Ellipsis (linguistics)

In linguistics, ellipsis (from the Greek: ἔλλειψις, élleip-sis, “omission”) or elliptical construction refers to theomission from a clause of one or more words that arenevertheless understood in the context of the remainingelements. There are numerous distinct types of ellip-sis acknowledged in theoretical syntax. This article pro-vides an overview of them. Theoretical accounts of el-lipsis can vary greatly depending in part upon whether aconstituency-based or a dependency-based theory of syn-tactic structure is pursued.

1 Preliminary comments

Varieties of ellipsis have long formed a central expli-candum for linguistic theory, since elliptical phenomenaseem to be able to shed light on basic questions of form–meaning correspondence: in particular, the usual mech-anisms of grasping a meaning from a form seem to bebypassed or supplanted in the interpretation of ellipticalstructures, ones in which there is meaning without form.In generative linguistics, the term ellipsis has been appliedto a range of phenomena in which a perceived interpre-tation is fuller than that which would be expected basedsolely on the presence of linguistic forms.One trait that many types and instances of ellipsis have incommon is that the appearance of ellipsis is optional. Theoccurrence of VP-ellipsis, for instance, is often optional,e.g. He will help, and she will (help), too. Whether or notthe verb help is elided in this sentence is up to the speakerand to communicative aspects of the situational context inwhich the sentence is uttered. This optionality is a clearindication of ellipsis. At other times, however, ellipsisseems to be obligatory, for instance with cases of compar-ative deletion, e.g. *More girls were there today than girlswere there yesterday. The second occurrence of girlsmustbe omitted in this sentence (More girls were there todaythan were there yesterday). The obligatory occurrence ofellipsis complicates the analysis, since one can argue thatobligatory cases are not really instances of ellipsis at all,but rather a null pro-form is involved. These aspects ofthe theory should be kept in mind when considering thevarious types and instances of ellipsis enumerated below.

2 Types of ellipsis

There are numerous widely acknowledged types of el-lipsis. Nine of them are mentioned and briefly illus-

trated below: 1) gapping, 2) stripping, 3) VP-ellipsis, 4)pseudogapping, 5) answer fragments, 6) sluicing, 7) N-ellipsis, 8) comparative deletion, and 9) null complementanaphora. One should note that there is no unanimityamong experts that all nine of the mechanisms should in-deed qualify as ellipsis. Most experts would agree, how-ever, that most of the nine are in fact ellipsis. The discus-sion below takes their status as ellipsis largely for granted.The example sentences below employ the conventionwhereby the elided material is indicated with subscriptsand smaller font size.

2.1 Gapping

Gapping occurs in coordinate structures. Redundant ma-terial that is present in the immediately preceding clausecan be “gapped”. This gapped material usually contains afinite verb. Canonical cases have a true “gap” insofar as aremnant appears to the left and to the right of the elidedmaterial.

John can play the guitar, and Maryₐ ₐ the violin. - GappingFred took a picture of you, and Su-san ₒₒ ₐ ᵢ ᵤᵣₑ of me. - Gapping

While canonical cases have medial gaps as in these twosentences, the gap need not be medial, and it can even bediscontinuous, e.g.

She persuaded him to do the home-work, and he ₑᵣ ᵤₐ ₑ her ₒ ₒ ₑ ₒ ₑ-ₒᵣ . - GappingShould I call you, or ₒᵤ you ₐme? - Gapping

While these two sentences again each have two remnants,the gapped material is no longer continuous. There are ina sense two gaps in each of the gapped clauses. Gappinghas been thoroughly studied, and it is therefore reason-ably well understood, although the theoretical analysescan vary significantly.

2.2 Stripping

Stripping is also known as bare argument ellipsis. Manylinguists take stripping to be a particular manifestation of

1

2 2 TYPES OF ELLIPSIS

gapping whereby just one remnant appears in the gappedclause instead of the two (or more) that occur in instancesof gapping. The fact that stripping is limited to occurringin coordinate structures is the main reason why strippingis integrated into the analysis of gapping:

John can play the guitar, and Maryₐ ₐ ₑ ᵤᵢ ₐᵣ, too. - StrippingSam has attempted problem 1twice, and ₑ ₐ ₐ ₑ ₑ problem 2also. - Stripping

These examples illustrate that stripping is flexible inso-far as the remnant in the stripped clause is not limited infunction; it can, for instance, be a subject as in the firstsentence or an object as in the second sentence. A par-ticularly frequent type of stripping is not-stripping, e.g.

Sam did it, not Fred ᵢ ᵢ . - not-StrippingSally is working on Monday, ₑ ᵢₒᵣ ᵢ not on Tuesday. - not-Stripping

Not-stripping’s status as a form of ellipsis can be debated,since the non-elliptical versions of these sentences are un-acceptable. The key trait of ellipsis, namely, is that bothversions are supposed to be acceptable (the elliptical andnon-elliptical version).

2.3 Verb phrase ellipsis

Verb phrase ellipsis (also VP-ellipsis or VPE) is a par-ticularly frequent form of ellipsis in English. VP-ellipsiselides a non-finite VP. The ellipsis must be introduced byan auxiliary verb or by the particle to.

John can play the guitar; Mary canₐ ₑ ᵤᵢ ₐᵣ, too. - VP-ellipsisHe has done it before, which meanshe will ₒ ᵢ again. - VP-ellipsis

An aspect of VP-ellipsis that is unlike gapping and strip-ping is that it can occur forwards or backwards. That is,the ellipsis can precede or follow its antecedent, e.g.

The man who wanted to order thesalmon did ₒᵣ ₑᵣ ₑ ₐ ₒ . - VP-ellipsisThe man who wanted to ₒᵣ ₑᵣ ₑₐ ₒ did order the salmon. - VP-ellipsis

Of the various ellipsis mechanisms, VP-ellipsis has prob-ably been studied the most and it is therefore relativelywell understood.

2.4 Pseudogapping

Many linguists take pseudogapping to be a particularmanifestation of VP-ellipsis (not of gapping). Like VP-ellipsis, pseudogapping is introduced by an auxiliary verb.Pseudogapping differs from VP-ellipsis, however, inso-far as the elided VP is not entirely gone, but rather one(or more) remnants of the VP appear. This aspect ofpseudogapping gives it the outward appearance of gap-ping. Pseudogapping occurs frequently in comparativeand contrastive contexts:

They have been eating the applesmore than they have ₑₑ ₑₐ ᵢ the or-anges. - PseudogappingI will feed the chickens today if youwill ₑₑ ₑ ᵢ ₑ tomorrow. - Pseu-dogapping

Pseudogapping is more restricted in distribution than VP-ellipsis. For instance it can hardly occur backwards, i.e.the ellipsis can hardly precede its antecedent. Further ex-amples:

Would you want to say that to me,or would I ₐ ₒ ₐ ₐ to you? -PseudogappingThey could read this book moreeasily than they could ᵣₑₐ that book.- Pseudogapping

Another noteworthy trait of pseudogapping (and one thatsupports the view that it is a type of VP-ellipsis) is that itabsent from languages related to English.

2.5 Answer ellipsis

Answer ellipsis associated with question-answer pairs in-volves ellipsis. The question focuses an unknown piece ofinformation, often using an interrogative word (e.g. who,what, when, etc.). The corresponding answer providesthe missing information and in so doing, the redundantinformation that appeared in the question is elided, e.g.

Q: Who has been hiding the truth?A: Billy ₐ ₑₑ ᵢ ᵢ ₑ ᵣᵤ . - AnswerfragmentQ:What have you been trying to ac-complish? A: I ₐᵥₑ ₑₑ ᵣ ᵢ ₒ ₐ ₒ -ᵢ This darn crossword. - Answerfragment

The fragment answers in these two sentences are verb ar-guments (subject and object NPs). The fragment can alsocorrespond to an adjunct, e.g.

2.8 Comparative deletion 3

Q: When does the circus start? A:T ₑ ᵢᵣ ᵤ ₐᵣ Tomorrow. - AnswerfragmentQ: Why has the campaign been socrazy? A: T ₑ ₐ ₐᵢ ₐ ₑₑ ₒ ᵣₐDue to the personalities. - Answerfragment

Answer ellipsis occurs in most if not all languages. It isa very frequent type of ellipsis that is omnipresent in ev-eryday communication between speakers.

2.6 Sluicing

Sluicing usually elides everything from a direct or indi-rect question except the question word. It is a frequenttype of ellipsis that appears to occur in most if not all lan-guages. It can operate both forwards and backwards likeVP-ellipsis, but unlike gapping, stripping, answer frag-ments, and pseudogapping, e.g.

John can play something, but I don’tknow what ₑ ₐ ₐ . - SluicingWhen ₑ ᵢ ₐ I don't know, butJohn will definitely call. - Sluicing

The sluicing illustrated with these two sentences has oc-curred in indirect questions. Sluicing in direct questionsis illustrated with the following two examples:

A: Something unusual happened.B: What ₐ ₑ ₑ ? - SluicingA: He has been working on theproblem. B: When ₐ ₑ ₑₑ ₒᵣ ᵢₒ ₑ ᵣₒ ₑ ? - Sluicing

Sluicing has been studied intensely in the past decadeand can be viewed as a relatively well understood ellipsismechanism, although the theoretical analysis of certainaspects of sluicing remains controversial.

2.7 Nominal ellipsis

Noun ellipsis (also N-ellipsis, N'-ellipsis, NP-ellipsis,NPE, ellipsis in the DP) occurs when the noun and poten-tially accompanying modifiers are omitted from a nounphrase.[1] Nominal ellipsis occurs with a limited set ofdeterminatives in English (cardinal and ordinal numbersand possessive determiners), whereas it is much freer inother languages. The following examples illustrate nom-inal ellipsis with cardinal and ordinal numbers:

Fred did three onerous tasks be-cause Susan had done two ₒ ₑᵣₒᵤₐ . - nominal ellipsisThe first train and the second ᵣₐᵢhave arrived. - nominal ellipsis

And the following two sentences illustrate nominal ellip-sis with possessive determiners:

I heard Mary’s dog, and you heardBill’s ₒ . - N-ellipsisIf Doris tries my chili, I will try hersᵢ ᵢ. - N-ellipsis

2.8 Comparative deletion

Comparative deletion occurs in comparative clauses in-troduced by than in English. The expression in the com-parative clause is elided that corresponds to the expres-sion focused by a comparative morph such as more or -erin the antecedent clause, e.g.

More people arrived than we ex-pected ₑₒ ₑ would arrive. - Compar-ative deletionShe ordered more beer than wecould drink ₑₑᵣ. - Comparative dele-tionDoris looks more satisfied thanDoreen looks ₐ ᵢ fiₑ . - ComparativedeletionWilliam has friends in more coun-tries than you have friends in ₒᵤ ᵣᵢₑ .- Comparative deletion

Comparative deletion is different from many of the otheroptional ellipsis mechanisms insofar as it is obligatory.The non-elliptical versions of these sentences are unac-ceptable.

2.9 Null complement anaphora

Null complement anaphora elides a complete comple-ment, whereby the elided complement is a finite clause,infinitive phrase, or prepositional phrase. The verbalpredicates that can license null complement anaphoraform a limited set (e.g. know, approve, refuse, decide).Interestingly, the elided complement cannot be a nounphrase.

Q: Do you know what happened?A:No, I don't know ₐ ₐ ₑ ₑ . -Null complement anaphoraQ: Do you approve of the plan? A:No, I don't approve ₒ ₑ ₐ . - Nullcomplement anaphoraThey told Bill to help, but he re-fused ₒ ₑ . - Null complementanaphoraThey offered two ways to spend theday, but I couldn't decide ₑ ₑₑ ₑ .- Null complement anaphora

4 7 REFERENCES

Of the various ellipsis mechanisms, null complementanaphora is the least studied. In this regard, its statusas ellipsis is a point of debate, since its behavior is notconsistent with the behavior of many of the other ellipsismechanisms.

3 Less studied ellipses

Further instances of ellipsis that do not (in a clear way)qualify as any of the ellipsis types listed above:

A: The cat likes Bill. B: Why ₒₑ ₑₐ ᵢ ₑ Bill?What ᵢ ₐ ₑ if I miss the dead-line? .[2]

With such data in mind, it is apparent that more workon ellipsis needs to be done before any sort of completeinventory of ellipsis mechanisms can be stipulated.

4 Theoretical challenges

Theoretical accounts of ellipsis struggle. One reason whythey struggle is that the elided material of many instancesof ellipsis (e.g. the subscriptedmaterial above) often doesnot qualify as a constituent, the constituent being the fun-damental unit of syntactic analysis associated with phrasestructure grammars.[3] What this means is that formal ac-counts of ellipsis must seek some way of accounting forthe fact that many of the ellipsis mechanisms enumeratedabove can elide word combinations that do not qualify asany recognizable unit of (phrase structure) syntax.One widespread approach to the challenge is to assumemovement (or some notion akin to movement).[4] Whathappens is that remnants are moved out of a greater con-stituent first so that the greater constituent can then beelided in full. By assuming movement first and ellipsissecond, a theory of syntax can be maintained that contin-ues to build on the constituent as the fundamental unit ofsyntactic analysis.Another, more recent approach states that the challengesposed by ellipsis to phrase structure theories of syntaxare due precisely to the phrase structure component ofthe grammar. In other words, the difficulties facingphrase structure theories are due the theoretical prereq-uisite that syntactic structure be analyzed in terms ofthe constituents associated with constituency grammars(= phrase structure grammars). If the theory departsfrom phrase structures and acknowledges the dependencystructures of dependency grammars[5] instead, the abil-ity to acknowledge a different sort of syntactic unit asfundamental opens the door to a much more parsimo-nious theory of ellipsis. This unit is the catena.[6] Theassumption is now that ellipsis mechanisms are eliding

catenae, whereby many of these catenae fail to qualifyconstituents. In this manner, the need to posit movementto “rectify” much of the ellipsis data disappears.

5 See also

• Catena (linguistics)

• Constituent (linguistics)

• Dependency grammar

• Ellipsis, about the orthographic usage rules for "...”.

• Gapping

• Phrase structure grammar

• Sluicing

• Stripping

• Verb phrase ellipsis

6 Notes[1] See Lobeck 2006 for an overview.

[2] Phrases and clauses at Tameri Guide for Writers

[3] See for instance Lobeck 1995 and Lappin 1996.

[4] See for instance Johnson 2008 for an ATB-movement ac-count of gapping and Merchant 2001 for a movement ac-count of sluicing.

[5] See the collection of essays on dependency and valencygrammar in Ágel et al. 2003/6.

[6] See Osborne and Groß 2012.

7 References

• Ágel, V., Ludwig Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms,Peter Hellwig, Hans Heringer, and Hennig Lobin(eds.) 2003/6. Dependency and Valency: Aninternational handbook of contemporary research.Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

• Johnson, Kyle 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, andwhat it can’t, but not why. In The handbook of con-temporary syntactic theory, ed. Mark Baltin andChris Collins, 439–479. Oxford: Blackwell Pub-lishers.

• Lappin, Shalom 1996. The interpretation of ellipsis.In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory,ed. Shalom Lappin. Oxford: Blackwell.

5

• Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, li-censing, and identification. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

• Lobeck, Anne. 2006. Ellipsis in DP. In The Black-well Companion to Syntax, ed. by Martin Everaertet al., vol. 2, pp. 145-173. Oxford: Blackwell.

• Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence:Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

• Osborne, Timothy and Thomas Groß 2012. Con-structions are catenae: Construction Grammarmeets Dependency Grammar. Cognitive Linguis-tics 23, 1: 163-214.

• Sag, Ivan 1976. Deletion and logical form. DoctoralDissertation,Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge, Massachusetts.

6 8 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

8 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

8.1 Text• Ellipsis (linguistics) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics)?oldid=676150690 Contributors: Andres, Robbot, Mon-edula, Andycjp, Beland, Gary, Ish ishwar, Angr, Mandarax, XP1, Bgwhite, Roboto de Ajvol, Wavelength, Eaefremov, Torgo, Reedy,Grantb, KocjoBot~enwiki, Markmclellan, Maksim-bot, Radagast83, Fitly, Feureau, Wikid77, NERIUM, Quaxanta, Alphachimpbot,JAnDbot, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, JGull8501, Adrian J. Hunter, TXiKiBoT, AlleborgoBot, Tpb, SieBot, Sun Creator, MystBot, Nyoro n, Addbot,Fluffernutter, Download, Goregore~enwiki, Ptbotgourou, Anypodetos, AnomieBOT, RibotBOT, BenzolBot, Mundart, HRoestBot, FoxBot,Tjo3ya, Fitoschido, EmausBot, Kasirbot, UnvoicedConsonant, Victor Yus, YFdyh-bot and Anonymous: 27

8.2 Images

8.3 Content license• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0