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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Descriptions, Ambiguity, and Representationalist Theories of Interpretation.Philipp Koralus - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 162 (2):275-290.
Similar books and articles
Ellipsis and Higher-Order Unification.Mary Dalrymple, Stuart M. Shieber & Fernando C. N. Pereira - 1991 - Linguistics and Philosophy 14 (4):399 - 452.
What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What It Can't, but Not Why.Kyle Johnson - 2001 - In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell. pp. 439--479.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads46 ( #111,764 of 2,158,146 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #356,322 of 2,158,146 )
How can I increase my downloads?