Journal article icon

Journal article

Contrast and verb phrase ellipsis: the case of tautologous conditionals

Abstract:
This paper argues that verb phrase ellipsis requires contrast. The central observation is that ellipsis is ungrammatical in tautologous conditionals; e.g., *If John wins, then he does. Ellipsis is correctly ruled out by a focus-based theory of ellipsis (Rooth 1992a,b), but one that crucially imports focus’s requirement for contrast: an elliptical constituent must have an antecedent that is not merely an alternative to it, but a ‘proper’ alternative. An explanation in terms of contrast failure proves superior to alternative explanations in terms of triviality and matching form. Showing as much catalogues what counts for contrast in ellipsis, encompassing negation, questions, and intensionality. Subjecting ellipsis to a contrast requirement is in direct conflict with the traditional analysis of MaxElide effects (Takahashi and Fox 2005), favouring alternative explanations (e.g., Jacobson 2019a,b), perhaps in terms of contrast itself (Griffiths 2019). Overall, this paper establishes that contrast has explanatory power in ellipsis licensing.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions


Access Document


Files:
Publisher copy:
10.1007/s11050-022-09189-3

Authors


More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
College Only
Oxford college:
Christ Church
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0002-0150-2454


Publisher:
Springer
Journal:
Natural Language Semantics More from this journal
Volume:
30
Pages:
77-100
Publication date:
2022-03-17
Acceptance date:
2022-02-25
DOI:
EISSN:
1572-865X
ISSN:
0925-854X


Language:
English
Keywords:
Pubs id:
1222795
Local pid:
pubs:1222795
Deposit date:
2021-12-09

Terms of use



Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP