(VPA), and the ellipticalone(VPE),asillustratedin(4)withabasicsyntacticrepresentationoftheclause.

(4) ₍₄₎ _TP and TP too.

John T' Bill T'

T VPA T <VPE>

might might

t V' t V'

V DP V DP

like like

D NP D NP

this | this |

N N

(3)

IsomorphismmeansthatthephrasemarkercorrespondingtotheantecedentVPAmustcontaintheexactsamenodesand terminalelementsastheellipticalVPE,markedwithangledbrackets:thisrequirementissatisfiedasbothVPAandVPE containVP,V0,V,DP,D,NP,N,t(race),like,this,movie.Theonlydifferenceconcernsthebindersofthetraces:theseare boundbydifferententitiesfromoutsidetheellipsissite.Materialextractedoutoftheellipsissiteneednotbeidenticaltoa parallelelementintheantecedentclause.1

Apartfromthecontentoftraces,syntacticisomorphismtheoriesmustalsoallowformismatchesininflectionalmaterial betweenantecedentandellipsissite,aswasalreadypointedoutinthefirstexplicitdiscussionoftheidentityconditionin ellipsisintransformationalgrammar,Chomsky(1965).Chomskyheldtheviewthatdeletionmustadheretosyntactic identity,buthealsoobservedthatdeletion(called‘‘erasuretransformation’’atthetime),doesnotrequiretotalidentity.To define the condition on recoverability of deletion (p. 177--184), he considers examples with comparatives like (5), analyzedasinvolvingthedeletionoperationillustrated:

(5) a. JohnismorecleverthanBill = JohnismorethanBilliscleverclever

b. thesemenaremorecleverthanMary = thesemenaremorethanMaryiscleverclever

In(5a),cleverandisaredeletedundercompleteidentitywithanovertequivalent,butin(5b)thecopulaisnon-identicalto itsantecedent(arevs.is).Theseexamplesshowthattheidentityconditiondoesnotrequireinflectionalidentitybetween phrasemarkers.AccordingtoChomskythisfollowsfromthefactthatinflectionalfeaturesaredeterminedbythelarger syntactic context, namely material outside the elliptical site. Features determined by the larger context should be recoverableevenifdeleted,thusthesetypesoffeaturesarenotconsideredinthecalculationofidentity.2

Chomsky’sobservationhasbeenconfirmedinmanylanguagesandacrossellipticalconstructions.Ithasalsobecome clearthattheroleoftheoutsidecontextisveryspecific.Inthecurrentwayofthinking,inflectionalfeaturemismatchesare consideredpossibleintwoconfigurations.Onesuchconfigurationhasthemismatchingfeaturebelongtoasyntactichead external to the ellipsissite. The otherhasthe mismatching featureinside the ellipsissite, valued by anagreement controllerthatoccursexternaltotheellipsissite.

Toillustratethelatterfirst,considerforexamplegenderandnumberfeaturesonpredicativeadjectives(ex.6from

NunesandZocca,2009,ex.7fromDepianteandMasullo,2001,seealsoSaab,2008,Merchant,2014)andsubject

agreementonHungarianverbsasin(8).Theinflectionalfeaturesontheelidedpredicativeadjectiveorverbcanmismatch withrespecttothatoftheirantecedent(altovs.alta,altovs.altos,nevetettvs.nevettek).3

(6) O João é alto e a Maria também é alta. BrazilianPortuguese the João is tall-MASC-SG and the Maria also is tall-FEM-SG

‘JoãoistallandMariaistoo.’

1_A_curious_exception_is_the_so-called_V-stranding_ellipsis_phenomenon,_which_elides_a_(VP_or_TP-type)_category_that_has_been_vacated_by_the

verbpriortodeletion(Doron,1990,1999;McCloskey,1991;Gribanova,2013amongothers).Theverbthatappears‘‘stranded’’outsidethe ellipsissiteinthisformofellipsismustbelexicallyidenticaltoaparallelverbintheantecedent(Goldberg,2005):itmustsharethesamestemand derivationalmorphology,whileitcandifferininflectionalmorphology.ConsiderforillustrationthecaseofIrish,whichhastwocognatesforthe verbmiss,anIrishwordandEnglishone.Iftheantecedentclausecontainsoneofthetwo,theellipticalresponseneedstocontainthesameitem andcannotswitchtotheotherone(McCloskey,2005).

(i) A: Ar mhiss-eáil tú é? B:* Chrothnaigh.

COMP.INTER missed you him miss.PAST

‘Didyoumisshim?’ ‘Idid.’

SeeSchoorlemmerandTemmerman(2012)andGribanova(2013)foraccountsofthelexicalidentityeffect,andThoms(2015)forillustrationand novelobservationsaboutparallelismrequirementsinV-strandingellipsisinGaelic.

2_To_quote_the_precise_formulation,_Chomsky₍₁₉₆₅₎_specified_that _features_can_either_be _inherent_features_or_be_added_by_agreement transformations,determinedbythesyntacticcontext.Inherentfeaturescannotvaryunderellipsis(p.182):‘‘[...]atermXoftheproperanalysis canbeusedtoeraseatermYoftheproperanalysisjustincasetheinherentpartoftheformativeXisnotdistinctfromtheinherentpartofthe formativeY’’.Inthisdefinition,non-distinctnessisdefinedasindistinctivefeaturetheory:twoentitiesaredistinctifoneispositivelyandtheotheris negativelyspecifiedwithrespecttoafeature,andnotunspecifiedforit.Thisinessencemeansthatiftwoelementsdifferonlyintransformationally introducedfeatures,theyareconsiderednon-distinctandthuscountasidentical.

3

Notethatinflectionalmismatchesonellipticalnounsaremoreintricateasgenderfeaturesarenotvariableonallnouns.Someclassesof nouns havenon-variablefeatures(cf.i)thatcannot changeunder ellipsisandothersthat canonlyvaryundersome conditions.Forthe complexitiesofgenderidentityonnouns/pronounsseeMerchant(2014)andJohnson(2014).

(i) * Juan es un buen tío y María también. Spanish Juan is a.M good.M uncle.M and Maria also

(4)

(7) El alumno es alto y los profesores también son altos. Spanish the student-MASC-SG is tall-MASC-SG and the student-MASC-PL also are tall-MASC-PL

‘Thestudentistallandtheteacherstoo.’

(8) Péter nevet-ett. A lányok is nevet-tek. Hungarian Péter laugh-PST.3SG the girl.PL also laugh-PST.3PL

‘Péterlaughed.Thegirls,too.’

Concerningtheotheroption,mismatchinginflectionalfeaturescanalsobelongtoaheadexternaltotheellipsissite.Asa variant of (1) above, consider (9a, b), where the head that encodestense information and which regulatestense morphology,Tense,isfoundoutsidethecategorythatiseliminatedbypredicateellipsis,theVP,andthusisfreetovary, cf.thestructurein(10)(seeLasnik,1995forthisapproach).Therepresentationin(10)boilsdowntosayingthatthereisin factnomismatchbetweentheantecedentandtheelidedconstituentinthefirstplace.

(9) a. Johnlikedthismovie,andBillwilllikethismovie,too. b. Johnsawthismovie,andBillwillseethismovie,too.

(10) JohnlikedthismovieandBillwill,too.

[TPJohnT[pst]-ed[VPtlikethismovie]]and[TPBillwill+T[fut]<[VPtlikethismovie]>],too.

Importantly,materialthatisinsidetheellipsissite(andisnotagreed-withfromoutside)cannotvary.

Whentheelidedchunkcorrespondstothe entireTP,and thussubsumesthe tensespecification, tensemustbe identicaltothatoftheantecedent.Inclausalellipsis,suchassluicing,themissingTPmustbeinterpretedidenticaltoits antecedent.Thefollowingexampledoesnotsupportanyotherreadingbutapastoneinthesluicedclause.

(11) Johnlikedthismovie,butIdon’trememberwhy.

[TPJohnT[pst]-ed[VPtlikethismovie]],(...)[CPwhy<[TPJohnT[pst]-ed[VPtlikethismovie]]>].

Note that this mode of explanation of morphological variability relies on non-lexicalist approaches to inflectional morphology, which separate tense inflection from the verbal stem in the syntactic representation and derive their combinationatadifferentlevel(bothforregularandformorphologicallyirregularverbs,i.e.PAST+likeyieldsliked;PAST

+seeyieldssaw).Inthisapproach,theacceptabilityoftheaboveexamplesin(9)followsiftheprecisemorphologicalform oftheverbdoesnotenterthecalculationofidentity,identityiscalculatedbeforethetenseaffixandthestemarecombined. Lexicalistapproachestomorphologywouldneedtocapturethefactsdifferentlybylooseningsyntacticidentitysomehow, suchthatisshouldbeblindtoinflectionalmaterial.

Whilelexicalverbsallowforinflectionalmismatches,beandhave(bothintheirmainverbandauxiliaryuse)inEnglish areexceptionstothis:theydonotallowcertaintypesofmismatchesininflectionalformwhenelidedunderVPellipsis(cf.3 above).Theycanelideundercompletemorphologicalidentity,butnotwhenmismatchinginformasin(12)below, a generalizationthatwasmadebyWarner(1986,1993),seealsoLasnik(1995)andNunesandZocca(2009)forsimilar datainBrazilianPortuguese:

(12) a. * JohnwashereandMarywillbehere,too.

b. * Johnishappytodayandheoftenhasbeeninthepast.

(13) Warner’sAuxiliaryVerbGeneralization(Warner,1993)

IncasesofellipsisofaVPheadedbyanauxiliaryverb,the auxiliarymusthavethesamemorphological formasitsantecedent.

Theseexamplesprovidestrongargumentsforasyntacticdefinitionofidentityandhavereceivedananalysisinthose termsbyLasnik(1995).Lasnikassumesthathaveandbeenterthederivationfullyinflected,andwhenfinite,theyraiseto tenseinovertsyntax.Asaconsequenceoftheirbeinginflectedinthesyntaxalreadyandkeepingtheirformconstant throughoutthederivation,thereisnostageinthederivationatwhich(thetraceof)wasandbearesyntacticallyidenticalin (12a),andlackofsyntacticidentityleadstoungrammaticality.

(14) *JohnwashereandMarywillbehere,too.

(5)

AsPotsdam(1997) hasshown,however, Lasnik’ssolution istoo strict,inparticularbecauseitincorrectlyrulesout mismatchesbetweennon-finiteformsofbe/have,whichfaremuchbetterthanpairsinvolvingafiniteform(seealsoNunes

andZocca,2009foradifferentcritiqueofLasnik’ssolution):

(15) a. Johnisbeingexamined,butJackreallyshouldbeexamined,also.

b. HemightbeattendingAAsessions,IknowhismotherhasbeenattendingAAsessions.

Insteadofmorphologicalidentity,thefactsin(12)shouldratherbeexplainedwithreferencetotheformoftheantecedent: accordingtoPotsdam,theill-formedexamplesallcontainahead-trace(leftbehindbytheraisedauxiliary)thatiswrongly positioned, for reasons that arenot very clear. Thoms(2015) takesup thisissueand identifies the reasonto bea breakdownofparallelism.Merchant(2015)suggeststhatbecannotbeelidedinenvironmentswhereitisthesoleovert indicatoroftenseshiftwithrespecttotheantecedentclause.

1.1. Someargumentsforsyntacticidentity

Next tothebehaviourofhave/be,severalother empiricalphenomena supporttheviewthatthe identitycondition shouldbeatleastpartlysyntactic.Theremainderofthissectionliststhreeofthese:alexico-syntacticconditionthatrules outnovelmaterialintheellipsissite;argumentstructurealternationsandthevariabledistributionofvoicemismatches. Thislistdoesnotbyanymeanscompriseallargumentsthathavebeenadducedforsyntacticidentity,seeTanaka(2011a,

b),Saab(2014),González-VilbazoandRamos(2012),RooryckandSchoorlemmer(2014),aswellasThoms(2015),

Merchant(2015),Cecchettoetal.(2015)forothers.

1.1.1. TheNonewwordscondition

Thefirstofthesupportingargumentsisastronglexico-syntacticconditionthatrulesoutnewlexicalmaterialinthe ellipsissite.ItwasidentifiedbyChung(2006)insprouting,asluicing-typeellipsiswherethewh-phraseremnanthasno overtcorrelateintheantecedent.Unlikesluicing,whichallowsforprepositionstranding,sproutingwithP-strandingis ill-formed.Theprepositionmustbepied-pipedandcannotbestrandedinsidetheellipsissite.

(16) a. They’rejealous,butit’sunclearofwhotheyarejealoust. b. * They’rejealous,butit’sunclearwhotheyarejealousoft.

(17) a. Joewasmurdered,butwedon’tknowbywhohewasmurderedt. b. * Joewasmurdered,butwedon’tknowwhohewasmurderedbyt.

Thisparadigmshowsthatellipsissitesmaynotcontainanynewwords(apartfromtraces/copiesofmovedmaterial)when comparedtotheirantecedent:whentheprepositionisstrandedandthusformspartoftheelidedmaterial,itviolatesthe conditionthatChungformulatesin(18)(withreferencetotheMinimalistnotionofnumeration,thesetofwordscontainedin aderivation).ThisisoftenreferredtoastheNonewwordsconditionandalthoughformulatedforsluicing,isgenerally assumedtoholdforothertypesofellipsisaswell(seeRouveret,2011foritsformulationforVPellipsis):

(18) Chung’slexicalidentityconditiononsluicing/Nonewwords

Everylexicaliteminthenumerationofthesluicethatendsup(only)intheelidedIPmustbeidenticalto aniteminthenumerationoftheantecedentCP.

AsChungsays,theeffectof(18)alsoshowsupinsproutedmaterialmodifyingnominalswithoutanantecedent:

(19) ?*Sheread,butwe’renotsurebywhichauthorshereadsomething.

Thefactthat(18)alsoholdsforprepositionsthatareentirelyvoidofmeaning,suchasofin(16b)isstrongevidencethat thisconditionisformalinnatureandcannotbeexplainedwithreferencetosemantics/pragmatics.Inlaterwork,Chung proposestocapture(18)byanindependentsluicing-specificsyntacticidentityconditioncalledtheCasecondition(going

backtoRoss,1969):

(20) Caseconditiononsluicing

(6)

AccordingtoChung,(18)canexplaintheeffectoftheNonewwordscondition:in(16b)theremnantisaDPandis case-licensedbyastrandedprepositionintheellipsissite.Suchaprepositionalhead,however,islackingacorrespondinghead intheantecedent.In(16a),theremnantisaPPand(20)isthereforeinactive.WhileforthesefactsinvolvingP-stranding, theCaseconditioncanreplacetheNonewwordscondition,itcannotruleouttheungrammatical(19),wheretheremnant isnotaDP,andthustheCaseconditionisinactive.ThissuggeststhattheNonewwordsconditioncannotbesubsumed bytheCaseconditioninsluicing.Furthermore,asThoms(2015)showsonthebasisofEnglish,andVicente(toappear)on thebasisofotherlanguages,thetheoreticalstatusoftheCaseconditioninsluicingisdoubtful(seealsoBarros,2014for refinementstobemadewithrespecttoitsapplicationtoabstractandmorphologicalcase).

1.1.2. Argumentstructureinvariance

Anotherstrongargumentforidentitybeingsensitivetosyntacticstructurecomesfromtheobservationthatargument structurealternations are forbidden under ellipsis;that is, antecedent and elided materialcannot mismatch in their argumentstructure(Levin,1982;Chungetal.,2011;Chung,2013;Johnson,2001;Merchant,2013c).Consider image-impression alternation withthe verb embroider(Levin,2003).As (20)shows,the verb embroiderhas twopossible argumentstructures.Theyaretruth-conditionallyequivalent(Barros,2014):

(21) a. Theyembroideredatable-clothwithpeacesigns. b. Theyembroideredpeacesignsonatable-cloth.

Eventhough(21a)and(21b)meanthesame,theycannotbeexchangedforoneanotherunderellipsis,suchasTPellipsis involvedinsluicing:

(22) a. * Theyembroideredsomethingwithpeacesigns,butIdon’tknowonwhattheyembroideredpeacesigns. b. * Theyembroideredsomethingonthetable-cloth,butIdon’tknowwithwhattheyembroideredthe

table-cloth.

Clearly,thetwopatternsillustratetwodistinctlexicalchoicesonthepredicate,andellipsisistiedtothelexicalchoicebeing madeintheantecedent.AccordingtothelineofworkinitiatedbyHaleandKeyser(1993),alternatingpairsinargument structurealternationshavedifferentsyntacticrepresentations.Forexample,thepredicatesin(21a)and(21b)contain distinctlightverbsintroducingtheonPPandthewithPP.Withreferencetosuchdifferencesininternalcompositionofthe predicatephrase,Merchant(2013c)rulesoutthemismatchingpairsin(22)asnon-identicalsyntacticrepresentationsof theelidedpredicatephrase(vPE)andtheantecedentverbphrase(vPA).

(23) a. vPA=[vPA they v [vP something v[trans][vP withpeacesignsv[with][VPembroider]]]] b. vPE=[vPE they v [vP peacesigns v[trans][vP onwhatv[on][VPembroider]]]]

Theungrammaticalityboilsdowntothenon-identitybetweenthevwithandvonheadsthatintroducetheobliquearguments (possiblytracedbacktoaviolationoftheNonewwordsconditionin(18),asthemismatchinglightverbintheellipsissite representsanewmorpheme).4

1.1.3. Theunevendistributionofvoicemismatches

Athirdargumentinfavourofsyntacticidentitycomesfromtheunevendistributionofvoicemismatchesacrosselliptical constructions.Active/passivemismatchesareallowedincontextsofpredicateellipsis,butnot ininstancesofclausal ellipsis(sluicing,stripping,fragmentanswers)(seeSag,1976;Dalrympleetal.,1991;Hardt,1993;FiengoandMay,1994;

Johnson,2001;Kehler,2002;Arreguietal.,2006;Tanaka,2011a;Merchant,2001,2008a,2013cfordiscussionand

refinements).

4_In_an_even_more_recent_account,_Barros₍₂₀₁₄₎_and_Barros_and_Vicente₍₂₀₁₅₎_propose_to_rule_out_argument_structure_alternations_(as_well_as P-strandingundersproutingandvoicemismatches)withtheidentityconditionin(i):

(i) Remnantcondition(Barros,2014)

Theremnantmusthaveasyntacticcorrelate,whichisasemanticallyidenticalXPintheantecedent.

Inthisaccount,theungrammaticalityofthemismatchesin(22)followsbecausethePPandtheDPmeaningsofthecorrelate-remnantpairs (something/onwhat(22a);something/withwhat(22b))arenotidentical.Theconditionin(i)isinfactonepartoftheidentityconditionBarros(2014)

(7)

(24) a. Thejanitormustremovethetrashwheneveritisapparentthatitshouldberemoved. b. Thesystemcanbeusedbyanyonewhowantstouseit.

(25) a. * SomeonemurderedJoebutwedonotknowwhobyJoewasmurdered. b. * Joewasmurdered,butwedon’tknowwhomurderedJoe.

Semantic accounts of identity have a problem explaining the contrast between the two set of examples---if the mismatchingpredicatesareallowedin(24),becauseactiveandpassiveversionsaretruth-conditionallyidentical,they shouldalsobeallowedin(25).Syntacticidentitytheories,however,canhandlethedata,andcanderivethecontrastwith referencetothesizeoftheelidedmaterialifvoicespecificationscanbearguedtobeexternaltothepredicateellipsissite andthusvariable,astrategythatMerchant(2013c)follows(withreferencetotheanalyticalstrategyof‘‘unpacking’’the materialintheantecedentsasinJohnson,2001,seealsotheexplanationofinflectionalmismatchesin10above).5Inhis account,theellipticalmaterialinpredicateellipsiscorrespondstothecomplement(vP)ofafunctionalVoicehead.Since thevoiceheadisoutsidetheellipsissite,it’scontent(apassiveoractivefeature)canvary:

(26) A: ... the janitor must [VoicePVoice[act] <[vP tv[trans] [VP removethetrash]]>] E: ... it should be [VoicePVoice[pass] <[vP tv[trans] [VP removedt]]>]

InTPellipsiscontexts,theelidedmaterialinturnscontainsthevoicespecifications,andthusanydifferingfeaturevalueon thisheadcountsasnon-identical,rulingoutellipsisasill-formed.

(27) A: <[TPJoe was [VoicePVoice[pass] [vP tv[trans] [VP murdered t]]]]>

E: [CP who <[TP twho [VoicePVoice[act] [vP tv[trans] [VP murdered Joe]]]]>]

Theill-formednessofthedatain(25)thussuppliesevidencethatidentityisdefinedonsyntacticrepresentations.(25)can onlyberuledoutifidentityissensitivetosyntactic(feature)specification,incontrastto(24).6

2. Semanticidentity

Semanticaccountsofellipsisidentitystatetheidentityrelationoversemanticrepresentationsoftheantecedentand ellipsissite(seeamongothersDalrympleetal.,1991; Hardt,1993,1999;Asheretal.,1997;Kempson etal.,1999;

GinzburgandSag,2000;Prüst,1993;Merchant,2001;Hendriks,2004;HendriksandSpenader,2005;Barker,2013).

Innon-structuralapproachestoellipsis,identitymustbedefinedonsemanticrepresentationsbynecessity,asinthese works,therearenosyntacticrepresentationsoftheelidedmaterial.InDalrympleetal.(1991),forexample,ellipsisis explained withreferenceto informationretrieval,stated inahigher-order unificationalgorithm.Whenencounteringa missingpieceinaVPellipsisexampleas(28a),ellipsisresolutionrequirestheformingofaproperty-denotingexpression fromtheantecedentmaterial(arrivedatbyabstractingoverparallelelementsinAandE)(28b).Applyingthispropertyto theellipsisremnant,wearriveatthemeaningoftheellipticalclause(28c).

(28) a. DanlikesgolfandGeorgedoes,too. b. P=lx.like(x,golf)

c. lx.like(x,golf)(George)=like(George,golf)

In this account, the contentof the ellipsis isdefined as,and thus per definition identical to,the property denoting expressionP.Sinceinthisapproach,andothernon-structuralones,noidentityconditionispostulated,thechallengeisto

5_The_‘‘_unpacking_’’_of_the_antecedent_in_Johnson₍₂₀₀₁₎_refers_to_the_analysis_of_categorial_mismatches_under_VP_ellipsis_like_(i),_originating_from

Hardt(1993).ThisexamplepresentsagrammaticalinstanceofVPellipsisthatfindsitsantecedentinsidetheitalicizedderivednoun. (i) DavidBagelmanisagreatlaugherandwhenhedoeslaugh,hiseyeswrinkleatyou[...].

Johnson(2001),withreferencetoFuetal.(1996),suggeststhatthemissingverbphraseatsomeabstractlevelofrepresentationisidenticaltothe verbinsidethenominalization[N[Vlaugh]-er].Tanaka(2011b),andMillerandHemforth(2013),however,showthatthisaccountbothunder-and

overgenerates.Notallderivednominalsallowforsuchaconversion,andsomenon-derivedonesallowforit,too.Inaddition,thegrammaticalityof theellipsisincaseslike(i)dependsonspecificdiscoursepropertiesoftheantecedent.

6

(8)

explainwhatsyntacticmatchingeffectssuchasthosereviewedintheprevioussectionfollowfrom.SeeKim(2015) fora proposalwithintheDirectInterpretationapproachonthisissue.

Concerningsemanticidentitytheorieswithinstructuralapproachestoellipsis,themostinfluentialaccountofellipsis identityinsemantictermsistheso-called‘‘e-GIVENness’’accountproposedbyMerchant(2001).Thetheoryisbuiltonthe

findingofRooth(1992)andTancredi(1992)thatellipsis(likedeaccenting)issubjecttoasemanticconditionaccordingto whichtheantecedentclause/phrasemustbe(orimply)afocusalternativetothephrase/clausecontainingtheellipsis.7 DifferentlyfromRooth’sproposal,however,Merchantshowsthatforellipsistohold,thisrelationmustgobothwaysinthe formofentailment.Thatis,thesemanticidentityrelationshouldbestatedasamutualentailmentconditionbetweenthe ellipsissiteanditsantecedent,requiringthattheellipticalmaterialanditsantecedentbetruth-conditionallyequivalent. Usingthedefinitionofgivennessfornon-focusedmaterial,asdefinedinSchwarzschild(1999),Merchant’sconditionis definedn(29).8

(29) a. Focusconditiononellipsis (Merchant,2001:38) AnXPacanbedeletedonlyifaise-GIVEN.

b. e-GIVENness (Merchant,2001:26)

AnexpressionEcountsase-GIVENiffEhasasalientantecedentA,andmodulo9-typeshifting,(i)Aentails

F-clo(E),and(ii)EentailsF-clo(A).

c. F-closure (Merchant,2001:14)

TheFclosureofa,writtenF-clo(a),istheresultofreplacingF-markedpartsofawith9-boundvariablesofthe appropriatetype(modulo9-typeshifting).

For our previous example in (28), the calculation of e-GIVENness yields identical results for antecedent and elided

predicates,astheytriviallyentaileachother.Sincee-GIVENnessissatisfied,theantecedentandtheelidedpredicates

countasidenticalandellipsisiswell-formed.

(30) DanlikesgolfandGeorgedoes[vPtlikegolf],too. F-clo(vPA)=9x.xlikesgolf

F-clo(vPE)=9x.xlikesgolf

RecentworkshaveshownthatMerchant’smutualentailmentconditionin(29)mustbeenrichedwithothersemantic/ pragmaticconditions,for clausalellipsistypes suchas sluicingand fragments(AnderBois,2010, 2011;Weir, 2014;

Barros,2014;Ginzburg andSag, 2000). AnderBois(2010,2011)proposesthatbeyondtruth-conditional entailment,

sluicingalsorequiressemantic/pragmaticisomorphismwhenitcomestoissuesraisedbytheellipticalclauseandits antecedent---their inquisitivecontent(as definedin the framework ofInquisitive Semantics)must bethe same. The

7_Rooth₍₁₉₉₂₎_actually_puts_forward_a_hybrid_proposal_of_identity_in_which_the_identity_condition_must_be_partly_semantic_and_partly_syntactic, involvingasyntacticisomorphismcondition(orredundancyrelation)andasemanticrelationofcontrastrequirementbetween(thestructure containing)theellipsissiteand(thestructurecontaining)theantecedent.ThelatterstatesthattheordinarysemanticvalueoftheantecedentVP (oraphrasecontainingit)shouldbeorshouldimplyanelementofthefocusvalueoftheelidedVP(oraphrasecontainingit).(NotethatRooth (1992)specifiedthisconditionspecificallyforVPellipsis.)

(i) Semanticconditiononellipsis(Rooth,1992)(asquotedinMerchant,2001p.13)

AVP_ainXPEcanbedeletedonlyifthereisanXPA,where[[XPA]]oeitherisorimpliesanelementfrom[[XPE]]f.

Inthisdefinition,[[a]]0_is_the_ordinary_semantic_value_of_the_expression,_and_[[_a_]]F_is_the_focus_value_of_a_,_the_set_of_alternatives_to_the_expression whicharederivedfromabyreplacingallfocus-markedentitiesbyvariables.

AsMerchant(2001)shows,whilethisconditiongivestherightresultforsentencesinvolvingdeaccentedmaterial,itovergeneratesforellipsis: itincorrectlyallowsforcasesinwhichtheellipticalclauseisimpliedbytheantecedent,buttheantecedentisnotimpliedbytheellipsissite,cf.the followingexampleinwhichtheellipticalVPmustcontainthesameobjectasitsantecedent.

(ii) a. JohnwasreadingthebookwhileBENwas(readingthebook).

b. * JohnwasreadingthebookwhileBENwas(reading).

The(b)examplefulfilsRooth’sfocusconditionasJohnwasreadingthebookimpliesJohnwasreadingandJohnwasreadingisanelementofthe setofalternativescorrespondingtoBENwasreading.ForRooth,thefocusconditionin(i)thereforemustbecoupledwitharequirementfor syntacticisomorphismtoruleoutthemissing(b)possibility.SincetheVPreadthebookisnotisomorphictoread(theydonotcontainthesame numberofnodesarrangedinthesameway),syntacticisomorphismrulesout(ii).

8₉_-type_shifting_is_a_{type-shifting}_operation_that_{existentially}_binds_unfilled_arguments,_such_as_traces_left_by_movement,_and_it_also_raises

(9)

antecedentclausesinthefollowingtwoexamplesaretruth-conditionallyidentical,butonlythepositiveversioncontaining someone,anindefinitepronounwithinquisitivemeaningraisesthesameissueastheembeddedquestioninthesluice.

(31) a. Somebodyleft,butIdon’tknowwho.

b. *Itisnotthecasethatnobodyleft,butIdon’tknowwho.

Inadifferentsemantictradition,thisconditioniscapturedintermsofarequirementthattheantecedentclauseandthe sluicedquestionmustrefertothesamequestion-under-discussion(QuD),asstatedbyBarros(2014)forsluicinginthe followingsluicingspecificcondition.

(32) TheSluiceCondition(Barros,2014)

ThesluicedquestionandtheQuestionunderDiscussion(QuD)madesalientbytheantecedentmusthave thesameansweratanyworldofevaluation.

AsimilarconditionisstatedforfragmentsbyWeir(2014)(seealsoReich,2007),rulingoutill-formedfragmentsofthe followingkind,wheretheresponseinBdoesnotreplytothequestionunderdiscussioninA’sutterance(whichinquires aboutreasons).NotealsothatVPellipsis(inB0)isperfectlyfine:

(33) A: WhydidJohngototheparty?

B: *Marywenttotheparty,andJohndoeseverythingMarydoes. B0: Marydidgototheparty,andJohndoeseverythingMarydoes.

Beforeclosingthissection,itisimportanttomentionthatbeyondasuitablyformulatedidentitycondition,ellipsisisalso subjecttoothertypesofspecificsemanticconditionsthatarenotdefinedasidentityconditionsintheliterature,suchasthe inheritanceofcontenteffect(Chungetal.,1995;Messicketal.,2015)orKennedy’ssyntactico-semanticgeneralization aboutargument-containedellipsis(Kennedy,2008).Anotherconditionthatrearsitsheadinmanydifferenttypesofellipsis andinwaysthatextendbeyondtheissueofidentityaloneisaconditioncalledparallelism.Initsmostconcreteform,this notionmeansparallelismofscope,andcaninfactbestatedasthestructuralconditionin(34),followingtheformulationin

Foxand Lasnik(2003)(seealsoFox,2000; Merchant,2001;FoxandTakahashi,2005; Winkler,2005;Griffithsand

Lipták,2014;Thoms,toappearoneffectsofparallelism).

(34) ScopalParallelisminellipsis

Variablesintheantecedentandtheelidedclauseareboundfromparallelpositions.

Althoughscopalparallelismisawell-formednessrequirementforclausalandpredicateellipsisandbyallmeansdefines oneaspectofthenecessarysimilaritybetweenellipticalclauseanditsantecedent,ithashithertonotbeendefinedasan identityconditionitselfandbroughtinconnectionwithformalmismatches.Thoms(2015)isthefirstworkthatattemptsto doexactlythis,definingtheidentityconditionproperintermsofscopalparallelism.

2.1. Argumentsforsemanticidentity

Inthissection,phenomenaarepresentedthatprovideevidencethattheidentitycondition mustbeatleastpartly semantic.Theargumentstofollowcomefromvehiclechangephenomena,tolerableformalmismatchesintheIP-domain andtheavailabilityofnon-isomorphicunderlyers,suchasclefts.JustlikeinSection1.1,thelistofargumentsisfarfrom complete.Forotherarguments,seeMerchant(2001),Yoshida(2010)andWebber(1978)etseqonsplitantecedents amongothers.

2.1.1. Vehiclechange

Onepieceofevidenceforsemanticidentityaccountscomefromso-calledvehiclechangephenomena.Whilesyntactic accountsofidentityfailtoderivethese,semanticaccountspredictthem.Vehiclechangeisthenameofacuriousformal mismatchallowedunderellipsis(andonlythere):non-pronominalscanbeequivalenttopronominalsprovidedtheyhave thesamereference(Dalrympleetal.,1991;FiengoandMay,1994).Thiseffectisresponsibleforthefactthatnominals thatarenormallysubjectedtoPrincipleCofthebindingtheoryaresubjecttoPrincipleBinsteadunderellipsis.Inthenext example,theobjectcannotberepresentedasapropernameintheellipsissite,butmustbeapronoun:

(10)

ThisineffectmeansthatanR-expressioncountsasidenticaltoapronoununderellipsis.Forsyntactictheories,this presentsapuzzle,asthereisnoevidentlevelofabstractionatwhichthepronounhimandthepropernameAlexare syntacticallyequivalent(thoughseePostal,1966,Elbourne,2005aswellasMerchant,2008b,Johnson,2012b).For semantictheories,theequivalenceiseasytoobtain.Forexample,undere-GIVENness,antecedentandelidedpredicate

aremutuallyentailingjustincaseAlexandhimrefertothesameperson.

(36) TheyarrestedAlex,thoughhethoughttheywouldn’t[vPtarresthim] F-clo(vPA)=9x.xarrestAlex

F-clo(vPE)=9x.xarresthim

Vehiclechangethusprovidesargumentsforsemantic identity.9Inthe samevein,variationbetweentheexactshape of indexicalelements in (37)(here vs. there;you vs. I) followfrom semantic identity as well (Sag and Hankamer,

1984).

(37) a. A: Areyoucomingoverhere? B: Yes,Iamcomingoverthere. b. A: Whendidyouarrive?

B: YesterdayIarrived.

ThefactthatquantificationalexpressionintheantecedentofellipsiscangiverisetoanE-typereadingofadefinite anaphoric(pro)nominalcanalsoreceiveanaccountintermsofsemanticidentity.ThiseffectwasfirstobservedbySag

(1976),whonotedthat(38)isambiguousbetweentworeadings(%standsforvariabilityinjudgmentsinthisnon-elliptical

paraphrase,asgivenbySag):

(38) SandygreetedeveryonewhenBetsydid.

interpretation(i) SandygreetedeveryonewhenBetsygreetedeveryone. interpretation(ii) SandygreetedeveryonewhenBetsygreetedthem/%him.

Thefirstreading,whereeveryoneissyntacticallyidenticaltoitscorrelateispredictedtobegrammaticalbysyntactic identitytheories.Thesecondreading,however,violatessyntacticisomorphism(thedefinitepronominalisnotpartofthe antecedent),andcanonlybeexplainedifidentityisdefinedatanabstractlevelofmeaning(seeElliottandSudo,2014for aformulationofadynamice-GIVENnessaccountforthis).10

2.1.2. Tolerablefinitenessandmodalitymismatches

Thesecondsetofargumentsforsemanticidentity comefrom observationsabout tolerableformalmismatchesin tense,finitenessandmodalityspecificationinsluicingsuchasthosein(38)(Klein,1993;Merchant,2001;Thoms,2013

amongothers)

9

Itisimportanttonotethatsyntacticallyconditionedconversions,suchasthosebetweenpolarityitemsandtheirnon-polaritycounterpartsasin (i)(Bresnan,1971;Sag,1976),alsotreatedasinstancesofvehiclechangeinFiengoandMay(1994),canbeaccountedforwithinsyntactic identitytheories.

(i) Johndidn_’tseeanyone,butMarydid {seesomeone/*seeanyone}.

Sagsuggeststhatifanyoneandsomeonearebothrepresentedasexistentialquantificationattheleveloflogicalform,theidentitybetweenthetwo canbeaccountedfor.Merchant(2013a)showsthatthisrouteisviableandfollowsKlima(1964)insayingthattheseexpressionshavevariable morphologicalrealizationsdeterminedbythesyntacticcontext.Assumingthatpolarityitemshaveasyntacticfeature[Pol:_],valuedundera c-commandingnegation(orotherlicensors),themorphologicalrealizationofthepronouncanbederivedtobedifferent,dependingonthevaluer:if thevaluerispositive,valuationandlexicalinsertionyieldsomeone;ifitisnegative,theyyieldanyone.Thisway,thesome/anyalterationcanbe modelledbysayingthatsomehasapolarityfeaturevaluedbyapositivepolarityphrase[Pol:Pos]andanyanegativeone[Pol:Neg].Usingthis agreement-basedtheory,syntacticidentitybetweenantecedentvPandelidedvPcanbeupheld(seeii)andthephenomenoncanbereducedtoa caseofinflectionalvariance,seeSection1.1.

(ii) A: [TP Johndidn’t [SPS[Pol:Neg] [vPsee[DPD[Indef;Pol]one]],but... E: [TP Marydid [SPS[Pol:Pos] < [vPsee[DPD[Indef;Pol]one]]>

(11)

(39) a. Iremembermeetinghim,butIdon’trememberwhenImethim. b. A: Amuseme!

B: WhatwithshouldIamuseyou?

c. Politiker würden gern helfen, aber siewissen nicht wie sie helfen sollten. politicians would.SUBJ prt help.INF but theyknow.INF not how theyhelp.INFshould

‘Politicianswouldliketohelp,buttheydon’tknowhow.’

As these examples show,a tensed clause can have a gerundive antecedent (cf. 39a) andcertain modals can count as equivalent to an imperative (cf. 39b) or a subjunctive form of the verb, as in the German (39c).11 Whatthese data involving IP-level mismatches first andforemost showisthat syntacticidentity and theNo new wordsconditionneednotbemetintheseexamples.Someformofsemanticequivalence,ontheother hand,can capturethedata.Intuitively,theimperative/deonticmodalmismatchisduetothefactthatimperativesanddeontic modalshave an identicalmeaning component,theyboth imposeobligation (seee.g.Portner, 2007).

2.1.3. Tolerablecasesofnon-isomorphism

Athirdsetofargumentsforsemanticidentitycomefromdatacontainingellipsisthatisarguablysyntactically non-isomorphictoitsantecedent.Thereareseveralsuchnon-isomorphicconstructionspossible(seeBarrosetal.,2014on thispoint),thebestknownofwhichiscleftsandpseudocleftsthatcanbefoundasunderlyingsourcesofsluicingfollowing anantecedentthatdoesnotcontainacleft.

Consider the following three examples by Rodrigueset al. (2009),Fortin (2007) and Barros (2014) respectively (forotherexamplesseePotsdam,2007;vanCraenenbroeck,2007,2010;BarrosandvanCraenenbroeck,2013):

(40) Juan hablo´ con alguien pero no sé quién esla personacon la que hablo´ Juan Spanish Juan spoke with someone but not know who is theperson withthethat spoke Juan

‘Juanspokewithsomeone,butIdon’tknowwho(thepersonthathespoketowas).’

(41) Terrygotmarriedagainstsomeone’swishes,butIdon’tknowwhoseitwas/*hegotmarriedwishesagainst.

(42) Eithersomething’sonfire,orSally’sbakingacake,butIdon’tknowwhichitis.

Astheaboveauthorsargue,ellipsisinthesecasesmustapplytoacleft,aconclusionnecessitatedinthecaseof(40)and (41)bytheobservationthatthesesluicesfeatureapparentprepositionstranding,whichSpanishdoesnothaveinits grammar,andnordoesEnglishwhenitcomestotheidiomagainstsomeone’swishes.Theconclusionthattheunderlying formin(42)mustbeacleftcomesfromthefactthatwithdisjunctiveantecedentsnoisomorphiccontinuationispossible, andthatthiskindofsluicingisonlypossibleinlanguagesthatallowforanovertcleftcontinuationinthesecases(Barros,

2014).

Theseexamplesshowthattheellipsissiteinsluicingcandemonstrablycontaincleftstructuresandthusbestructurally non-isomorphictotheirnon-cleftantecedent.Forsemantictheoriesofidentity,thecleftcontinuationsposenoproblemas theantecedentandellipticalclausehavethesamemeaning.12_For_syntactic_theories_of_identity,_the_data_are_more

difficulttoexplain.Theellipsissiteinthesecasescontainsadifferentphrasemarkeraswellasanumberofnewwords (suchasthepivotofthecleft(it),andapredicativecopula(is/was)andevenmoreinthecaseofpseudoclefts),violating

11_Arguments_for_semantic_identity_from_{finiteness/modality}_mismatches_usually_also_comprise_mismatches_with_how_-infinitives_in_the_ellipsis_site,

suchas(i)and(ii),firstlistedinMerchant(2001).

(i) a. Decoratingfortheholidaysiseasyifyouknowhow[TPtodecorate]. b. I’llfixthecarifyoutellmehow[TPtofixthecar].

Tanaka(2011b)providesconvincingarguments,however,theseexamplesshouldbediscountedfromthelistashow-infinitivesintheseexamples areidiosyncraticinmanywaysandmostlikelycontainnotsluicingproper,butpredicateellipsisfollowedbyanindependentprocessof non-pronunciationoftheinfinitivalto.

(12)

theNonewwordscondition,sosyntacticaccountswouldneedsometweakingtoexplainthewell-formednessofthese data.13

3. Synthesisandthecontributionofthearticlesinthisvolume

Theprevioustwosectionshaveintroducedthemajorissuesthatenterthediscussionofidentityinellipsisbyproviding examplesofbothsyntacticandsemanticapproachesandsomeempiricalcoverageoftheseproposals.Whiletheproper characterizationoftheidentityconditionisstillnotinsight,theevidencereviewedappearstosuggestthatoneneedsboth kindsofapproaches.Inotherwords,atleastpartoftheidentityrequirementissyntactic,andanotherpartissemantic.One analyticpossibilityistostateidentityasaJanus-facedissue,asisproposedinhybridtheories,suchasRooth(1992),

Chung(2006,2013),Merchant(2008a,2013c),vanCraenenbroeck(2012),AnderBois(2010),(seealsoKehler,2002).

Theseadheretotheviewthatrecoveryofelidedmaterialisguidedbybothsemanticandsyntacticidentityconditions. Thechallengeforcurrenttheoriesofellipsisidentityistodefinehowsemanticsandsyntaxcomplementeachother, whethertherearewaysofderivingonefromtheother.Anotherchallengeisempirical,predictionsofbothtypesoftheories shouldbetestedagainstacross-linguisticallyrepresentativesetofdata,whichwouldbeawelcomeshiftfromthe English-basedtheorizingthathascharacterizedthelastfewdecades.

Thepapers in this volumetake up both of thesechallenges. Empirically, they are rich in novelobservations in languagesotherthanEnglish.Thoms,Merchant,Cecchettoetal.,andKimprovidenewdataandgeneralizationsfor syntacticidentityfromdifferentlanguages:ThomsfurnishesnovelevidenceforidentityfromScottishGaelic,Cecchetto etal.from ItalianSignLanguage,Merchant frombilingualcodeswitching,andKimreviewscasematchingeffectsin sluicingin Korean.Thefirst threepapersalsoput forwardnovelargumentsfor asyntacticidentitycondition.Thoms proposesanall-encompassingtheoryofParallelism-basedsyntacticidentitydefinedasa requirementof isomoprhic variablebindingconfigurations.Kobeleoffersaderivationalmodelofellipsisresolutionsimilarbut notidenticaltoLF copyingthatstraightforwardly derivesmanysyntacticidentityeffects.Kimarguesfora non-sententialapproachwith contextualconstraintsderivingsyntacticconnectivityeffects.

Therestofthissectionsummarizestheresultsofthesefivepapers.

GaryThomsinSyntacticidentity,Parallelismandaccommodatedantecedentsmakesacaseforsyntacticidentity,but oneinwhichtheidentityrelationpermitssome‘‘looseness’’byallowingaccommodatedantecedents.Thepapershows thatmanyviolationsofidentity,suchasvoicemismatches,sproutingwithprepositionstranding,someinstancesof case-mismatches(fromChung,2013)canbetracedbacktoaviolationofparallelism,thelatterdefinedasanisomorphism requirementwithrespecttobindingconfigurationsregulatingthepositionofbindersandbindeesinA-barmovementand headmovement.Asacrucialargumenttowardsthisconclusion,thepaperreconsidersthepatternsofWarner’sAuxiliary VerbGeneralizationaswellasnoveldatafromScottishGaelicV-strandingellipsisthatresemblethedistributionofEnglish have/beunderellipsis.InGaelic,thestrandedverbanditsantecedentcandifferinbeingalexicaloranauxiliaryverb,but onlyinonedirection:anauxiliarycanantecedetheellipsiswithafiniteverb(43a),butafiniteverbmaynotantecede ellipsiswheretheverbalelementisanauxiliary(43b).

(43) a. A: [FinP T[pres]+auxi [TP subjti...[VPV...]]]

E: [FinP T[fut]+Vi < [TP subjti...[VPti...]]>]

b. A: [FinP T[past]+Vi [TP subjti...[VPti...]]]

E: * [FinP T[pres]+auxi < [TP subjti...[VPV...]]>]

TakingauxiliariestobebasegeneratedhigherthanlexicalverbsinT,andbothraisingtoFin,Thomsarguesthatthe ungrammaticalconfigurationcanbecapturedasaviolationofparallelismofbindingconfigurations:avariablecannot provideanantecedentforellipsisofanon-variable,whichexplains(43b).Theauthorarguestheoppositepatternis well-formed,however,asparallelismcanbecalculatedonthebasisofnear-identicalaccommodatedantecedents,whichin thiscasemeansthatavariablecanbeaccommodatedinthepositionoftheverb.Thomsdefinesaccommodationasa

13_One_possible_way_of_‘‘_tweaking_’’_syntactic_identity_theories_is_to_allow_the_identity_relation_to_compare_the_elided_material_not_only_to_its_actual linguisticantecedent,butalsotoanantecedentthatisaccommodatedonthebasisofthelinguisticone(Johnson,2012a;vanCraenenbroeck, 2013).AsvanCraenenbroeck(2013)argues,thelexicalingredientsofclefts(copulasandit)shouldbefreelyavailableuponaccommodationas suchentitiesareevenavailableintheabsenceoflinguisticantecedents(Merchant,2004).Discourseinitialfragments,forexample,arearguably containedinanon-pronouncedcleftstructure,asindicatedbytheuseofthetagquestionappendedtothefragmentinthenextexample:

(i) Itisniceweather,isn’tit?

(13)

process yielding structurally defined alternatives to the antecedent, following Katzir’s (2007) syntactic model of accommodation,whereinalternativescanbederivedbydeletion,contractionandsubstitutionofmaterial,butonlyup tothelevelofcomplexityoftheaccommodatedmaterial.Importantly,accommodationcannotincreasethecomplexityof thesourcee.g.byaddingaverb,thusrulingoutaccommodationinthecaseof(43b).Thoms’modelthusallowsforthe ‘looseness’ofidentityviastructurallyandsemanticallyrestrictedaccommodation.

JasonMerchant’scontributionOnineffablepredicates:BilingualGreek-Englishcodeswitchingunderellipsisextends thesearchfortheidentityconditionintobilingualcode-switchingandidentifiescontextsinwhichellipticalcode-switching producesgrammaticalresultsthatareungrammaticalwithoutellipsistakingplace.Onthebasisofthefindingsof

González-VilbazoandRamos(2012)andNee(2012),Merchantshowsthatbilingualcode-switchinginellipticalutterancesadheresto

astrongsyntacticrequirement:code-switchinginsluicing(wherebytheantecedentandthewh-remnantareindifferent languages)isonlygrammaticalifthewh-remnantshowsthecaserequiredbythepredicateintheantecedent.Onthebasisof this,MerchantdefinestheCode-SwitchingEllipsisGeneralizationstatingthatellipsissitesundercode-switchingalways involveswitchingbacktothelanguageofthe antecedent---whichisevidencethatellipsisisresolvedbyidentitytothe linguisticmaterialandnottosemanticmeaning(asthemeaningisthesameinbothlanguagesinvolvedintheswitch):

(44) Code-SwitchingEllipsisGeneralization

Allapparentlycross-languageellipsesinvolvecode-switchingattheellipsisside(intothelanguageofthe antecedent).

Merchant also shows that while the antecedent in code-switching examples corresponds to the other language, reconstructing the ellipsis siteusing the material of the antecedent canfail for reasons having to do with morpho-syntactic composition. Inspontaneous utterancesof Greek-English bilinguals, the followingGreek question can be answeredwithanellipticalEnglishanswer(B1)lackingaverbphrase,butcannotbeansweredinthesamewaywhenthe verbphraseispronouncedinGreek:

(45) A: Píres tin tsánda mazí su? took.2s the bag with you ‘Didyoutakethebagwithyou?’ B1: Yes,Idid.

B2:* Yes,Idid píra tin tsánda mazí mu take.ACT.PERF.PAST.1s the bag with me

B3:* Yes,Idid pern tin tsánda mazí mu take[stem.form] the bag with me

MerchantarguesthatthepredicatesinB2andB3areineffable(cannotbepronounced)becauseofamorphological probleminthederivationoftheGreekverbform.AGreekverbcannotbemorphologicallyconvergentwithouttheverbal stemestablishingalocalrelationwiththeTensehead,butTenseisoccupiedbytheEnglishauxiliaryintheseexamples. Ellipsis,understoodhereasvocabularynon-insertion,savesthederivation,asthepartialfeaturebundledoesnotget matchedwitha vocabularyitem.In effectthiscomes downtoamorphologicalrepaireffect ofellipsisthat savesan otherwiseunpronounceablestructure.

ThepaperbyCarloCecchetto,AlessandraChecchetto,CarloGeraci,MirkoSantoroandSandroZucchiThe syntaxofpredicateellipsisinItalianSignLanguage(LIS)isastudyofpredicateellipsisinItalianSignLanguage,anSOV language withpostverbal modal/auxiliarymarkers. Predicate ellipsisisearmarked bythe obligatory presenceof an adverbialsignsuchasSAME,AS-WELL,NOorYES,andcancontainmodals,futureauxiliariesortheperfectivemarker. TheauthorsarguethattheellipsisinsuchclausescorrespondstoEnglish-typeauxiliary-strandingVPellipsis(andnot stripping),observingthatitcanbeembedded,anditcanprecedeitsantecedent.Againstthisbackground,thepaperoffers anargumentforsyntacticidentityfromtherealmofadverbincorporation,aphenomenoninwhichadverbscanbesigned inasinglelexicalitemtogetherwiththeverb.Incorporatedandnon-incorporatedadverbscanexpressthesamemeaning:

(46) MARIOMEATEATQUICKLY./MARIOMEATEAT-QUICKLY. ‘Marioeatsmeatquickly.’

Underpredicateellipsis,however,withacontrastiveremnantintheellipticalclause,theuseoftheincorporatedformis ungrammaticalinthesamereading:

(14)

(48) MARIOMEATEAT-QUICKLY.GIANNISAMESLOWLY. ‘*Marioeatsmeatquickly.Giannidoesthatslowly.’

Theauthorsarguethat thispatternisexplainedundersyntactic identity:the ungrammaticality of(48)withthe given readingisduetothefactthattheellipsissitecontainsthepredicateMEATEAT-QUICKLY,andcannotbeexpressedvia thenon-incorporatedpattern,eventhoughthetwopatternsaretruth-conditionallyidentical.Theauthorsalsopresentan argumentforsyntacticidentityfromtherealmofstrict/sloppyidentity,andnotethatvehiclechangeeffectsareobservedas well,posingproblemsforstrictsyntacticidentitytheoriesjustasinotherlanguages.

GregoryKobele’scontribution,LFcopyingwithoutLF,offersaderivationalcopyingaccountofellipsisresolutioninthe minimalistgrammarformalism(Stabler,1997).Departingfromstandardminimalistpractice,thenotionofstructurethat Kobeleappealstoisthatofthederivationalprocessitself.Standardnotionsofsubstructures,suchassubtrees,or(less standardly) subtrees with missing pieces, are, from this perspective, derivational subprocesses and derivational subproceduresrespectively.Ellipsisresolutioninvolvescopyingthemeaningderivedbyaprocedure(i.e.themeaning derivedbyrepeatingasequenceofderivationalsteps)attheellipsissite.Inthis,theproposaldiffersfromLFcopying accountsinthatthematerialthatiscopiedfromantecedenttoellipsissiteisnotarepresentation,butratherthemeaningofa derivation. InKobele’smodel, ellipsis isan operation,which herepresents as*e*, parameterizedby the typeof the derivationalprocesswhosemeaningistobecopied.Thenotionofderivationaltypeisofthesamekindasthemorefamiliar semantictypes,withthedifferencebeingthattheatomicderivationaltypesrepresentthesyntacticcategoryoftheobjects whicharetheresultofthederivations.Thedifferenttypesguidethecopymechanismandallowdistincttypesofelliptical processestobedissimilarintheirproperties(gapping,sluicing,VPellipsis,etc.).Onedeficiencyofthepresentaccountisthat thetypesofellipticalprocessesKobeleneedsdonotlineupinaone-to-onemannerwithourintuitivecategorizationof ellipticalconstructions(gapping,sluicing,VPellipsis,etc.).Thusinthissystemactive-activeandpassive-passiveVPEare notinstancesofthesametype,andthereforecouldinprinciplebefoundonewithouttheotherinsomelanguage.

InKobele’ssystem,itisalwayspossibletoapplyanellipsisoperationprovidedthesyntactictypeoftheargumentis appropriate.Themeaningofanellipsisoperationisdeterminedbyidentifyinganantecedent(aderivationalsubprocess)of thecorrecttypeinthediscoursecontext,andsimplyreusingitsmeaning.Ifthereisnoappropriateantecedent,themeaningof theellipsissitecannotbereconstructed.Kobeleshowsthattheproposedmechanismstraightforwardlyderivessyntactic identityeffectsinmanycontets,suchasvoicemismatches;orthebanonprepositionstrandinginsprouting,andthe P-strandinggeneralizationofMerchant(2001).ThebanonP-strandinginsproutingforexamplefollowsfromthefactthatthe antecedentofsproutingnevercontainsapreposition,thusneithercanwhatiscopiedintotheellipsissite.

JongbokKim’sSyntacticandSemanticIdentityinKoreanSluicing:ADirectInterpretationApproachprovidesa non-structuralapproachtoKoreansluicingandsprouting.Theauthorarguesagainststructuralapproachestosluicingthat assumeadeletionoperationfollowingfocusmovementoftheremnant,oroperatingonapseudocleft.Thekeyargument againstthelattercomesfromtheavailabilityofmultiplesluicing,whichcontrastwiththeavailabilityofmultiplecleftsinthe language,andwhichcountsasanargumentfor adoptingaDirectInterpretationapproachin whichsluicingdoesnot representasententialutterance.TheaccountiscastintheConstruction-basedHPSGframework,withinwhichellipsis resolutionisbasedona DialogueGameBoard(DGB),the latterbeinga recordofconversationalevents,contextual parameters,andthequestionunderdiscussion,whichserveasthebaseonwhichnon-sententialsareresolved.The analysisisthusdiscoursebased,andsyntacticconnectivityeffects,suchascategorialequivalencebetweenremnantand correlateaswellascaseconnectivityfollowfromconstructionalconstraintsoftheconstruction,andthevariousfeaturesof thecontextualinformation.Koreanshowstheequivalentofthebanonprepositionstrandinginsluicing:whilestructural casescanbemissingontheremnantinsluicing,theycannotbemissingontheremnantinsprouting.Toexplainthisfact withoutreference tosyntacticstructure, Kimproposesthe Fullinstantiationconstraint,whichrequests thatsyntactic information(e.g. case features) not availableat surfacebut updated in the DGBneeds to be fullyspecifiedin the subsequentsyntax.Heputsforwardtheclaimthatsuchaconstraintfacilitatesparsing.Insprouting,thecaseonthe correlateisneededto allowthe interlocutortoidentifythe issue/the questionunderdiscussion, asthere isno overt indefiniteintheantecedentthatcouldsignalit(inthesenseofAnderBois,2010).

4. Thebackgroundofthisissue

(15)

SpecialthankstoCritCremersandAndrésSaabforvarious(email)conversationsontheissueofidentitybeyondthe call of duty on theirpart; to Jeroen vanCraenenbroeck, Jason Merchant and Andrés Saab for comments on this introduction;andtoLeeArmishawforproofreading.Allremainingerrorsaremine.

References

Aelbrecht,Lobke,2015.Ellipsis.In:Kiss,Tibor,Alexiadou,Artemis(Eds.),Syntax--TheoryandAnalysis.AnInternationalHandbook.Handbooks ofLinguisticsandCommunicationScience,vol.42.MoutondeGruyter,Berlin,pp.1--3.

AnderBois,Scott,2010.Sluicingasanaphoratoissues.In:Li,Nan,Lutz,David(Eds.),ProceedingsofSemanticsandLinguisticTheory,vol.20. pp.451--470.

AnderBois,Scott,2011.IssuesandAlternatives.(Doctoraldissertation).UC,SantaCruz.

Aparicio,Helena,Franich,Katie,Xiang,Ming,2014.Morphologicalfeaturemismatchesunderellipsis:aneye-trackingstudy.In:Proceedingsof NELS,vol.45.

Arregui,Ana,CliftonJr.,Charles,Frazier,Lyn,Moulton,Keir,2006.Processingelidedverbphraseswithflawedantecedents:therecycling hypothesis.J.Mem.Lang.55,232--246.

Asher,Nicholas,Hardt,Daniel,Busquets,Joan,1997.Discourseparallelism,scopeandellipsis. In:ProceedingsoftheSeventhConferenceon SemanticsandDiscourseTheory..

Barker,C.,2013.Scopabilityandsluicing.Linguist.Philos.36,187--223.

Barros,Matt,2014.Sluicingandidentityinellipsis.(Doctoraldissertation).RutgersUniversity.

Barros,Matt,vanCraenenbroeck,Jeroen,2013.Tagquestionsandellipsis.TalkpresentedatDeutscheGesellschaftfürSprachwissenschaft 2013.

Barros,Matthew,Vicente,Luis,2015.Aremnantconditionforellipsis. In:ProceedingsofWCCFL,vol.33..

Barros,Matt,Elliott,Patrick,Thoms,Gary,2014.ThereisNoIslandRepair.Availableathttp://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002100

Bresnan,Joan,1971.Anoteonthenotion‘‘identityofsenseanaphora’’.Linguist.Inq.2,589--597.

Cecchetto,C.,Checchetto,A.,Geraci,C.,Santoro,M.,Zucchi,S.,2015.ThesyntaxofpredicateellipsisinItalianSignLanguage(LIS).Lingua 166,214--235.

Chomsky,Noam,1964.CurrentIssuesinLinguisticTheory.Mouton,TheHague. Chomsky,Noam,1965.AspectsoftheTheoryofSyntax.MITPress,Cambridge,MA.

Chung,Sandra,2006.Sluicingandthelexicon:thepointofnoreturn.In:Cover,RebeccaT.,Kim,Yuni(Eds.),Proceedingsoftheannualmeeting oftheBerkeleyLinguisticsSociety. GeneralSessionandParasessiononProsodicVariationandChange,vol.31.BerkeleyLinguistics Society,Berkeley,CA,pp.73--91.

Chung,Sandra,2013.SyntacticidentityinSluicing:howmuchandwhy.Linguist.Inq.44(1),1--44.

Chung,Sandra,Ladusaw,William,McCloskey,James,1995.Sluicingandlogicalform.Nat.Lang.Semant.3,239--282.

Chung, Sandra,Ladusaw, William,McCloskey,James, 2011. Sluicing(:) betweenstructure andinference. In: Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo, Mikkelsen,Line,Potsdam,Eric(Eds.),RepresentingLanguage:EssaysinHonorofJudithAissen.CaliforniaDigitalLibraryeScholarship Repository.LinguisticResearchCenter,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz,pp.31--50.

Culicover,Peter,Jackendoff,Ray,2005.SimplerSyntax.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.

Dalrymple,Mary,Shieber,Stuart,Pereira,Fernando,1991.Ellipsisandhigherorderunification.Linguist.Philos.14,399--452.

Depiante,Marcela,Masullo,José,2001.Géneroynúmeroenlaelipsisnominal:consecuenciasparalahipo´tesislexicalista.In:Paperpresented atthe1stEncuentrodeGramáticaGenerativa.

Doron,Edith,1990.V-movementandVP-ellipsis.(MSthesis).TheHebrewUniversityofJerusalem.

Doron,Edith,1999.V-movementandVP-ellipsis.In:Lappin,S.,Benmamoun,E.(Eds.),Fragments:StudiesinEllipsisandGapping.Oxford UniversityPress,Oxford,pp.124--140.

Elbourne,Paul,2005.SituationsandIndividuals.MITPress,Cambridge,MA.

Elliott,Patrick,Sudo,Yasutada,2014.E-typereadingsofquantifiersunderellipsis.In:TalkPresentedatLAGB2014.. Fiengo,Robert,May,Robert,1994.IndicesandIdentity.MITPress,Cambridge,MA.

Fortin, Catherine, 2007. Indonesian Sluicing and Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Description and Explanation ina Minimalist Framework (PhD. Dissertation).UniversityofMichigan.

Fox,Danny,2000.EconomyandSemanticInterpretation.MITPress,Cambridge,MA.

Fox,Danny,Lasnik,Howard,2003.Successive-cyclicmovementandislandrepair:thedifferencebetweensluicingandVP-ellipsis.Linguist.Inq. 34,143--154.

Fox,Danny,Takahashi,S.,2005.MaxElideandthere-bindingproblem.In:Georgala,E.,Howell,J.(Eds.), ProceedingsofSALT,vol.15.CLC Publications,Ithaca,NY,pp.223--240.

Frazier,Lynn,2013.Arecyclingapproachtoprocessingellipsis.In:Cheng,Lisa,Corver,Norbert(Eds.),DiagnosingEllipsis.OxfordUniversity Press, pp.485--501.

Fu,J.,Roeper,Tom,Borer,Hagit,1996.TheVPwithinnominalizations.(MSthesis).UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst.

Ginzburg,Jonathan,Sag,Ivan,2000.InterrogativeInvestigations:TheForm,MeaningandUseofEnglishInterrogatives.CSLI,Stanford. Goldberg,LotusMadelyn,2005.Verb-strandingVPellipsis:across-linguisticstudy.(Doctoraldissertation).McGillUniversity,Montreal. González-Vilbazo,Kay,Ramos,Sergio,2012.Amorphosyntacticconditiononsluicing:evidencefromSpanish/Germancode-switching.(MS

thesis).UniversityofIllinoisatChicago.

Gribanova,Vera,2013.Verb-strandingverbphraseellipsisandthestructureoftheRussianverbalcomplex.Nat.Lang.Linguist.Theory31, 91--136.

Griffiths,James,Lipták,Aniko´,2014.Contrastandislandsensitivityinclausalellipsis.Syntax17(3),189--234.

(16)

Hardt,Daniel,1993.Verbphraseellipsis:form,meaningandprocessing.(Doctoraldissertation).UniversityofPennsylvania. Hardt,Daniel,1999.Dynamicinterpretationofverbphraseellipsis.Linguist.Philos.22,185--219.

Hendriks,Petra,2004.Coherencerelations,ellipsisandcontrastivetopics.J.Semant.21,375--414.

Hendriks,Petra,Spenader,Jennifer,2005.Whybesilent?Somefunctionsofellipsisinnaturallanguages. In:ProceedingsoftheESSLLI_’05 WorkshoponCross-ModularApproachestoEllipsis.Heriot-WattUniversity,Edinburgh,pp.29--33.

Johnson,Kyle,2001.WhatVP-ellipsiscando,andwhatitcan’t,butnotwhy.In:Baltin,M.,Collins,C.(Eds.),TheHandbookofContemporary SyntacticTheory.Blackwell, pp.439--479.

Johnson,Kyle(Ed.),2008.TopicsinEllipsis.CambridgeUniversityPress.

Johnson,Kyle,2012a.Ellipsis.In:FourInvitedLecturesatLeidenUniversity, TheNetherlands,19--22March. Johnson,Kyle,2012b.Onderivingvehiclechange.In:TalkGivenatLeidenUniversity, TheNetherlands,23March. Johnson,Kyle,2014.Commentaryon‘Gendermismatchesundernominalellipsis’byJasonMerchant.Lingua151,33--42. Katzir,Roni,2007.Structurally-definedalternatives.Linguist.Philos.30,669--690.

Kehler,Andrew,2002.CoherenceinDiscourse.CSLIPublications,Stanford,CA.

Kempson,Ruth,Meyer-Viol,Wilfried,Gabbav,Dov,1999.VPellipsis:towardadynamic,structuralaccount.In:Lappin,S.,Benmamoun,E.(Eds.), Fragments:StudiesinEllipsisandGapping.OUP.

Kennedy,Chris,2008.Argumentcontainedellipsis.InJohnson(2008)95--131.

Kim,J.-B.,2015.SyntacticandsemanticidentityinKoreansluicing:Adirectinterpretationapproach.Lingua166,260--293. Kitagawa,Yoshihisa,1991.Copyingidentity.Nat.Lang.Linguist.Theory9,497--536.

Klein,Wolfgang,1993.Ellipse.In:vonStechow,A.,etal.(Eds.),HandbuchderSyntax.MoutondeGruyter,Berlin.

Klima,EdwardS.,1964.NegationinEnglish.In:JerryFodor,JerroldKatz,(Eds.),Thestructureoflanguage:Readingsinthephilosophyof language.Prentice-Hall,EnglewoodCliffs,NewJersey,pp.246--323.

Kobele,G.M.,2015.LF-copyingwithoutLF.Lingua166,236--259.

Lappin,Shalom,1996.Theinterpretationofellipsis.In:Lappin,Shalom(Ed.),TheHandbookofContemporarySemanticTheory.Blackwell, Oxford,pp.145--175.

Lasnik,Howard,1995.Verbalmorphology:syntacticstructuresmeetstheminimalistprogram.In:Campos,Héctor,Kempchinsky,Paula(Eds.), EvolutionandRevolutioninlinguisticTheory:EssaysinHonorofCarlosOtero.GeorgetownUniversityPress,Georgetown,pp.251--268. Lasnik,Howard,2001.Whencanyousaveastructurebydestroyingit?In:Kim,Minjoo,Strauss,Uri(Eds.),ProceedingsoftheNorthEast

LinguisticSociety,vol.31.pp.301--320.

Levin,Lori,1982.Sluicing:alexicalinterpretationprocedure.In:Bresnan,J.(Ed.),TheMentalRepresentationofGrammaticalRelations.MIT Press,Cambridge,MA,pp.590--654.

Levin,Beth,2003.Objecthoodandobjectalternations.In:HandoutfromaTalkGivenattheDepartmentofLinguistics,UCLA.Availableathttp:// web.stanford.edu/bclevin/ucla03alt.pdf(accessed02.05.03)

McCloskey,James,1991.Clausestructure,ellipsisandpropergovernmentinIrish.Lingua85,259--302. McCloskey,James,2005.OnGoldberg.In:WorkshopinIdentityinEllipsis.Handout.Univ.ofCaliforniaBerkeley.

Merchant,Jason,2001.TheSyntaxofSilence:Sluicing,Islands,andtheTheoryofEllipsis.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford. Merchant,Jason,2004.Fragmentsandellipsis.Linguist.Philos.27,661--738.

Merchant,Jason,2008a.AnasymmetryinvoicemismatchesinVP-ellipsis.Linguist.Inq.39,169--179.

Merchant,Jason,2008b.Revisitingsyntacticidentityconditions.In:TalkGivenatWorkshoponEllipsis.UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley. Merchant,Jason,2013a.Polarityitemsunderellipsis.In:Cheng,Lisa,Corver,Norbert(Eds.),DiagnosingEllipsis.OxfordUniversityPress, pp.

441--462.

Merchant,Jason,2013b.Diagnosingellipsis.In:Cheng,Lisa,Corver,Norbert(Eds.),DiagnosingEllipsis.OxfordUniversityPress,pp.537--542. Merchant,Jason,2013c.Voiceandellipsis.Linguist.Inq.44,77--108.

Merchant,Jason,2014.Gendermismatchesundernominalellipsis.Lingua151,9--32.

Merchant,J.,2015.Onineffablepredicates:BilingualGreek--Englishcode-switchingunderellipsis.Lingua166,199--213.

Messick,Troy,Saab,Andrés,Vicente,Luis,2015.Deeppropertiesofasurfaceanaphor:onthecontextualrestrictionofsluicingsites.(MSthesis). UniversityofConnecticut/UniversityofBuenosAires/UniversitätPotsdam.

Miller,Philip,Hemforth,Barbara,2013.Verbphraseellipsiswithnominalantecedents.(MSthesis).UniversitéParisDiderot. Nee,Julia,2012.Spanish/Zapoteccode-switchingandthetheoryofellipsis.BAHonorsthesis.UniversityofChicago.

Nunes,Jairo,Zocca,Cyntia,2009.LackofmorphologicalidentityandellipsisresolutioninBrazilianPortuguese.In:Nunes,J.(Ed.),Minimalist EssaysonBrazilianPortugueseSyntax.JohnBenjamins,Amsterdam,pp.215--236.

Portner,Paul,2007.Imperativesandmodals.Nat.Lang.Semant.15,351--383.

Postal,Paul.,1966.Onso-called‘pronouns’inEnglish.In:FrancisDinneen(Eds.),ReportontheSeventeenthAnnualRoundTableMeetingon LinguisticsandLanguageStudies.GeorgetownUniversityPress,Washington,DC,pp.177--206.

Potsdam,Eric,1997.EnglishverbalmorphologyandVPellipsis.In:Kusumoto,Kiyomi(Ed.), ProceedingsofNorthEastLinguisticSociety,vol. 27.McGillUniversity:GraduateStudentLinguisticAssociation, pp.353--368.

Potsdam,Eric,2007.Malagasysluicinganditsconsequencesfortheidentityrequirementonellipsis.Nat.Lang.Linguist.Theory25,577--613. Prüst,Hub,1993.GappingandVPanaphora.(Doctoraldissertation).UniversityofAmsterdam.

Reich,Ingo,2007.Towardauniformanalysisofshortanswersandgapping.In:KerstinSchwabe,SusanneWinkler,(Eds.),Oninformation Structure,MeaningandForm.JohnBenjamins,Amsterdam,pp.467--484.

Rodrigues,Cilene,Nevins,Andrew,Vicente,Luis,2009.CleavingtheinteractionsbetweensluicingandP-stranding.In:DanièleTorck,Wetzels, LeoW.(Eds.),RomanceLanguageandLinguisticTheory2006.JohnBenjamins,Amsterdam,pp.245--270.

Rooryck,Johan,Schoorlemmer,Erik,2014.Mistakenidentity.Ellipsis,identityandunderspecification.In:TalkGivenatLSA. Rooth,Mats,1992.Ellipsisredundancyandreductionredundancy. In:ProceedingsoftheStuttgartEllipsisWorkshop.p.29.

(17)

Ross,JohnRobert,1969.Guesswho?In:Binnick,R.,Davison,A.,Green,G.,Morgan,J.(Eds.),Papersfromthe5thRegionalMeetingofthe ChicagoLinguisticSociety.ChicagoLinguisticSociety,Chicago,pp.252--286.

Rouveret,Alain,2011.VPellipsis,phasesandthesyntaxofmorphology.Nat.Lang.Linguist.Theory30(3),897--963. Saab,Andrés,2008.Haciaunateoríadelaidentidadparcialenlaelipsis.(PhDdissertation).UniversidaddeBuenosAires.

Saab,Andrés,2014.IneffablenarrativesinSpanish:anothercaseofovergenerationbye-GIVENness.Probus. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/probus-2014-0014

Sag,Ivan.,1976.Deletionandlogicalform.(Doctoraldissertation).MIT,Cambridge,MA.

Sag,Ivan,Hankamer,Jorge,1984.Towardatheoryofanaphoricprocessing.Linguist.Philos.7,325--345.

SanPietro,StevenA.,Xiang,Ming,Merchant,Jason,2008.Accountingforvoicemismatchinellipsis.In:Arnett,Nathan,Bennett,Ryan(Eds.), Proceedingsofthe30thWestCoastConferenceonFormalLinguistics.CascadillaPress,Somerville,MA,pp.32--42.

Schoorlemmer,Erik,Temmerman,Tanja,2012.HeadmovementasaPF-phenomenon.Evidencefromidentityunderellipsis.In:Choi,Jaehoon, etal.(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe29thWestCoastConferenceonFormalLinguistics.CascadillaProceedingsProject,Somerville,MA,pp. 232--240.

Schwarzschild,Roger,1999.GIVENness,AVOIDF,andotherconstraintsontheplacementofaccent.Nat.Lang.Semant.7,141--177. Stabler,EdwardP.,1997.Derivationalminimalism.In:Retoré,C.(Ed.),LogicalAspectsofComputationalLinguistics.LectureNotesinComputer

Science,vol.1328.Springer,Berlin,pp.68--95.

Tanaka,Hidekazu,2011a.Voicemismatchandsyntacticidentity.Linguist.Inq.42(3),470--490. Tanaka,Hidekazu,2011b.Syntacticidentityandellipsis.Linguist.Rev.28,79--110.

Tancredi,Christopher,1992.Deletion,deaccentingandpresupposition.(PhDdissertation).MassachusettsofTechnology.

Thoms,Gary,2013.Lexicalmismatchesinellipsisandtheidentitycondition.In:Keine,S.,Sloggett,S.(Eds.), ProceedingsofNELS,vol.42. GLSAPublications,Amherst,MA,pp.559--572.

Thoms,G.,2015.Syntacticidentity,Parallelismandaccommodatedantecedents.Lingua166,172--198. Thoms,Gary,toappear.Pseudogapping,parallelismandthesyntaxoffocus.Syntax.

Tomioka,Satoshi,2008.Astep-by-stepguidetoellipsisresolution.In:Johnson,K.(Ed.),TopicsinEllipsis.CambridgeUniversityPress,pp. 210--227.

vanCraenenbroeck,Jeroen,2007.Invisiblesyntax:sluicing,cleftsandLF-copy.In:TalkGivenatLeidenUniversity..

vanCraenenbroeck,Jeroen,2010.Invisiblelastresort:anoteoncleftsastheunderlyingsourceofsluicing.Lingua120(7),1714--1726. vanCraenenbroeck,Jeroen,2012.Ellipsis,IdentityandAccommodation.Ms.KULeuvenHUBrusselAccessedon28-8-2015at:http://static1.

squarespace.com/static/5217e223e4b090faa01f8f2d/t/54081f1be4b0371c21188146/1409818395988/paper+ellipsis+and+accommodation. pdf

vanCraenenbroeck,Jeroen,2013.Ellipsis,accommodation,andidentity.In:TalkGivenattheIdentityinEllipsisConference, Leiden,the Netherlands,20--21September.

vanCraenenbroeck,Jeroen,Merchant,Jason,2013.Ellipticalphenomena.In:denDikken,Marcel(Ed.),CambridgeHandbookofGenerative Syntax.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,pp.701--745.

Vicente,Luis,toappear.Morphologicalcasemismatchesundersluicing.Snippets29.

Warner,Anthony,1986.EllipsisConditionsandtheStatusoftheEnglishCopula. YorkPapersinlinguistics,vol.12.pp.153--172. Warner,Anthony,1993.EnglishAuxiliaries:StructureandHistory.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

Webber,Bonnie,1978.Aformalapproachtodiscourseanaphora.(Doctoraldissertation).HarvardUniversity. Weir,Andrew,2014.Fragmentsandclausalellipsis.(PhDdissertation).UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst. Williams,Edwin,1977.Discourseandlogicalform.Linguist.Inq.8,103--139.

Winkler,Suzanne,2005.EllipsisandFocus.MoutondeGruyter.

Yoshida,Masaya,2010.‘‘Antecedent-contained’’sluicing.Linguist.Inq.41,348--356.

Aniko´ Lipták LUCL,LeidenUniversity,P.O.Box9515,2300RALeiden,TheNetherlands E-mailaddress:[email protected](A.Lipták).