Processing Ellipsis: A ProcessingSolution to the Undergeneration Problem?

Abstract

Since the pioneering work of Sag (1976) and Williams (1977), syntactic approaches to the grammar of these structures have typically assumed that, morphological details aside, the clause containing the elided constituent and the clause containing the antecedent must match at LF, modulo any focused constituents in them (Rooth, 1992). Hence, examples like (3) are unambiguous, exhibiting only the parallel reading in (3a) not the nonparallel reading in (3b), and examples like (4) are unambiguous due to the lack of syntactic matching.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.