English fragments, Minimize Domains, and Minimize Forms

Author(s): Nykiel, J; Hawkins, JA | Abstract: © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2020. We offer an account of preposition drop under clausal ellipsis in terms of two language processing principles: Minimize Domains and Minimize Forms. We argue that when Minimize Domains operates within the PP domain, it disfavors preposition drop due to the preferred independent processability of the PP fragment. When it operates within the VP domain it favors preposition drop in proportion to the number and strength of semantic dependencies between V and P in a given language: the more dependencies there are, and the stronger they are, the stronger the preference for preposition drop. In this way fragments are avoided with long dependencies between P and a distant V. We demonstrate this pattern in English corpora and propose it as an explanation for the typologically unusual preference that English shows for NP fragments. Minimize Forms supports preposition drop in easy-to-process environments cross-linguistically and in English when the more minimal fragment (NP) can be easily linked to its correlate in the antecedent, disfavoring preposition drop elsewhere. The predictions of Minimize Domains and Minimize Forms receive support from a mixed-effects regression model fitted to data from spoken US English, and can be understood as motivations for construction-specific constraints and preferences in clausal ellipsis.

[1]  Klaus Abels,et al.  On “sluicing” with apparent massive pied-piping , 2018, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.

[2]  Philip Miller,et al.  The Choice between Verbal Anaphors in Discourse , 2011, DAARC.

[3]  Ellen Barton,et al.  Nonsentential Constituents and Theories of Phrase Structure , 1991 .

[4]  B McElree,et al.  Sentence Comprehension Is Mediated by Content-Addressable Memory Structures , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[5]  J. Hawkins Word-external properties in a typology of Modern English: a comparison with German , 2018, English Language and Linguistics.

[6]  John A. Hawkins,et al.  The relative order of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond Manner–Place–Time , 1999, Language Variation and Change.

[7]  Elizabeth Closs Traugott,et al.  Lexicalization and Language Change: List of abbreviations , 2005 .

[8]  Elizabeth Closs Traugott,et al.  Lexicalization and Language Change: References , 2005 .

[9]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The effect of noun phrase length on the form of referring expressions , 2014, Memory & cognition.

[10]  Jeffrey T. Runner,et al.  The division of labor in explanations of verb phrase ellipsis , 2018 .

[11]  Jesse A. Harris Structure Modulates Similarity-Based Interference in Sluicing: An Eye Tracking study , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[12]  Laura Kertz,et al.  Verb phrase ellipsis: The view from information structure , 2013 .

[13]  David A. Gallo,et al.  Deep levels of processing elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection task , 2008 .

[14]  Peter W. Culicover,et al.  Same-except: A domain-general cognitive relation and how language expresses it , 2012 .

[15]  Jesse A. Harris,et al.  Correlate not optional: PP sprouting and parallelism in "much less" ellipsis. , 2019, Glossa.

[16]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  The Role of Non-Actuality Implicatures in Processing Elided Constituents. , 2012, Journal of memory and language.

[17]  Stephanie Kelter,et al.  Surface form and memory in question answering , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  D. Denison Why Old English had no prepositional passive , 1985 .

[19]  Jason Merchant,et al.  Fragments and ellipsis , 2005 .

[20]  Sasa Stjepanovic,et al.  Two cases of violation repair under sluicing , 2012 .

[21]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[22]  Joanna Nykiel,et al.  Clefts and preposition omission under sluicing , 2013 .

[23]  Leo G. M. Noordman,et al.  Reference Management in Instructive Discourse , 2004, Discourse Processes.

[24]  Inbal Arnon,et al.  The source ambiguity problem : Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments , 2011 .

[25]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[26]  T Florian Jaeger,et al.  On language 'utility': processing complexity and communicative efficiency. , 2011, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[27]  Sandra Chung Syntactic Identity in Sluicing: How Much and Why , 2013, Linguistic Inquiry.

[28]  B. McElree,et al.  Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. , 2011 .

[29]  Barbara J. Grosz,et al.  Pronouns, Names, and the Centering of Attention in Discourse , 1993, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  G. Waters,et al.  Memory mechanisms supporting syntactic comprehension , 2013, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[31]  Andrew Nevins,et al.  Cleaving the Interactions Between Sluicing and Preposition Stranding , 2009 .

[32]  Daniel Wiechmann,et al.  Domain minimization and beyond: Modeling prepositional phrase ordering , 2013, Language Variation and Change.

[33]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: early beginnings and recent advances , 2015 .

[34]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[35]  Sandra Stjepanović,et al.  P-Stranding under Sluicing in a Non-P-Stranding Language? , 2008 .

[36]  Julie A. Van Dyke,et al.  Memory Interference as a Determinant of Language Comprehension , 2012, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[37]  John A. Hawkins,et al.  Patterns in competing motivations and the interaction of principles , 2014 .

[38]  J. Nykiel Preposition stranding and ellipsis alternation 1 , 2016, English Language and Linguistics.

[39]  T. Leung The Preposition Stranding Generalization and Conditions on Sluicing: Evidence from Emirati Arabic , 2014, Linguistic Inquiry.

[40]  E. Gibson Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[41]  Richard Futrell,et al.  Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  Michael Walsh Dickey,et al.  Comprehension of elided structure: Evidence from sluicing , 2011 .

[43]  J. Nichols Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar , 1986 .

[44]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  An Activation-Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[45]  Jason Merchant,et al.  Voice and Ellipsis , 2013, Linguistic Inquiry.

[46]  J. Nykiel Constraints on ellipsis alternation: A view from the history of English , 2015, Language Variation and Change.

[47]  C. Clifton,et al.  Processing Elided Verb Phrases with Flawed Antecedents: the Recycling Hypothesis. , 2006, Journal of memory and language.

[48]  B. McElree,et al.  Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from Sluicing. , 2011, Journal of memory and language.

[49]  Karlos Arregi,et al.  Ellipsis in split questions , 2010 .

[50]  Stephani Foraker,et al.  Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension , 2003 .

[51]  Alfons Maes,et al.  Overspecification facilitates object identification , 2011 .