David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping in English show a previously unnoticed asymmetry in their tolerance for voice mismatch: while VP-ellipsis allows mismatches in voice between the elided VP and its antecedent, pseudogapping does not. This difference is unexpected under current analyses of pseudogapping, which posit that pseudogapping is a kind of VP-ellipsis. I show that this difference falls out naturally if the target of deletion in the two cases differs slightly: in VP-ellipsis, a node lower than [voi(ce)] is deleted, while in pseudogapping a node containing [voi] is deleted. Moreover, this analysis accounts for a new observation concerning the distribution of floating quantifiers in these two constructions
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Philipp Koralus (2013). Descriptions, Ambiguity, and Representationalist Theories of Interpretation. Philosophical Studies 162 (2):275-290.
Similar books and articles
Mary Dalrymple, Stuart M. Shieber & Fernando C. N. Pereira (1991). Ellipsis and Higher-Order Unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14 (4):399 - 452.
Jason Merchant (2005). Fragments and Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (6):661 - 738.
Kyle Johnson (2001). What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What It Can't, but Not Why. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell. 439--479.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #78,230 of 1,679,307 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #78,911 of 1,679,307 )
How can I increase my downloads?