Voice Mismatch Research Articles

Verb‐echo answers in Japanese do not call for syntactic head movement: Arguments for a pragmatic account*

AbstractThis paper tackles the issue of whether syntactic head movement exists in Japanese. Sato & Hayashi (2018) and Sato & Maeda (2021) propose that Verb‐Echo Answers (VEAs), an instance of fragment answers, in Japanese are derived via the so‐called Verb‐stranding TP‐Ellipsis (VTPE; i.e., TP‐ellipsis accompanied by verb‐raising to C), thereby claiming that head movement exists in Japanese as a syntactic operation. In response, this paper argues that pro and Argument Ellipsis (AE) in Japanese sufficiently account for the key observations presented in their works. Specifically, a careful examination of the discourse in each question‐answer pair reveals that the seemingly problematic scope patterns in VEAs do not call for the VTPE analysis. We also show that the unacceptability of voice mismatches in VEAs can be explained by a discourse‐based analysis within the Question Under Discussion framework. Further, we provide an extensive discussion on the alleged evidence against the pro/AE analysis concerning adjunct‐inclusive readings. We show that negative scope reversal effects, which Sato & Maeda (2021) argue occur in VTPE, do not occur between adjuncts and negation in the novel data. Given this, we discuss possible ways to account for the availability of adjunct‐inclusive readings in VEAs with no recourse to VTPE, and suggest avenues for future research. The proposed analyses of VEAs shed new light on intriguing aspects of ellipsis phenomena, which involve complex interactions between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.

Verb echo answers and ellipsis operations: A reply to Sato and Hayashi (2018)

AbstractRecent research suggests that verb echo answers (VEAs) to a polar question in Japanese are derived by sluicing: the V head moves to C, and the complement of C, TP, undergoes deletion, stranding the verbal complex in C. Two pieces of evidence are provided for the view: adjunct inclusive interpretation and voice mismatch, neither of which is conclusive, as shown here. One consequence of the sluicing analysis is that VEAs reverse scope. We show that the semantic shift has nothing to do with the scope reversal. Our conclusion is that VEAs are unambiguously derived by multiple applications of argument ellipsis. We also advance an alternative explanation of the obligatory wide scope for focus phrases.

Ellipsis, contradiction and voice mismatch

Previous research has attributed differences in the acceptability of verb phrase ellipsis (VPE) with voice mismatches to processing effects (Arregui et al. 2006, Grant et al. 2012). This paper argues that they can instead be accounted for in terms of a standard, focus-based condition on ellipsis (Rooth 1992a,b), supplemented with the principle that accommodated antecedents cannot contradict an elliptical sentence. This perspective is compatible with voice mismatched VPE being fundamentally grammatical (Merchant 2013, cf. Hardt 1993) rather than ungrammatical (e.g. Kim & Runner 2018). It also encompasses other focus-based factors modulating voice mismatches, which in turn reveal that implicit arguments do not count for contrast in VPE (cf. Overfelt to appear). The account here aligns with a reappraisal of the ‘mismatch asymmetry’ (Arregui et al. 2006) as being driven by a penalty against passive ellipsis in subject focus environments (Poppels & Kehler 2019).

Voice mismatch and contrast in French Right-Node Raising

Right-Node Raising is generally considered to impose stricter identity conditions than other kinds of ellipsis, such as VP ellipsis, according to Hankamer & Sag 1976 and Hardt 1993. In this paper, we investigate voice mismatch in French Right-Node Raising (RNR) through a corpus study and two experiments. We show that RNR with voice mismatch can be found in a written corpus (frTenTen 2012) and that many examples involve coordination of a reflexive active and a short passive form. We suggest this is because semantic contrast (here, between self and external agent) plays a role according to Hartmann (2000) and Abeillé and Mouret (2010). We ran two acceptability judgement experiments to test voice mismatch and semantic contrast. We did not find any penalty for voice mismatch with VP ellipsis but an interaction with semantic contrast. We also found an effect of semantic contrast when coordinating an active and a passive VP without participle ellipsis. We conclude that voice mismatch is acceptable with RNR and propose a Head-driven Phrase-Structure Grammar (HPSG) analysis, following Chaves (2014) and Shiraïshi et al. (2019).

Focus Structure and Voice Mismatch in Pseudogapping

Focus Structure and Voice Mismatch in Pseudogapping

Do so replacement and the argument/adjunct distinction in Merge-based syntax

This study provides a novel look at do so replacement within the framework of the Bare Phrase Structure theory. Unlike the previous view of do so as a monolithic VP anaphor, I argue that do so is better analyzed as do and so, separately substituting for a functional Voice head and VP, respectively. This argument is supported by the observation of VP adverbs, the locative/directional interpretation of PPs, and the analysis of voice mismatch. The study consequently presents a more refined model of VP than the previous X-bar theoretic model, as it fulfills the structural requirement between complements and adjuncts.

The Puzzle of Argument Structure Mismatch in Gapping.

Voice mismatch between conjuncts is impossible in the gapping construction. Some recent studies explained this effect by analyzing gapping as involving the ellipsis of a category at least as large as VoiceP. One prediction this analysis makes is that mismatch of any head structurally lower than Voice (e.g., little v) should not be possible in gapping. In this study, through a series of acceptability judgment experiments examining argument structure mismatches in gapping, we provide empirical observations that challenge this prediction.

A corpus-based analysis of Post-Auxiliary Ellipsis voice mismatches in Late Modern English

ABSTRACT This paper analyses Post-Auxiliary Ellipsis voice mismatches between the antecedent clause(s) and the ellipsis site(s) in Late Modern English, using the Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE) (1700–1914). This study focuses on two subtypes of Post-Auxiliary Ellipsis, namely VP ellipsis and Pseudogapping. The results show that voice mismatches were possible in Pseudogapping and VP ellipsis in Late Modern English with low frequencies. This fact serves as counterevidence for the claim about the impossibility of finding voice mismatches in Pseudogapping and confirms corpus-based findings for Present-Day English. As for VP ellipsis, corpus-based studies show that voice mismatches are not attested in Present-Day English. Since they occur in Late Modern English with low frequencies, this contrast may be due to the stylistics or register of the corpora analysed.

Voice Mismatch Tolerance in Verb Stranding Verb Phrase Ellipsis

Verb Phrase Ellipsis, in particular, is taken to be very rare in languages other than English. However, recent literature has pointed out that a Verb Phrase Ellipsis-like construction does in fact exist in other languages, but may be masked due to the fact that the main verb raises to INFL in such languages, a process known as Verb Stranding Verb Phrase Ellipsis (VSVPE). This paper addresses two main issues: 1) whether such a construction in Hebrew patterns with VPE in English or with Pseudogapping; via an examination of voice mismatch tolerance following Merchant (2013) 2) After establishing that Hebrew is a VSVPE language and controlling for external variables such as independent object drop, this paper tests which constituent in particular is targeted in the ellipsis process. It is concluded that VSVPE languages target vP for ellipsis, not VP, nor PP, as opposed to recent accounts. In other words, they pattern with Pseudogappig in including higher constituents (vP, not VP) in the ellipsis) more than they do with VPE. Other Verb-Raising to INFL languages are predicted to behave similarly with respect to which constituent is targeted for ellipsis.

A Note on the Voice Mismatch Asymmetry in Ellipsis.

Theories of ellipsis differ in the identity condition claimed to hold between an antecedent and an elided constituent. A syntactic identity condition leads to the prediction that syntactic mismatches between an antecedent and elided constituent should give rise to a penalty, and that penalty should be greater than in corresponding examples without ellipsis. Further, if syntactic mismatches are ungrammatical, violating the syntactic identity condition, then in effect they are speech errors and would be expected to be rated higher when a passive clause antecedes an active elided VP than vice versa because people misremember passives as actives more often the reverse. A written acceptability judgment study crossed the voice of the antecedent clause (active/passive), the voice of the ellipsis clause (active/passive) and ellipsis/non-ellipsis in the final clause. Results indicate a syntactic mismatch lowers acceptability in examples with elided VPs but not examples with overt VPs, as predicted by theories with a syntactic identity condition. Passive-active mismatches were rated better than active-passive ones, especially with ellipsis, as predicted by a speech error/repair approach to mismatches. This result eliminates any concern that the appearance of a voice asymmetry might only be due to some incompatibility between VP ellipsis and passive voice.

Voice Mismatch Meets Neurolinguistics

This paper aims to investigate Korean advanced L2 English learners’ strategies for ellipsis resolution during sentence processing. Ellipsis resolution is known to involve several stages of information processing from the initial step of detecting an ellipsis-licensing element by the parser to the final stage of integrating the ellipsis site with the information retrieved from the antecedent of the ellipsis site. In examining these steps, we have manipulated three factors: (i) TP vs. VP-ellipsis; (ii) two types of discourse coherence relations (resemblance(-contrast) vs. cause-effect relations); (iii) voice match vs. mismatch. We found through the ERP recordings that voice mismatch in TP ellipsis elicited N400, followed by P600, irrespective of discourse coherence relations. In contrast, voice mismatch in VP-ellipsis registered N400 only in resemblance(-contrast) relation, but not in cause-effect relation. These findings lead us to conclude that Korean advanced L2 learners of English seem to undergo the full sequence of processing stages required for ellipsis resolution.

A pro-drop analysis of verb-echo answers in Korean

There are a variety of ways of answering to yes/no questions in Korean. One of them is verb-echo answers (VEAs), whereby speakers use as answers only the verbs which have already been mentioned in the preceding questions. We argue in this paper that unpronounced (or omitted) arguments in Korean verb-echo answers are phonologically null pronominals, namely pros, rejecting the TP ellipsis approach, which proposes that a verb undergoes V-T-C movement, and subsequently, the TP containing its argument(s) is deleted at PF. The current approach is supported by the fact that the recoverability of manner adverbs located inside verbal domains is restricted, and that we can easily find out instances where voice mismatch is allowed in verb-echo answers. In doing so, we propose what follows: First, pro-drop in VEAs needs an appropriate identity domain, whose size can vary depending on information structure. Second, adjunct ellipsis DOES exist in Korean, and it is licensed by a local head Pol in the matrix clause. (Seoul National University and Dongguk University)

String‐Vacuous Head Movement in Japanese: New Evidence from Verb‐Echo Answers

AbstractWhether Japanese has verb raising or not has been one of the most contentious issues in the literature for more than 20 years. This Remark presents novel evidence for string‐vacuous head movement from the previously unexplored perspective of verb‐echo answers. We propose that such an answer form in Japanese is derived through V–T–C movement in overt syntax, followed byTPellipsis at Phonological Form (PF), rejecting the alternativepro‐drop analysis. Our analysis is supported by a wide range of new facts on verb‐echo answers, including the indefinitepro‐drop restriction, the impossibility of voice mismatches, and adverb‐inclusive interpretations. Because our theory presupposes head movement as its central analytical premise, the results of this article indicate that Japanese grammar is equipped with string‐vacuous verb raising. We will also briefly explore some curious behaviors of verb raising in Japanese relating to the scope of negation under ellipsis and intervention effects. We will argue that this phenomenon differs fundamentally from its counterpart in European languages such as French in that the former is an optional operation in narrow syntax that only occurs if it yields new outcomes atPFand/or Logical Form (LF).

한국인 영어 학습자의 영어 생략문 태불일치 문장 수용성 판단에 관한 연구

한국인 영어 학습자의 영어 생략문 태불일치 문장 수용성 판단에 관한 연구

Case and remnants in sluicing

AbstractRecent work on ellipsis has promoted the hypothesis that syntax plays a limited role in the computation of the required isomorphism conditions between elliptical clauses and their antecedents. For example, Merchant (2008, An asymmetry in voice mismatches in VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping.

Not Voice but Case Match Matters in VP Ellipsis and Pseudogapping of English

This paper develops a Case/case-theoretic account for what Merchant (2008) calls voice mismatch in ellipsis constructions of English. Merchant (ibid.) reports that VIP ellipsis as an elision of smaller size VP allows voice mismatch, but Pseudogapping and Sluicing as an elision of bigger size vP/TP do not. However, Tanaka (2011) argues against Merchant`s dichotomy in voice mismatch between VP ellipsis and Pseudogapping, reporting that voice mismatch in both types of ellipsis is permissible or not while interacting with what Kehler (2000) calls discourse coherence relations between ellipsis and antecedent clauses. Departing from Kehler`s (2000) insight, we suggest that vP undergoes ellipsis in a resemblance discourse relation, but VP does so in a cause / effect discourse relation. Given the asymmetry in the size of ellipsis in tandem with discourse relations, we argue that since Accusative as well as Nominative Case is checked outside VP, the VP to be elided can meet the identity condition on ellipsis with its antecedent VP as the object element in the former and the subject one in the latter or vice versus have not been Case-checked yet, thus being identical in terms of Case-feature at the point of derivation building a VP.

Voice Mismatches in Sloppy VP-Ellipsis

This squib argues against Merchant’s (2008) analysis of voice mismatches in VP-deletion and pseudogapping by pointing out that it makes a false prediction when extended to sentences in which more than one VP-deletion operation applies.

Voice and Ellipsis

Elided VPs and their antecedent VPs can mismatch in voice, with passive VPs being elided under apparent identity with active antecedent VPs, and vice versa. Such voice mismatches are not allowed in any other kind of ellipsis, such as sluicing and other clausal ellipses. These latter facts appear to indicate that the identity relation in ellipsis is sensitive to syntactic form, not merely to semantic form. The VPellipsis facts fall into place if the head that determines voice is external to the phrase being elided, here argued to be vP; such an account can only be framed in approaches that allow syntactic features to be separated from the heads on which they are morphologically realized. Alternatives to this syntactic, articulated view of ellipsis and voice either undergenerate or overgenerate.

Eliding the derivation: A minimalist formalization of ellipsis

In this paper I use the formal framework of minimalist grammars to implement a version of the traditional approach to ellipsis as ‘deletion under syntactic (derivational) identity’, which, in conjunction with canonical analyses of voice phenomena, immediately allows for voice mismatches in verb phrase ellipsis, but not in sluicing. This approach to ellipsis is naturally implemented in a parser by means of threading a state encoding a set of possible antecedent derivation contexts through the derivation tree. Similarities between ellipsis and pronominal resolution are easily stated in these terms. In the context of this implementation, two approaches to ellipsis in the transformational community are naturally seen as equivalent descriptions at different levels: the LF-copying approach to ellipsis resolution is best seen as a description of the parser, whereas the phonological deletion approach a description of the underlying relation between form and meaning.

Voice Mismatch and Syntactic Identity

On the basis of an asymmetry between VP-deletion and pseudogapping, Merchant (2008a) concludes that ellipsis is conditioned by syntax. This article demonstrates that both pseudogapping and VP-deletion potentially allow voice mismatch. The unacceptable cases of voice mismatch in these constructions are attributed to a discourse factor (Kehler 2000, 2002). Nevertheless, since sluicing does not allow voice mismatch (Merchant 2001, 2007) even in the same context that allows voice mismatch in VP-ellipsis, Merchant's (2007, 2008a) conclusion is still valid. A syntactic condition on ellipsis is proposed, based on a semantic condition from Takahashi and Fox 2005. Kehler's discourse explanation is phrased in a revised format.