This study aims to test two hypotheses about the online processing of Gapping: whether the parser inserts an ellipsis site in an incremental fashion in certain coordinated structures (the Incremental Ellipsis Hypothesis), or whether ellipsis is a late and dispreferred option (the Ellipsis as a Last Resort Hypothesis). We employ two offline acceptability rating experiments and a sentence fragment completion experiment to investigate to what extent the distribution of Gapping is controlled by grammatical and extra-grammatical constraints. Furthermore, an eye-tracking while reading experiment demonstrated that the parser inserts an ellipsis site incrementally but only when grammatical and extra-grammatical constraints allow for the insertion of the ellipsis site. This study shows that incremental building of the Gapping structure follows from the parser’s general preference to keep the structure of the two conjuncts maximally parallel in a coordination structure as well as from grammatical restrictions on the distribution of Gapping such as the Coordination Constraint.
AoshimaS.PhillipsC.WeinbergA. (2004). Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 23–54.
2.
BaayenR. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press.
3.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
4.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep It maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
BoxG. E.CoxD. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 26, 211–252.
7.
CarlsonK. (2001). The effects of parallelism and prosody in the processing of gapping structures. Language and Speech, 44(1), 1–26.
8.
ChavesP. (2005). A linearization-based approach to gapping. In RogersJ. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th conference on formal grammar and the 9th meeting on mathematics of language (pp. 1–14). CSLI Publications.
9.
CoppockE. (2001). Gapping: In defense of deletion. In AndronisM.BallC.ElstonH.NeuvelS. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Chicago linguistics society37 (pp. 133–147). The University of Chicago.
10.
EastwickT.PhillipsC. (1999, November). Variability in semantic cue effectiveness on syntactic ambiguity resolution: Inducing low-span performance in high-span readers [Paper presentation]. AMLaP 99, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
11.
FrazierL. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut].
12.
FrazierL.CliftonC. J. (2001). Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy α. Syntax, 4(1), 1–22.
13.
FrazierL.CliftonC. J. (2005). The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax, 8(2), 121–174.
14.
FrazierL.MunnA.CliftonC. J. (2000). Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(4), 343–370.
15.
FrazierL.RaynerK. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210.
16.
FrazierL.TaftL.RoeperT.CliftonC.EhrlichK. (1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 12(5), 421–430.
17.
GibsonE. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76.
18.
GibsonE.PearlmutterN. J. (2000). Distinguishing serial and parallel parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 231–240.
19.
JackendoffR. S. (1971). Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 21–35.
20.
JaegerT. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.
21.
JohnsonK. (1994). Bridging the gap [Master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst].
22.
JohnsonK. (2000). Gapping determiners. In SchwabeK.ZhangN. (Eds.), Ellipsis in conjunction (pp. 95–115). Niemeyer.
23.
JohnsonK. (2004). In search of the English middle field [Master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst].
24.
JohnsonK. (2006). Gapping. In EveraertM.Van RiemsdijkH.GoedmansR.HollebrandseB. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp. 145–173). Blackwell.
25.
JohnsonK. (2009). Gapping is not (VP-) ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(2), 289–328.
26.
KaanE.WijnenF.SwaabT. Y. (2004). Gapping: Electrophysiological evidence for immediate processing of “missing” verbs in sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 89(3), 584–592.
27.
KennedyC. (2001, December). In search of unpronounceable structure [Paper presentation]. Workshop on Ellipsis in English and Japanese, Kyoto, Japan.
28.
KnoeferleP. (2014). Conjunction meaning can modulate parallelism facilitation: Eye-tracking evidence from German clausal coordination. Journal of Memory and Language, 75, 140–158.
29.
KnoeferleP.CrockerM. W. (2009). Constituent order and semantic parallelism in online comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence from German. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(12), 2338–2371.
30.
LobeckA. (2007). Ellipsis in DP. In EveraertM.van RiemsdijkH.GoedmansR.HollebrandseB. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp. 145–173). Blackwell.
31.
MartinA. E.McElreeB. (2008). A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 879–906.
32.
MartinA. E.McElreeB. (2018). Retrieval cues and syntactic ambiguity resolution: Speed-accuracy tradeoff evidence. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(6), 769–783.
33.
MerchantJ. (2001). The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford University Press.
34.
NeijtA. (1979). Gapping: A contribution to sentence grammar. Foris Publications.
35.
NerbonneJ.IidaM.LadusawW. (1989). Running on empty: Null heads in head-driven grammar. In FeeJ.HuntK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the eight annual west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 276–288). CSLI Publications.
36.
NerbonneJ.MullenT. (2000). Null-headed nominals in German and English. Language and Computers, 29, 125–146.
37.
NicenboimB.VasishthS. (2016). Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational Ideas—Part II. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(11), 591–613.
38.
OmakiA.LauE. F.Davidson WhiteI.DakanM. L.AppleA.PhillipsC. (2015). Hyper-active gap filling. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 384.
39.
ParkerD. (2017). Processing multiple gap dependencies: Forewarned is forearmed. Journal of Memory and Language, 97, 175–186.
40.
PhillipsC. (1995). Right association in parsing and grammar. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 26, 37–93.
41.
PhillipsC. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82(4), 795–823.
42.
PhillipsC.GibsonE. (1997). On the strength of the local attachment preference. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 323–346.
43.
PoirierJ.WolfingerK.SpellmanL.ShapiroL. P. (2010). The real-time processing of sluiced sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(5), 411–427.
44.
PostalP. M. (2004). Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford University Press.
45.
PotterD. K.FrazierM.YoshidaM. (2017). A two-source hypothesis for Gapping. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 35(4), 1123–1160.
46.
ReinhartT. (1987). Specifier and operator binding. In ReulandE.ter MeulenA. (Eds.), The representation of (in) definiteness (Vol. 14, pp. 130–167). MIT Press.
RossH. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
49.
SchneiderD.PhillipsC. (2001). Grammatical search and reanalysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 308–336.
50.
StaubA.RaynerK. (2007). Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. In GaskellG. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 327–342). Oxford University Press.
51.
StoweL. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(3), 227–245.
52.
SturtP. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542–562.
53.
SturtP.KellerF.DubeyA. (2010). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Parallelism effects with and without coordination. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(4), 333–351.
54.
SturtP.PickeringM. J.ScheepersC.CrockerM. W. (2001). The preservation of structure in language comprehension: Is reanalysis the last resort?Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 283–307.
55.
TraxlerM. J.PickeringM. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 454–475.
56.
TrueswellJ. C.TanenhausM. K.GarnseyS. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285–318.
57.
WilliamsE. (1978). Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(1), 31–43.
58.
VicenteL. (2010). A note on the movement analysis of gapping. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(3), 509–517.
59.
YoshidaM.DickeyM. W.SturtP. (2013). Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and ellipsis in real-time sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 272–302.
60.
YoshidaM.WangH.PotterD. (2012). Remarks on “gapping” in DP. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(3), 475–494.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
