Examples
Standard instances of N-ellipsis in English are introduced by a limited set of determiner- and adjective-like elements (possessives, cardinal and ordinal numbers, other quantifiers). In the examples throughout this article, the ellipsis is indicated using a smaller font and subscripts, the element that introduces the ellipsis is in bold, and the antecedent to the ellipsis is underlined:
- When Susan brings her dog, Sam brings hisdog too. - N-ellipsis introduced by possessive
- Jill likes your story even though she hates Bill'sstory. - N-ellipsis introduced by possessive -s
- Because you bought two donuts, I bought threedonuts. - N-ellipsis introduced by cardinal number
- I caught the first train before you caught the secondtrain. - N-ellipsis introduced by ordinal number
- Some school kids like syntax, and someschool kids don't. - N-ellipsis introduced by a quantifier
- Each student was helped so that eachstudent would understand. - N-ellipsis introduced by a quantifier
The set of elements that can introduce N-ellipsis in English is limited. Similar quantificational elements, for instance, cannot introduce N-ellipsis:
- *No school kid likes syntax, and noschool kid likes semantics. - Failed attempt to introduce N-ellipsis with no
- *Every student was helped, so that everystudent would understand. - Failed attempt to introduce N-ellipsis with every
Most adjectives in English are also incapable of introducing N-ellipsis:
- *Fred watches stupid programs, but Jim watches intelligentprograms. - Failed attempt to introduce N-ellipsis with a standard adjective
- *I value long walks although I only get to take shortwalks. - Failed attempt to introduce N-ellipsis with a standard adjective
This aspect of N-ellipsis in English distinguishes English from other languages (e.g. German and Dutch), which are much more permissive; they allow most any determiner or adjective to introduce N-ellipsis. Note that English employs the indefinite pronoun one to make such sentences acceptable, e.g. Fred watches stupid programs, but Jim watches intelligent ones.
The examples so far all have the ellipsis following its antecedent. The opposite arrangement is also possible: the N-ellipsis can precede its "antecedent":
- If he brings hisdog, I'll bring my dog too. - N-ellipsis preceding its "antecedent"
- Because he did the first twoproblems, she is going to do that last three problems. - N-ellipsis preceding its "antecedent"
- Even though he skipped onetask, he did do the rest of the tasks. - N-ellipsis preceding its "antecedent"
N-ellipsis behaves like standard personal pronouns in this area; personal pronouns can also precede their antecedents at times, e.g. When he arrives, Bill immediately takes a shower.
Systematic variation
There is systematic variation in forms across some noun phrases that do and do not involve N-ellipsis. This variation is apparent in English with possessives. Possessive determiners cannot introduce N-ellipsis, whereas one can interpret possessive pronouns as doing so. The following table summarizes the competing forms:
| Possessive determiner | Possessive pronoun |
|---|
| my | mine |
| your | yours |
| his | his |
| her | hers |
| our | ours |
| their | theirs |
The possessive determiners are systematically incapable of introducing N-ellipsis; if a possessive appears in such cases, it must be the possessive pronoun:
- a. *You like your dog, but you don't like mydog. - Possessive determiner my cannot introduce N-ellipsis
- b. You like your dog, but you don't like minedog. - Possessive pronoun mine can introduce N-ellipsis
- a. *We helped your friends, before we helped ourfriends. - Possessive determiner our cannot introduce N-ellipsis
- b. We helped your friends, before we helped oursfriends. - Possessive pronoun ours can introduce N-ellipsis
This same sort of data occurs in numerous other languages, where the variation is visible with many other determiner- and adjective-like elements (not just with possessives). The obvious conclusion that one can reach based upon this variation is that the possessive pronouns are in fact in no way introducing N-ellipsis, but rather they are, as their name suggests, simply pronouns. In other words, there is no ellipsis in such cases. This observation is important for the theory N-ellipsis in general, and the discussion returns to the point below.
Theoretical possibilities
There are three basic possibilities that one might pursue in order to develop a formal account of N-ellipsis:
- 1) N-ellipsis is truly ellipsis; part of the noun phrase has indeed been elided. [1]
- 2) A covert pronoun is present, which means ellipsis in the traditional sense is actually not involved.
- 3) An overt pronoun is present; the word that appears to introduce the ellipsis is actually functioning like a pronoun, which means ellipsis is in no way present. [2]
Each of these three analyses is illustrated here using tree structures of an example NP. The example sentence She gave the first talk on gapping, and he gave the first on stripping is the context, whereby the trees focus just on the structure of the noun phrase showing ellipsis. For each of the three theoretical possibilities, both a constituency-based representation (associated with phrase structure grammars) and a dependency-based representation (associated with dependency grammars) is employed:
-
The constituency trees are on the left, and the corresponding dependency trees on the right. These trees are merely broadly representative of each of the possible analyses (many modern constituency grammars would likely reject the relatively flat structures on the left, opting instead for more layered trees). The ellipsis analysis assumes the presence of the elided noun. The null pronoun analysis also assumes ellipsis, but what is absent is not an actual noun, but rather it is a covert pronoun that would perhaps surface as one if it were not elided. The overt pronoun analysis entirely rejects the notion that ellipsis is involved. Instead, it grants the one pre-nominal element the status of an indefinite pronoun.
Each of these three analyses has its strengths and weaknesses, and which analysis is preferred varies based in part on the theoretical framework adopted. The traditional ellipsis analysis has an advantage insofar as it is the most straightforward; a simple ellipsis mechanism is involved, which explains the fact that ellipsis in such cases is (usually) optional. The ellipsis analysis cannot, however, so easily account for the systematic variation in forms seen with possessives, since it suggests that there should be no such variation. The covert pronoun analysis can easily accommodate the fact that N-ellipsis has a distribution that is close to that of the indefinite pronoun one, but it too has difficulty with the systematic variation in forms seen with possessives. Both analyses are challenged by the fact that they cannot explain why N-ellipsis is limited in occurrence in English to a relatively small number of pre-nominal elements. Both are also challenged by the observation that the null element must be "introduced".
The third analysis, the overt pronoun analysis, accommodates the systematic variation in possessive forms, since it assumes that the distinct pronoun forms appear precisely in order to indicate when a pronoun is present. The overt pronoun analysis can also account for the relatively small number of pre-nominal elements that can "introduce" ellipsis, since it reduces this ability down to a simple lexical characteristic of the pre-nominal elements involved. Furthermore, it quite obviously accounts for the fact that the "ellipsis" must be introduced, for there is in fact no ellipsis, but rather a pronoun appears.
The overt pronoun analysis is challenged, however, by other data. The overt pronouns would have to be unlike most other pronouns, since they would have to allow modification by an adverb, e.g. You took the second train after I had taken the very first. The adverb very is modifying first, which should not be possible if first is a pronoun.
In sum, the theoretical analysis of N-ellipsis is open to innovation.
In linguistics and grammar, a pronoun is a word or a group of words that one may substitute for a noun or noun phrase.
English grammar is the set of structural rules of the English language. This includes the structure of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and whole texts.
In linguistics, a determiner phrase (DP) is a type of phrase headed by a determiner such as many. Controversially, many approaches, take a phrase like not very many apples to be a DP, headed, in this case, by the determiner many. This is called the DP analysis or the DP hypothesis. Others reject this analysis in favor of the more traditional NP analysis where apples would be the head of the phrase in which the DP not very many is merely a dependent. Thus, there are competing analyses concerning heads and dependents in nominal groups. The DP analysis developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and it is the majority view in generative grammar today.
A possessive or ktetic form is a word or grammatical construction used to indicate a relationship of possession in a broad sense. This can include strict ownership, or a number of other types of relation to a greater or lesser degree analogous to it.
Possessive determiners are determiners which express possession. Some traditional grammars of English refer to them as possessive adjectives, though they do not have the same syntactic distribution as bona fide adjectives.
The Spanish language uses determiners in a similar way to English. The main differences are that Spanish determiners inflect for gender and always inflect for number as well.
French pronouns are inflected to indicate their role in the sentence, as well as to reflect the person, gender, and number of their referents.
In linguistics, ellipsis or an elliptical construction is the omission from a clause of one or more words that are nevertheless understood in the context of the remaining elements. There are numerous distinct types of ellipsis acknowledged in theoretical syntax. Theoretical accounts of ellipsis seek to explain its syntactic and semantic factors, the means by which the elided elements are recovered, and the status of the elided elements. Theoretical accounts of ellipsis can vary greatly depending in part upon whether a constituency-based or a dependency-based theory of syntactic structure is pursued.
This article describes the grammar of the Scottish Gaelic language.
A determiner, also called determinative, is a word, phrase, or affix that occurs together with a noun or noun phrase and generally serves to express the reference of that noun or noun phrase in the context. That is, a determiner may indicate whether the noun is referring to a definite or indefinite element of a class, to a closer or more distant element, to an element belonging to a specified person or thing, to a particular number or quantity, etc. Common kinds of determiners include definite and indefinite articles, demonstratives, possessive determiners, cardinal numerals, quantifiers, distributive determiners, and interrogative determiners.
The English pronouns form a relatively small category of words in Modern English whose primary semantic function is that of a pro-form for a noun phrase. Traditional grammars consider them to be a distinct part of speech, while most modern grammars see them as a subcategory of noun, contrasting with common and proper nouns. Still others see them as a subcategory of determiner. In this article, they are treated as a subtype of the noun category.
A bound variable pronoun is a pronoun that has a quantified determiner phrase (DP) – such as every, some, or who – as its antecedent.
In linguistics, sloppy identity is an interpretive property that is found with verb phrase ellipsis where the identity of the pronoun in an elided VP is not identical to the antecedent VP.
English nouns form the largest category of words in English, both in terms of the number of different words and in terms of how often they are used in typical texts. The three main categories of English nouns are common nouns, proper nouns, and pronouns. A defining feature of English nouns is their ability to inflect for number, as through the plural –s morpheme. English nouns primarily function as the heads of noun phrases, which prototypically function at the clause level as subjects, objects, and predicative complements. These phrases are the only English phrases whose structure includes determinatives and predeterminatives, which add abstract specifying meaning such as definiteness and proximity. Like nouns in general, English nouns typically denote physical objects, but they also denote actions, characteristics, relations in space, and just about anything at all. Taken all together, these features separate English nouns from the language's other lexical categories, such as adjectives and verbs.
In English, possessive words or phrases exist for nouns and most pronouns, as well as some noun phrases. These can play the roles of determiners or of nouns.
Pseudogapping is an ellipsis mechanism that elides most but not all of a non-finite verb phrase; at least one part of the verb phrase remains, which is called the remnant. Pseudogapping occurs in comparative and contrastive contexts, so it appears often after subordinators and coordinators such as if, although, but, than, etc. It is similar to verb phrase ellipsis (VP-ellipsis) insofar as the ellipsis is introduced by an auxiliary verb, and many grammarians take it to be a particular type of VP-ellipsis. The distribution of pseudogapping is more restricted than that of VP-ellipsis, however, and in this regard, it has some traits in common with gapping. But unlike gapping, pseudogapping occurs in English but not in closely related languages. The analysis of pseudogapping can vary greatly depending in part on whether the analysis is based in a phrase structure grammar or a dependency grammar. Pseudogapping was first identified, named, and explored by Stump (1977) and has since been studied in detail by Levin (1986) among others, and now enjoys a firm position in the canon of acknowledged ellipsis mechanisms of English.
Answer ellipsis is a type of ellipsis that occurs in answers to questions. Answer ellipsis appears very frequently in any dialogue, and it is present in probably all languages. Of the types of ellipsis mechanisms, answer fragments behave most like sluicing, a point that shall be illustrated below.
Stripping or bare argument ellipsis is an ellipsis mechanism that elides everything from a clause except one constituent. It occurs exclusively in the non-initial conjuncts of coordinate structures. One prominent analysis of stripping sees it as a particular manifestation of the gapping mechanism, the difference between stripping and gapping lies merely with the number of remnants left behind by ellipsis: gapping leaves two constituents behind, whereas stripping leaves just one. Stripping occurs in many languages and is a frequent occurrence in colloquial conversation. As with many other ellipsis mechanisms, stripping challenges theories of syntax in part because the elided material often fails to qualify as a constituent in a straightforward manner.
English determiners are words – such as the, a, each, some, which, this, and six – that are most commonly used with nouns to specify their referents. The determiners form a closed lexical category in English.
In linguistics, a relativizer is a type of conjunction that introduces a relative clause. For example, in English, the conjunction that may be considered a relativizer in a sentence such as "I have one that you can use." Relativizers do not appear, at least overtly, in all languages; even in languages that do have overt or pronounced relativizers, they do not necessarily appear all of the time. For these reasons it has been suggested that in some cases, a "zero relativizer" may be present, meaning that a relativizer is implied in the grammar but is not actually realized in speech or writing. For example, the word that can be omitted in the above English example, producing "I have one you can use", using a zero relativizer.
