This article presents the results of two experiments conducted to examine how ellipsis sites are processed during the processing of backward sluicing, which is superficially similar to non-sluicing wh-filler-gap dependencies. Previous studies on long-distance wh-filler-gap dependencies established that the processing of these dependencies is sensitive to the syntactic structure of materials within the dependency: CP vs. NP. Results from two maze experiments show that backward sluicing processing is sensitive to the same structural factors, confirming that the same processing mechanism underlies both constructions. We suggest that an active search mechanism is operating at the core for these structures and with the interaction of the ellipsis-specific mechanism, e.g., a word-by-word copying mechanism, the parser builds antecedent structure within the ellipsis site incrementally during the processing of backward sluicing.
AbelsK. (2012). Phases: An essay on cyclicity in syntax (Vol. 543). Walter de Gruyter.
2.
AckermanL. M. (2015). Influences on parsing ambiguity. Northwestern University.
3.
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.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Arxiv Preprint ArXiv:1406.5823.
6.
BoyceV.FutrellR.LevyR. P. (2020). Maze made easy: Better and easier measurement of incremental processing difficulty. Journal of Memory and Language, 111, 104082.
7.
CampbellR. (1996). Specificity operators in SpecDP. Studia Linguistica, 50(2), 161–188.
8.
ChomskyN. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In AndersonS.KiparskyP. (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). Holt Rinehart & Winston.
9.
ChomskyN. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
10.
ChomskyN. (1986a). Barriers. Cambridge, MIT press.
11.
ChomskyN. (1986b). Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.
12.
ChungS. (1982). Unbounded dependencies in Chamorro grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 39–77.
13.
ChungS.LadusawW. A.McCloskeyJ. (1995). Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics, 3(3), 239–282.
14.
CliftonL. F. C. (1998). Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(4), 499–520.
15.
CulicoverP. W.JackendoffR. S. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press on Demand.
16.
DaviesW. D.DubinskyS. (2003). On extraction from NPs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(1), 1–37.
17.
DickeyM. W.BungerA. (2011). Comprehension of elided structure: Evidence from sluicing. Language and Cognitive Process, 26(1), 63–78.
18.
DrummerJ.-D.FelserC. (2018). Cataphoric pronoun resolution in native and non-native sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 101, 97–113.
19.
EnçM. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–25.
20.
FiengoR. (1987). Definiteness, specificity, and familiarity. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(1), 163–166.
21.
FiengoR.HigginbothamJ. (1981). Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis Seattle, Wash, 7(4), 395–421.
22.
FiengoR.MayR. (1994). Indices and identity. MIT Press.
23.
FordM. (1983). A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(2), 203–218.
24.
ForsterK. I.GuerreraC.ElliotL. (2009). The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 163–171.
25.
FoxD. (2000). Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press.
26.
FrazierL. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In ColtheartM. (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601–681). Erlbaum.
27.
FrazierL.CliftonC.Jr. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(2), 93–126.
FrazierL.CliftonJ. (2005). The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax, 8(2), 121–174.
30.
FrazierL.Flores D’ArcaisG. B. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–334.
31.
GarnseyS. M. (1989). Evoked potencials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 51–60.
32.
GibsonE. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In MiyashitaY.MarantzA.O’NeialW. (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95–126). MIT Press.
GibsonE.WarrenT. (2004). Reading time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7(1), 55–78.
35.
GinzburgJ.SagI. A. (2000). Interrogative investigations. CSLI Publications.
36.
GiskesA.KushD. (2021). Processing cataphors: Active antecedent search is persistent. Memory & Cognition, 49(7), 1370–1386.
37.
GrodnerD.GibsonE. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentenial complexity. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261–290.
38.
GulliferJ. (2004). Processing reverse sluicing: A contrast with processing filler-gap dependencies. In MoultonK.WolfM. (Eds.), The Proceedings of the 34th Northeastern Linguistic Society (NELS 34) (pp. 1–20). GLSA Publications.
KaanE.HarrisA.GibsonE.HolcombP. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159–201.
46.
KazaninaN.LauE.LiebermanM.YoshidaM.PhillipsC. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.
47.
KeineS. (2020). Locality domains in syntax: Evidence from sentence processing. Syntax, 23(2), 105–151.
48.
KennedyC. (2003). Ellipsis and syntactic representation. In SchwabeK.WinklerS. (Eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structure (pp. 29–53). John Benjamins.
49.
KissK. É. (1993). Wh-movement and specificity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 11, 85–120.
50.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26.
51.
LasnikH. (2001). When can you save a structure by destroying it?North East Linguistics Society, 31, Article 5.
52.
LenthR. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69, 1–33.
53.
LewisR. L.VasishthS. (2013). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375–419.
54.
LewisR. L.VasishthS.Van DykeJ. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447–454.
55.
LobeckA. C. (1995). Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford University Press.
56.
LuceR. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford University Press on Demand.
57.
MahajanA. (1992). The specificity condition and the CED. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 510–516.
58.
MartinA. E.McElreeB. (2008). A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 879–906.
59.
MartinA.McElreeB. (2009). Memory operations that support language comprehension: Evidence from verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 35, 1231–1239.
60.
MartinA.McElreeB. (2011). Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from Sluicing. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 327–343.
61.
McCloskeyJ. (1979). Transformational syntax and model theoretic semantics: A case study in modern Irish. D. Reidel Pub. Co.
62.
McCloskeyJ. (2000). Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 57–84.
63.
McCloskeyJ. (2002). Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, 5, 184–226.
64.
McElreeB. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 111–123.
65.
McElreeB.ForakerS.DyerL. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 67–91.
66.
MerchantJ. (1998). Pseudosluicing: Elliptical clefts in Japanese and English. ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 88–112.
67.
MerchantJ. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford University Press.
68.
MurphyG. L. (1985). Processes of understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(3), 290–303.
69.
OmakiA.LauE.WhiteI. D.DakanM. L.AppleA.PhillipsC. (2015). Hyper-active gap filling. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 384. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00384
70.
PaapeD. L.NicenboimB.VasishthS. (2017). Does antecedent complexity affect ellipsis processing? An empirical investigation, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1): 77. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.290.
71.
PerlmutterD. M. (1968). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. MIT Dissertation.
72.
PotsdamE. (2007). Malagasy sluicing and its consequences for the identity requirement on ellipsis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25, 577–613.
73.
RodriguesC.NevinsA.VicenteL. (2009). Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and P-stranding. In AbohE. O.van der LindenE.QuerJ.SleemanP. (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory (pp. 175–198). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
74.
RossJ. R. (1969). Guess who? In BinnickR. I.DavisonA.GreenG. M.MorganJ. L. (Eds.), Papers from the 5th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 252–286). Chicago Linguistic Society.
75.
StoweL. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 227–245.
76.
TakahashiD. (1994). Minimality of Movement, Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
77.
TeamR. C. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
78.
TorregoE. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 15(1), 103–129.
79.
TraxlerM. J.MorrisR. K.SeelyR. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 69–90.
80.
TraxlerM. J.PickeringM. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 454.
81.
Van CraenenbroeckJ. (2010). Invisible last resort: A note on clefts as the underlying source for sluicing. Lingua, 120(7), 1714–1726.
82.
Van DykeJ. A.McElreeB. (2011). Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 247–263.
83.
Van UrkC. (2020). Successive cyclicity and the syntax of long-distance dependencies. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6, 111–130.
84.
Van ZandtT. (2000). How to fit a response time distribution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(3), 424–465.
85.
WitzelJ.ForsterK. (2014). Lexical co-occurrence and ambiguity resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 158–185.
86.
YoshidaM.DickeyM. W.SturtP. (2013). Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and Ellipsis in Real-Time Sentence Processing. Language and Cognitive Process, 28(3), 272–302.
