A cross-modal view of VP ellipsis Carlo Cecchetto University of Milan-Bicocca and Structures Formelles du Langage (CNRS & Université Paris 8) Based on joint work with: Alessandra Checchetto, Carlo Geraci, Mirko Santoro & Sandro Zucchi 1
PART I. VP ELLIPSIS EXISTS IN LIS 2
SEARCHING FOR VP ELLIPSIS VP ellipsis was initially identified only in English: John broke a vase, and Mary did too Subsequent research (cf. Goldberg 2005) claimed that other languages (Hebrew, Irish, and Swahili a.o.) show VP ellipsis, although it is superficially different from the English type. In English, as we just saw, the verb is missing together with other VP internal material. In Hebrew, in which both V-to-I movement and VP deletion occur, a finite verb survives VP ellipsis. I am going to claim that LIS has the same type of VP ellipsis as English. 3
CANDIDATES FOR VP ELLIPSIS IN LIS In LIS a constituent can go un-uttered if a suitable antecedent is present. This elliptical construction involves typically, although not uniquely, the use of an adverbial sign glossed here as SAME, meaning too/as well. (1) DINING-ROOM GIANNI VASE BREAK, MARIO SAME Gianni broke a vase in the dining room and Mario did so, too The same happens with negation: (2) DINING-ROOM GIANNI VASE BREAK. PIERO SAME NOT Gianni broke a vase in the dining room while Piero did not 4
STRIPPING? However (1) and (2) are only weak evidence for a VP ellipsis analysis. An analysis in terms of stripping, captured by the English translation in (ii). In principle cannot be excluded: (1) DINING-ROOM GIANNI VASE BREAK, MARIO SAME (i) Gianni broke a vase in the dining room and Mario did so, too (ii) Gianni broke a vase in the dining room. Mario, too 5
IT IS NOT STRIPPING, I We will use three diagnostics to set apart VP ellipsis and stripping. The first diagnostic is the presence of an auxiliary-like element in the elliptical clause. For example, in (3), an auxiliary sits in the elliptical clause, much like in classical VP ellipsis cases. (3) GIANNI BOOK BUY MUST. MARIA MUST SAME Gianni must buy a book and also Maria must (buy a book) 6
IT IS NOT STRIPPING, II In English VP ellipsis, but not stripping, can occur in subordination (cf. Lobeck 1995): (4) John left. Bill thinks that Piero did too (5) * John left. Bill thinks that Piero too In LIS, predicate ellipsis can occur in a subordinated clause, consistent with a VP ellipsis analysis. (6) GIANNI MARIA i LOVE. IX-3 i THINK PIERO SAME 'Gianni loved Maria. She thinks that Piero did too' 7
IT IS NOT STRIPPING, III In English VP ellipsis, but not stripping, allows for backward anaphora (cf. Lobeck 1995). (7) John didn t, but Mary bought books (8) *Mary too and John bought books In LIS, predicate ellipsis can be licensed by backward anaphora, consistent with a VP ellipsis analysis. if (9) IF PIERO NOT GIANNI GO 'If Piero does not, Gianni will go' 8
TWO BIG ISSUES IN THE VP ELLIPSIS LITERATURE 9
FIRST ISSUE. PHONOLOGICAL DELETION OR SEMANTIC COPYING? Phonological deletion approach: a full-fledged VP is present in syntax, although it is deleted at PF. Semantic copying approach: a silent proform is generated in syntax and is interpreted in the semantic component as having the same meaning as the antecedent VP (the ellipsis site contains no structure) 10
SECOND ISSUE: RECOVERABILITY OF THE CONTENT OF ELLIPSIS. Semantic Identity Condition: recoverability is licensed by identity in meaning. Syntactic Identity Condition: recoverability is licensed by identity in morpho-syntactic form. Under this approach a category can go unuttered only if it has the same syntactic structure and the same lexical composition as its linguistic antecedent. It should be clear that, if the identity in form approach is assumed, semantic identity still holds, but it is only derivative. 11
THE TWO ISSUES ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME The issue of recoverability and the issue whether the ellipsis site contains structure are connected but distinct. One can argue that recoverability requires identity in syntactic structure only if (s)he is willing to concede that the ellipsis site contains structure. But one can argue that for recoverability identity in meaning suffices even if the ellipsis site contains structure. 12
DECIDING ISSUE 1, LONG DISTANCE DEPENDENCIES IN ENGLISH It is possible to extract a wh-phrase from an ellipsis site (cf. Baltin 2012, Chao 1987, Fiengo and May 1994 and Tancredi 1992): (10) I know which person Mary talked to and which person Bill didn't. This is a challenge for the semantic copying approach. If the ellipsis site contains a null anaphora, it is difficult to explain why (10) is grammatical, since (overt) anaphors do not have internal structure, as confirmed by the ungrammaticality of (11). (11) *I know which person Mary talked to and which person Bill didn't do so On the other hand, the phonological deletion approach can easily explain why only (10) is grammatical. If the VP is present in the syntactic component, it can contain the trace of the wh-phrase. 13
DECIDING ISSUE 1, LONG DISTANCE DEPENDENCIES IN LIS In LIS as well the ellipsis site can contain a trace. wh wh (12) IN-THE-PAST GIANNI MEET WHO I-KNOW BUT FUT WHO I-KNOW NOT 'I know who Gianni met in the past but I do not know who he will meet in the future' (12') BUT [ CP [ IP pro FUT [ VP t i MEET] ] WHO i ] I-KNOW NOT PHONOLOGICAL DELETION APPROACH IS FAVORED 14
PART III. WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM LIS ABOUT VP ELLIPSIS IN GENERAL? IDENTITY IN MEANING IS NOT ENOUGH 15
ADVERB INCORPORATION AS A TEST In many sign languages, including LIS, manner adverbs can either be incorporated in the verb (cf. 13a) or appear as an independent sign (cf. 13b). In (13a) the movement of the dominant hand towards the mouth of the signer, characteristic of the sign EAT, is repeated and is articulated more rapidly than in the citation form of the verb. (13) GIANNI EAT-QUICKLY (14) GIANNI EAT QUICKLY Gianni eats quickly 16
ADVERB INCORPORATION SHOWS THAT IDENTITY IN MEANING IS NOT ENOUGH If identity in meaning were enough to license SAME-ellipsis, sentences like (15) and (16) should be on a par with each other, since the antecedent clause in (15) and (16) expresses the same meaning, despite the fact that (15) contains an independent sign for QUICKLY while in (16) QUICKLY is incorporated. However, (16) is sharply ungrammatical. (15) MARIO MEAT EAT QUICKLY. GIANNI SAME SLOWLY Mario eats meat quickly. Gianni does that slowly (16) *MARIO MEAT EAT-QUICKLY. GIANNI SAME SLOWLY If identity in form is required, there is an explanation for why (16) is out: since QUICKLY is incorporated into the verb in the antecedent clause, there is a clash in meaning (one cannot eat slowly and quickly at the same time). In (15) there is no clash because the ellipsis site is identical to the verb EAT alone. 17
DIGRESSION: SIMILAR CASES IN SPOKEN LANGUAGES? A similar point can be made for English: (17) Abby took the exam again while Ben did for the first time (18)?? Abby retook the exam while Ben did (that) for the first time (Jason Merchant, p.c.) 18
ANOTHER CASE WHERE IDENTITY IN MEANING IS NOT ENOUGH: ROLE SHIFT AND THE STRICT/SLOPPY READING In simple cases, both the strict and the sloppy reading are easily detectable in VP ellipsis in LIS. (19) GIANNI i SECRETARY HIS i VALUE. PIERO SAME Strict reading: Gianni values his own secretary. Piero values Gianni s secretary Sloppy reading: Gianni values his own secretary. Piero values Piero s secretary The situation is more complex in sentences involving role shift. 19
ROLE SHIFT Role shift is a strategy common across sign languages in which the signer shifts into the role and adopts the perspective of the quoted person by slightly shifting the body position, changing the position of the head, and breaking the eye contact with the addressee. (20) and (21) are synonymous but role shift takes place only in (23). As a consequence, the subject of the embedded clause in (23) has the form of a first person pronoun. (20) GIANNI i SAY IX-3 i MARIA KISS Gianni said that he kissed Maria rs (21) GIANNI i SAY IX-1_rs MARIA KISS Gianni said that he kissed Maria 20
ROLE SHIFT AND THE STRICT/SLOPPY READING The elliptical clause that follows an antecedent clause without role shift is ambiguous between a strict and a sloppy reading, much as its English counterpart. (22) GIANNI i SAY IX-3 i MARIA KISS. PIERO j SAME Gianni said that he kissed Maria. Piero did too Strict reading: Gianni said that Gianni kissed Maria. Piero said that Gianni kissed Maria Sloppy reading: Gianni said that Gianni kissed Maria. Piero said that Piero kissed Maria 21
ANOTHER CASE WHERE IDENTITY IN FORM IS REQUIRED: ROLE SHIFT BLOCKS THE STRICT READING If role shift takes place in the antecedent clause, only the sloppy reading surfaces. rs (23) GIANNI i SAY IX-1_rs MARIA KISS. PIERO j SAME Strict reading: *Gianni said that Gianni kissed Maria. Piero said that Gianni kissed Maria Sloppy reading: Gianni said that Gianni kissed Maria. Piero said that Piero kissed Maria This is another argument showing that identity in meaning is not enough. The elliptical predicate must take as an antecedent a predicate which has the same form of the antecedent, namely a predicate where role shift has taken place. This happens even if the predicate with and without role shift have the same meaning. 22
PART IV. WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM LIS ABOUT VP ELLIPSIS IN GENERAL? IDENTITY IN FORM IS NOT ENOUGH 23
(24) GIANNI BEANS EAT-QUICKLY SPEED AND AMOUNT READINGS Sentences like (24) in which the adverb is incorporated into the verb are ambiguous. Speed reading : Gianni eats beans quickly (but he does not necessarily eats a big quantity of beans). Amount reading : Gianni eats a lot of beans. If the adverb is not incorporated, only the speed reading is selected. 24
ADVERB INCORPORATION SHOWS THAT IDENTITY IN FORM IS NOT ENOUGH Crucially, in (24) the reading that obtains in the antecedent clause must obligatorily obtain in the SAME clause. (24) GIANNI BEANS EAT-QUICKLY. PIERO SAME If the speed reading is selected in the antecedent clause, the SAME clause receives the speed reading (Piero eats quickly). If the amount reading is selected in the antecedent clause, the SAME clause receives the amount reading (Piero eats a lot of beans). A semantic parallelism that goes beyond identity in form seems to be required here. 25
PART V. WHEN IDENTITY IN FORM IS NOT THAT STRICT 26
VEHICLE CHANGE IN ENGLISH, I (25) *Mary admires John i and he i does, too. (25) is ungrammatical, since the elided VP contains a referential expression ( John ) c-commanded by a coindexed pronoun, triggering a Principle C violation. However, (26) is OK, suggesting that the referential expression John can undergo vehicle change, namely a pronoun replaces the referential expression John in the elided VP but preserves its indexical information: (26) Mary admires John i, and he i thinks that Sally does, too. (26 ) Mary admires John i, and he i thinks that Sally does admire him i, too 27
VEHICLE CHANGE IN ENGLISH, II Note that vehicle change cannot save (24). If vehicle change applies, the Principle C violation is obviated but a Principle B violation is triggered: (24) *Mary admires John i and he i does, too. (24 ) *Mary admires John i and he i does admire him i, too 28
VEHICLE CHANGE IN LIS (27) a. IX-1 GIANNI MARIA PIERO MEET I met Gianni, Maria and Piero' b. *GIANNI MARIA i PRAISE. IX-3 i SAME c. GIANNI MARIA i PRAISE. IX-3 i THINK PIERO SAME Gianni praised Maria and she thinks that Piero did too (27c) is grammatical and can mean that Gianni praised Maria and she thinks that Piero praised her (=Maria). This reading requires vehicle change: (27c ) GIANNI MARIA i PRAISE. IX-3 i THINK PIERO IX-3 i PRAISE SAME 29
CONCLUSION We just started scratching the surface of the investigation of the properties of VP ellipsis in the visuo-spatial modality. Still, our preliminary exploration suffices to show that: (i) sign languages replicate the complex pattern which is presented by the phenomenon in spoken languages. (ii) some diagnostics that can be applied to sign languages only (or can be applied to sign languages to an higher degree than they can be applied to sign languages) may elucidate questions on the nature of VP ellipsis that are difficult to decide if sign languages are left out of the picture. 30
FOR FULLER REFERENCES AND A MORE ACCURATE ACCOUNT: C. Cecchetto, A. Checchetto, C. Geraci, M. Santoro & S. Zucchi, (2015) The Syntax of Predicate Ellipsis in Italian Sign Language (LIS), Lingua, 166: 214-235. FOR VIDEOS OF THE LIS SENTENCES https://sites.google.com/site/thegrammaroflis/home/scientificpapers/syntax/the-syntax-of-ellipsis-in-lis 31