The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23
[Paper List] [Goto Volume List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23, No. 0, pp. 1014-1035
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Received 21 Sep 2023 Revised 04 Nov 2023 Accepted 15 Nov 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202311.1014

Focus Structure and Voice Mismatch in Pseudogapping
Jungsoo Kim ; Sang-Hee Park
(first author) Assistant Professor, Dept. of English Language Education, Incheon National University. (jungsookim@inu.ac.kr)
(corresponding author) Assistant Professor, Dept. of English Language and Literature, Hanbat National University. (sangheepark@hanbat.ac.kr)


© 2023 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract

This paper explores the identity, or mismatch, of voice in a particular type of ellipsis called pseudogapping (e.g., John called Sarah, and Mary will Jane). Although voice is ipso facto a grammatical category, it is known to interact with information structure to affect speakers’ perception of it. In three acceptability judgment tasks, we tested how native speakers evaluate voice mismatches in pseudogapping, in comparison to verb phrase ellipsis, and also whether their judgments are affected by the locus of the main contrast or focus—i.e., contrastive topics or auxiliary focus. Unlike previous findings which showed that information structure can modulate how speakers perceive mismatches in verb phrase ellipsis (Kertz 2013), we found no reliable effect of information structure on pseudogapping. This suggests that the impact of focus structure may not be the same across all ellipsis types. We discuss the broader implications of the results from both theoretical and experimental perspectives.

Keywords: pseudogapping, ellipsis, voice mismatch, information structure, acceptability judgment
References
1. Agbayani, B. and E. Zoerner. 2004. Gapping, pseudogapping and sideward movement. Studia Linguistica 58(3), 185-211.
2. Arregui, A., C. Clifton, L. Frazier, and K. Moulton. 2006. Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Languages 55, 232-246.
3. Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1-48.
4. Beavers, J. and I. Sag. 2004. Coordinate ellipsis and apparent non-constituent coordination. In S. Müller, ed., Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 48-69. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
5. Chung, S. 2006. The point of no return. In R. T. Cover and Y. Kim, eds., Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31, 73-91. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society.
6. Chung, S. 2013. Syntactic identity in sluicing: How much and why. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1), 1-44.
7. Clifton, C., M. Xiang, and L. Frazier. 2019. A note on the voice mismatch asymmetry in ellipsis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 48(4), 877-887.
8. Coppock, E. 2001. Gapping: In defense of deletion. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H., Elston, and S. Neuvel, eds., Papers from the 37th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 133-148. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
9. Dalrymple, M., S. M. Shieber, and F. C. N. Pereira. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(4), 399-452.
10. Fiengo, R. and R. May. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Frazier, L. and C. Clifton. 2006. Ellipsis and discourse coherence. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(3), 315-346.
12. Frazier, L. and C. Clifton. 2011. Quantifiers undone: Reversing predictable speech errors in comprehension. Language 87(1), 158-171.
13. Gengel, K. 2007. Focus and ellipsis: A generative analysis of pseudogapping and other elliptical structures. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
14. Gengel, K. 2013. Pseudogapping and Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Hankamer, J. and I. Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7(3), 391-428.
16. Hardt, D. 1993. Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning, and Processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
17. Hardt, D. and M. Romero. 2004. Ellipsis and the structure of discourse. Journal of Semantics 21(4), 375-414.
18. Harris, J. A. and K. Carlson. 2018. Information structure preferences in focus-sensitive ellipsis: How defaults persist. Language and Speech 61(3), 480-512.
19. Hoeksema, J. 2006. Pseudogapping: Its syntactic analysis and cumulative effects on its acceptability. Research on Language and Computation 4(4), 335-352.
20. Houser, M. J. 2010. The Syntax and Semantics of Do So Anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
21. Jayaseelan, K. A. 1990. Incomplete VP deletion and gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20(1-2), 64-81.
22. Johnson, K. 1996. In search of the English middle field. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
23. Johnson, K. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In M. Baltin and C. Collins, eds., The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 439-479. Oxford: Blackwell.
24. Johnson, K. 2009. Gapping is not (VP-) ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2), 289-328.
25. Kaschak, M. P. and A. M. Glenberg. 2004. This construction needs learned. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 133(3), 450-467.
26. Kehler, A. 2002. Coherence, Reference and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
27. Kehler, A. and G. Ward. 1999. On the semantics and pragmatics of ‘identifier so’. In K. Turner, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, 233-256. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
28. Kertz, L. 2008. Focus structure and acceptability in verb phrase ellipsis. In N. Abner and J. Bishop, eds., Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 283-291. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
29. Kertz, L. 2010. Ellipsis Reconsidered. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, CA.
30. Kertz, L. 2013. Verb phrase ellipsis: The view from information structure. Language 89(3), 390-428.
31. Kim, C. and J. Runner. 2011. Syntactic identity isn’t enforced blindly: Comparing VP ellipsis and pseudogapping. Poster presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of Linguistic Society of America, January 6-9, Pittsburgh, PA.
32. Kim, C. and J. Runner. 2018. The division of labor in explanations of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 41(1), 41-85.
33. Kim, J.-B. and J. Runner. 2022. Pseudogapping in English: A direct interpretation approach. The Linguistic Review 39(3), 457-494.
34. Kim, J. and S.-H. Park. 2022. English pseudogapping: An experimental perspective. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 22, 675-694.
35. Kubota, Y. and R. Levine. 2015. Against ellipsis: Arguments for the direct licensing of ‘noncanonical’ coordinations. Linguistics and Philosophy 38(6), 521-576.
36. Kubota, Y. and R. Levine. 2017. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2), 213-257.
37. Kuno, S. 1981. The syntax of comparative clauses. In R. Hendrick, C. Masek, and M. Miller, eds., Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 136-155. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.
38. Kuznetsova, A., P. B. Brockhoff, and R. H. B. Christensen. 2017. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13), 1-26.
39. Lasnik, H. 1995. A note on pseudogapping. In R. Pensalfini and H. Ura, eds., MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 27, 143-163. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
40. Lasnik, H. 1999. Pseudogapping puzzles. In S. Lappin and E. Lappin, eds., Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping, 141-174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. Lee, J.-S. 2018. Phonetic resurrection from ellipsis sites: A case from pseudo-gapping. The Linguistic Association of Korean Journal 26(4), 55-81.
42. Lenth, R. V. 2022. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.8.2.
43. Levin, N. 1980. Main verb ellipsis in spoken English. In A. Zwicky, ed., Clitics and Ellipsis, 65-165. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
44. Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45. Merchant, J. 2003. Remarks on stripping. Ms., University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
46. Merchant, J. 2008. An asymmetry in voice mismatches in VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1), 169-179.
47. Merchant, J. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1), 77-108.
48. Miller, P. 1990. Pseudogapping and do so substitution. In M. Ziolkowski, M. Noske, and K. Deaton, eds., Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 293-305. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.
49. Miller, P. 2014. A corpus study of pseudogapping and its theoretical consequences. In C. Piñón, ed., Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, vol. 10, 73-90. Paris: CSSP.
50. Park, M.-K. and S. Choi. 2015. Not voice but case match matters in VP ellipsis and pseudogapping of English. Korean Journal of Linguistics 40(2), 169-189.
51. Phillips, C., M. Wagers, and E. Lau. 2011. Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In J. Runner, ed., Experiments at the interfaces. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 37, 153-186. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
52. Poppels, T. and A. Kehler. 2019. Reconsidering asymmetries in voice-mismatched VP-ellipsis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1), 60.
53. R Core Team. 2022. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
54. Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
55. Runner, J. and T. Dozat. 2011. A brief report on voice mismatch effects in verb phrase ellipsis and sluicing. University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences.
56. Stump, G. T. 1977. Pseudogapping. Ms., Ohio State University, Ohio, OH.
57. Takahashi, S. 2004. Pseudogapping and cyclic linearization. In K. Moulton and M. Wolf, eds., Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 571-585. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
58. Tanaka, H. 2011a. Syntactic identity and ellipsis. The Linguistic Review 28(1), 79-110.
59. Tanaka, H. 2011b. Voice mismatch and syntactic identity. Linguistic Inquiry 42(3), 470-490.
60. Tanenhaus, M. K. and G. N. Carlson. 1990. Comprehension of deep and surface verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 5(4), 257-280.
61. Thoms, G. 2016. Pseudogapping, parallelism, and the scope of focus. Syntax 19(3), 286-307.
62. Wellwood, A., R. Pancheva, V. Hacquard, and C. Phillips. 2017. The Anatomy of Comparative Illusion. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
63. Winter, B. 2013. Linear models and linear mixed effects models in R with linguistic applications. ArXiv:1308.5499.
64. Wurmbrand, S. 2017. Stripping and topless complements. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2), 341-366.
65. Yatabe, S. and W. L. Tam. 2021. In defense of an HPSG-based theory of non-constituent coordination: A reply to Kubota and Levine. Linguistics and Philosophy 44(1), 1-77.
66. Zehr, J. and F. Schwarz. 2018. PennController for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX).