Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2025 / Preposition omission under English pseudogapping

Preposition omission under English pseudogapping

Paper · 2025 · Joanna Nykiel

Summary

The paper asks whether a processing-based account of preposition omission (P-omission) generalizes beyond sluicing and fragments, the only constructions where it had been studied. P-omission means answering with a bare NP where the antecedent contains a PP. Nykiel tests this on English pseudogapping: an auxiliary is stranded and followed by a remnant, as in "he does the private sector". Examples come from COCA. They are analysed against two efficiency principles from Hawkins (2004), Minimize Domains (MiD) and Minimize Forms (MiF), which Nykiel & Hawkins (2020) had already applied to ellipsis.

Two findings stand out:

  • Keeping the preposition is much more common than dropping it, which matches the cross-linguistic default for clausal ellipsis.
  • When omission does occur, it responds to MiD and MiF.

The author explains the bias against omission as a preference for structural parallelism. Pseudogapping usually offers a continuous PP correlate, so parallelism favours keeping the preposition. The conclusion is that P-omission is grammatical but shaped by processing pressures. The paper ends with testable cross-linguistic predictions.

Key points

  • Data. Pseudogapping tokens come from COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English), and the dataset is public at osf.io/sy96z.

  • Correlate definition. A correlate is defined through the antecedent head's argument structure, not through matching syntactic category. On this view, an NP remnant is a "deprepositionalized" PP, a term from Levin (1986). Supporting evidence:

    • the dative alternation with give (Miller 2014);
    • Dutch laten (Levelt & Kelter 1982).

  • Sprouting. When the antecedent PP is only implicit (e.g. "Harvey is afraid"), the remnant or fragment must keep its preposition.

  • Parallelism under ellipsis. Poppels & Miller (2023) found that, in comparative pseudogapping, parallelism violations are penalized about as much as in the same sentences without ellipsis. This differs from the ellipsis-specific penalty reported for VPE.

  • Predictions (Table 8).

    Discontinuous PP correlates (via stranding)Strong word-external dependenciesP-omission preferred
    YesYesYes
    NoYesMaybe
    NoNoNo

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Link an elliptical remnant to an argument slot of the antecedent's head rather than to a phrase of the same category, so a bare NP can legitimately fill a PP role.
  • I2. An implicit (sprouted) argument requires an overt preposition on the remnant, whereas an overt PP correlate allows dropping it. This gives a crisp, checkable licensing condition.
  • I3. Keep "rare" separate from "ungrammatical": frequency gaps can come from competing soft preferences such as parallelism versus economy, not from grammar rules.
  • I4. Model the choice to drop or keep a function word as soft constraints in competition: MiD and MiF favour dropping, structural parallelism favours keeping.
  • I5. Turn a theory into a small factorial table of predictions that can be falsified cell by cell.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (frames): ellipsis resolution in prag could attach a remnant to the antecedent verb's VerbNet role, even when the remnant lacks the preposition the frame expects.
  • I2 (tree): a post-parse validator could flag NP remnants that have no overt PP correlate, and use this to choose between ellipsis analyses.
  • I3 (learn): self-induced repair rules and silver-data filters should not discard rare but licensed patterns like P-omission as parser errors.
  • I4 (back): when generating elliptical clauses, default to keeping the preposition when the antecedent PP is continuous, and allow omission mainly when the antecedent strands its preposition.
  • I5 (learn): evaluation suites could be organized as similar factor grids, with negative-control cells where the predicted behaviour must not appear.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of California, DavisDavis · United States28 works · 41,916 citations

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 6The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 16,039 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 15,891 worksPsychology · 1,552 worksDevelopmental and Educational Psychology · 499 worksNeuroscience · 165 worksCognitive Neuroscience · 164 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.English · 2,263 works

Cite

Cite as Joanna Nykiel. 2025. Preposition omission under English pseudogapping. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.16995/glossa.15203

@article{nykiel2025preposition,
  title = {{Preposition omission under English pseudogapping}},
  author = {Joanna Nykiel},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2025},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.15203},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.15203}
}

References

130 references, 3 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Abe, Jun. 2015. The in-situ approach to sluicing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.222 ↗
  2. Abeillé, Anne & Hassamal, Shrita. 2019. Sluicing in Mauritian: A fragment-based approach. In Piñón, Christopher (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 12. find
  3. Abeillé, Anne & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2022. Me too fragments in English and French: a direct interpretation approach. The Linguistic Review 39(3). 495–524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ tlr-2022-2095 ↗
  4. Abels, Klaus. 2017. On the interaction of P-stranding and sluicing in Bulgarian. In Mueller-Reichau, Olav & Guhl, Marcel (eds.), Aspects of Slavic linguistics: Formal grammar, lexicon and communication, volume 16 of Language, Context and Cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110517873-002 ↗
  5. Almeida, Diogo A. de A. & Yoshida, Masaya. 2007. A problem for the preposition stranding generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2). 349–362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling. 2007.38.2.349 ↗
  6. Alshaalan, Yara & Abels, Klaus. 2020. Resumption as a sluicing source in Saudi Arabic: Evidence from sluicing with prepositional phrases. Glossa 5(1). 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.841 ↗
  7. Anand, Pranav & Hardt, Daniel & McCloskey, James. 2021. The Santa Cruz Sluicing Data Set. Language 97(1). e68–e88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0009 ↗
  8. Anand, Pranav & Hardt, Daniel & McCloskey, James. 2023. The Domain of Formal Matching in Sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00495 ↗
  9. Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London-New York: Routledge. find
  10. Arregui, Ana & Clifton, Charles Jr. & Frazier, Lynn & Moulton, Keir. 2006. Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 55. 232–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.005 ↗
  11. Bates, Douglas & Maechler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67. 1–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/ jss.v067.i01 ↗
  12. Bock, J. Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18. 355–387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 ↗
  13. Bock, Kathryn & Dell, Gary S. & Chang, Franklin & Onishi, Kristine H. 2007. Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition 104(3). 437–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.003 ↗
  14. Branigan, Holly P. & Pickering, Martin J. & Cleland, Alexandra A. 2000. Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75(2). B13–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00081-5 ↗
  15. Bürkner, Paul C. 2018. Advanced Bayesian Multilevel Modeling with the R Package brms. The R Journal 10(1). 395–411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-017 ↗
  16. Caha, Pavel. 2011. Case in adpositional phrases. Ms., CASTL, Tromsø. lingbuzz/001325. find
  17. Callahan, Sarah M. & Shapiro, Lewis P. & Love, Tracy. 2010. Parallelism effects and verb activation: The sustained reactivation hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39. 101–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9128-0 ↗
  18. Caplan, David & Waters, Gloria. 2013. Memory mechanisms supporting syntactic comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 20. 243–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0369-9 ↗
  19. Carlson, Katy. 2002. Parallelism and prosody in the processing of ellipsis sentences. New York: Routledge. find
  20. Carlson, Katy & Harris, Jesse. 2018. Zero-adjective contrast in much-less ellipsis: The advantage for parallel syntax. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33(1). 77–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1080/23273798.2017.1366530 ↗
  21. Chia, Katherine & Hetzel-Ebben, Hannah & Adolph, Maxwell & Amaral, Madison & Arriaga, Maynor & Booth, Holly & Boudreau, Victoria & Carpenter, Jennifer & Cerra, Carolina & Clouden, Megan & Cryderman, Jacob & Darji, Rida & Dollison, Jolie & Franco, Nicholas & Ghougasian, Lawrence & Hamilton, Laurel & Karosas, Kimiyo & Kenoyer, Casey & Krenz, Victoria & Lancaster, Samantha & Ma, Melissa & Markwell, Grace & Montoya, Faith & Nadler, Rebecca & Pinto, Samara & Rojas, Melissa & Sarmiento, Daniela & Stitik, Chloe & St. John, Jasmine & Valencia, Mariana & Walker, Kayla & Wells, Emma & Wolf, Julia & Wright, Destiny & Kaschak, Michael P. 2020. Examining the factors that affect structural repetition in question answering. Memory & Cognition 48. 1046–1060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01036-2 ↗
  22. Chung, Sandra. 2006. Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. In Cover, Rebecca T. & Kim, Yuni (eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31, 73–91. Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v31i1.896 ↗
  23. Chung, Sandra. 2013. Syntactic identity in sluicing: How much and why. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 1–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00118 ↗
  24. Craik, Fergus I. M. & Lockhart, Robert S. 1972. Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 11. 671–684. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X Culicover, Peter. 2016. Fragments all the way down. Workshop on Fragments, Saarbrücken University. ↗
  25. Culicover, Peter & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 ↗
  26. Culicover, Peter & Jackendoff, Ray. 2012. Same-except: A domain-general cognitive relation and how language expresses it. Language 88. 305–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0031 ↗
  27. Dickey, Michael Walsh & Bunger, Ann C. 2011. Comprehension of elided structure: Evidence from sluicing. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(1). 63–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01690961003691074 ↗
  28. Dubey, Amit & Sturt, Patrick & Keller, Frank. 2005. Parallelism in coordination as an instance of syntactic priming: Evidence from corpus-based modeling. In HLT ’05 Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 827–834. Strousburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 3115/1220575.1220679 ↗
  29. Fortin, Catherine. 2007. Indonesian sluicing and verb phrase ellipsis: Description and explanation in a minimalist framework. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. find
  30. Frazier, Lyn & Taft, Lori & Roeper, Tom & Clifton, Charles Jr. & Ehrlich, Kate. 1984. Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition 12. 421–430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198303 ↗
  31. Frazier, Lynn & Clifton, Charles Jr. 1998. Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 13(4). 499–520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/016909698386474 ↗
  32. Frazier, Lynn & Munn, Alan & Clifton, Charles Jr. 2000. Processing coordinate structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29. 343–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005156427600 ↗
  33. Gallo, David A. & Meadow, Nathaniel G. & Johnson, Elizabeth L. & Foster, Katherine T. 2008. Deep levels of processing elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection task. Journal of Memory and Language 58. 1095–1111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.001 ↗
  34. Gengel, Kirsten. 2013. Pseudogapping and ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665303.001.0001 ↗
  35. Ginzburg, Jonathan & Miller, Philip. 2018. Ellipsis in HPSG. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press. find
  36. Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A. 2000. Interrogative investigations. Stanford: CSLI Publications. find
  37. Goldberg, Adele & Perek, Florent. 2019. Ellipsis in construction grammar. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis, 188–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.8 ↗
  38. Griffiths, James. 2019. A Q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: Deriving the preposition stranding and island sensitivity generalizations without movement. Glossa 4(1). 12. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.5334/gjgl.653 ↗
  39. Griffiths, James & Lipták, Anikó. 2014. Contrast and island sensitivity in clausal ellipsis. Syntax 17. 189–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12018 ↗
  40. Gundel, Jeanette K. & Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of anaphoric expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 ↗
  41. Harris, Jesse A. 2015. Structure modulates similarity-based interference: An eye tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology 6. Article 1839. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01839 ↗
  42. Harris, Jesse A. & Carlson, Katy. 2019. Correlate not optional: PP sprouting and parallelism in ‘much less’ ellipsis. Glossa 4(1). 83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.707 ↗
  43. Hassen, Amal & Abeillé, Anne. 2025. Preposition omission in French interrogative sluices: empirical findings and theoretical implications. Glossa 10(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/ glossa.15197 ↗
  44. Hawkins, John A. 2000. The relative order of prepositional phrases in English: going beyond manner-place-time. Language Variation and Change 11(3). 231–266. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0954394599113012 ↗
  45. Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 ↗
  46. Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001 ↗
  47. Hoeksema, Jack. 2006. Pseudogapping: Its syntactic analysis and cumulative effects on acceptability. Research on Language and Computation 4. 335–352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11168-006-9023-x Hoffmann, Thomas. 2010. Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511933868 ↗
  48. Hofmeister, Philip. 2007. Facilitating memory retrieval in natural language comprehension. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University. find
  49. Hofmeister, Philip. 2008. The after-effects of linguistic form choice on comprehension. Poster presented at the 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Chapel Hill, 13–15 March. find
  50. Hofmeister, Philip. 2011. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 26. 376–405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01690965.2010.492642 ↗
  51. Hofmeister, Philip & Jaeger, T. Florian & Arnon, Inbal & Sag, Ivan A. & Snider, Neal. 2013. The source ambiguity problem: distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes 28. 48–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965. 2011.572401 ↗
  52. Hofmeister, Philip & Jaeger, T. Florian & Sag, Ivan A. & Arnon, Inbal & Snider, Neal. 2007. Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Featherston, Sam & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base, 185–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198621.185 ↗
  53. Ihara, Aya & Hayakawa, Tomoe & Wei, Qiang & Munetsuna, Shinji & Fujimakia, Norio. 2007. Lexical access and selection of contextually appropriate meaning for ambiguous words. NeuroImage 38. 576–588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.047 ↗
  54. Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A. 1990. Incomplete VP deletion and gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20. 64–81. find
  55. Karimi, Hossein & Fukumura, Kumiki & Ferreira, Fernanda & Pickering, Martin J. 2014. The effect of noun phrase length on the form of referring expressions. Memory and Cognition 42. 993–1009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0400-7 ↗
  56. Kim, Christina S. & Kobele, Gregory M. & Runner, Jeffrey T. & Hale, John T. 2011. The acceptability cline in VP-ellipsis. Syntax 14. 318–354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612. 2011.00160.x Kim, Christina S. & Runner, Jeffrey T. 2018. The division of labor in explanations of Verb Phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 41. 41–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-017-9220-0 ↗
  57. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2015. Syntactic and semantic identity in Korean sluicing: A direct interpretation approach. Lingua 66. 260–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.005 ↗
  58. Kim, Jong-Bok & Runner, Jeffrey T. 2022. Pseudogapping in English: a direct interpretation approach. The Linguistic Review 39(3). 457–494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2094 ↗
  59. Kim, Nayoun & Carlson, Katy & Dickey, Michael Walsh & Yoshida, Masaya. 2020. Processing gapping: Parallelism and grammatical constraints. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 73(5). 781–798. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820903461 ↗
  60. Kobele, Gregory M. 2015. LF-copying without LF. Lingua 166. 236–259. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.lingua.2014.08.006 ↗
  61. Kubota, Yusuke & Levine, Robert. 2017. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2). 212–257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00242 ↗
  62. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Pseudogapping puzzles. In Lappin, Shalom & Benmamoun, Elabbas (eds.), Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping, 141–174. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195123029.003.0007 ↗
  63. Lemke, Robin. 2021. Experimental investigations on the syntax and usage of fragments. Berlin: Language Science Press. ↗
  64. Leung, Tommy. 2014. The Preposition Stranding Generalization and conditions on sluicing: Evidence from Emirati Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 332–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ LING_a_00158 ↗
  65. Levelt, Willem & Kelter, Stephanie. 1982. Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology 14. 78–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90005-6 ↗
  66. Levin, Lori. 1982. Sluicing: A lexical interpretation procedure. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT Press. find
  67. Levin, Nancy. 1986. Main verb ellipsis in spoken English (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). New York: Garland. find
  68. Lewis, Richard L. & Vasishth, Shravan. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29. 375–419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15516709cog0000_25 ↗
  69. Lewis, Richard L. & Vasishth, Shravan & VanDyke, Julie A. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 10. 447–454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007 ↗
  70. Lohse, Barbara & Hawkins, John A. & Wasow, Thomas. 2004. Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language 80. 238–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0089 ↗
  71. Martin, Andrea E. 2018. Cue integration during sentence comprehension: Electrophysiological evidence from ellipsis. PLoS ONE 13(11). e0206616. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0206616 ↗
  72. Martin, Andrea E. & McElree, Brian. 2011. Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from sluicing. Journal of Memory and Language 64. 327–343. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jml.2010.12.006 ↗
  73. Mason, Robert A. & Just, Marcel A. 2007. Lexical ambiguity in sentence comprehension. Brain Research 1146. 115–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.076 ↗
  74. McElree, Brian. 2000. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29. 111–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1005184709695 ↗
  75. McElree, Brian & Foraker, Stephani & Dyer, Lisbeth. 2003. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 48. 67–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0749-596X(02)00515-6 ↗
  76. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001 ↗
  77. Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3 ↗
  78. Merchant, Jason & Frazier, Lynn & Clifton, Charles Jr. & Wescott, Thomas. 2013. Fragment answers to questions: A case of inaudible syntax. In Goldstein, Louis (ed.), Brevity, 21–35. Oxford University Press: Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664986.003.0002 ↗
  79. Miller, Philip. 1990. Pseudogapping and Do so substitution. In Papers from the 26th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 293–305. Chicago, IL: CLS. find
  80. Miller, Philip. 2014. A corpus study of pseudogapping and its theoretical consequences. In Piñón, Christopher (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics vol. 10. 73–90. find
  81. Molimpakis, Emilia. 2019. Accepting preposition-stranding under sluicing cross-linguistically: A noisy-channel approach. Doctoral dissertation, University College London. find
  82. Nairne, James S. 2002. Remembering over the short-term: The case against the standard model. Annual Review of Psychology 53. 53–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901. 135131 ↗
  83. Nykiel, Joanna. 2013. Clefts and preposition omission in sluicing. Lingua 123. 74–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.011 ↗
  84. Nykiel, Joanna. 2014. Semantic dependencies and the history of ellipsis alternation. In Adams, Michael & Brinton, Laurel J. & Fulk, Robert D. (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language VI: Evidence and Method in Histories of English, 51–70. Walter de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1515/9783110345957.51 ↗
  85. Nykiel, Joanna. 2015. Constraints on ellipsis alternation: A view from the history of English. Language Variation and Change 27. 227–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000071 ↗
  86. Nykiel, Joanna. 2017. Preposition stranding and ellipsis alternation. English Language and Linguistics 21. 27–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674315000477 ↗
  87. Nykiel, Joanna. 2018. Polish. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780198712398.001.0001 ↗
  88. Nykiel, Joanna & Hawkins, John A. 2020. English fragments, Minimize Domains, and Minimize Forms. Language and Cognition 12(3). 411–443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.6 ↗
  89. Nykiel, Joanna & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2021. Ellipsis. In Müller, Stefan & Abeillé, Anne & Borsley, Robert & Koenig, Jean-Pierre (eds.), Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook (Empirically Oriented Theoretical Morphology and Syntax 9). Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5543318 ↗
  90. Nykiel, Joanna & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2022a. Fragments and structural identity on a direct interpretation approach. Journal of Linguistics 58(1). 73–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0022226720000420 ↗
  91. Nykiel, Joanna & KIm, Jong-Bok. 2022b. On the grammaticality of morphosyntactically reduced remnants in Polish sluicing. Linguistics 60(1). 177–213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ ling-2021-0071 ↗
  92. Nykiel, Joanna & Kim, Jong-Bok & Sim, Rok. 2023. Case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis and the cue-based theory of sentence processing. Journal of Linguistics 59(2). 327–360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226722000068 ↗
  93. Onifer, William & Swinney, David A. 1981. Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension—Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition 9. 1–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196957 ↗
  94. Orth, Wesley & Yoshida, Masaya. 2025. Gaps that do not sprout. Linguistic Inquiry. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00551 ↗
  95. Overfelt, Jason. 2024. Having space to sprout: Failed sprouting in sub-clausal ellipses. In Autry, Robert & de la Cruz, Gabriela & Figueroa, Luis A. Irizarry & Mihajlovic, Kristina & Ni, Tianyi & Smith, Ryan & Harley, Heidi (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA. Cascadilla Proceedings Project. find
  96. Öztekin, I. & McElree, Brian. 2007. Retrieval dynamics of proactive interference: PI slows retrieval by eliminating fast assessments of familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language 57. 126–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.011 ↗
  97. Parker, Dan. 2018. A memory-based explanation of antecedent-ellipsis mismatches: New insights from computational modeling. Glossa 3(1). 129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.621 ↗
  98. Parker, Dan & Shvartsman, Michael & van Dyke, Julie A. 2017. The cue-based retrieval theory of sentence comprehension: New findings and new challenges. In Escobar, Linda & Torrens, Vicenc & Parodi, Teresa (eds.), Language processing and disorders, 121–144. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. find
  99. Parker, Dan & Phillips, Colin. 2016. Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition 157. 321–339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016. 08.016 ↗
  100. Parker, Dan & Phillips, Colin. 2017. Reflexive attraction in comprehension is selective. Journal of Memory and Language 94. 272–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.002 ↗
  101. Philippova, Tatiana. 2014. P-omission under sluicing, [P clitic] and the nature of P-stranding. In Kohlberger, Martin & Bellamy, Kate & Dutton, Eleanor (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XXII, 133–155. find
  102. Poirier, Josée & Walenski, Matthew & Shapiro, Luis P. 2012. The role of parallelism in the real-time processing of anaphora. Language and Cognitive Processes 27. 868–886. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01690965.2011.601623 ↗
  103. Poirier, Josée & Wolfinger, Katie & Spellman, Lisa & Shapiro, Lewis P. 2010. The real-time processing of sluiced sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39(5). 411–427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-010-9148-9 ↗
  104. Poppels, Till & Kehler, Andrew. 2019. Reconsidering asymmetries in voice-mismatched VP-ellipsis. Glossa 4(1). 60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.738 ↗
  105. Poppels, Till & Miller, Philip. 2023. Remnant connectivity in pseudogapping: Experimental evidence for a direct generation approach. Journal of Linguistics 59. 293–325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226722000354 ↗
  106. Rodrigues, Cillene & Nevins, Andrew & Vicente, Luis. 2009. Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and preposition stranding. In Torck, Daniéle & Wetzels, Leo (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2006, 175–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.303.11rod ↗
  107. Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? In Binnick, Robert & Davison, Alice & Green, Georgia & Morgan, Jerry (eds.), Papers from the 5th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286. Chicago Linguistic Society: Chicago. find
  108. Rudin, Deniz. 2019. Head-based syntactic identity in sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 50. 253–283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00308 ↗
  109. Sag, Ivan A. & Nykiel, Joanna. 2011. Remarks on sluicing. In Mülller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG11 Conference. CSLI Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2011.11 ↗
  110. Shapiro, Lewis P. & Hestvik, Arild & Lesan, Lesli & Garcia, Rachel. 2003. Charting the time-course of VP-ellipsis sentence comprehension: Evidence for an initial and independent structural analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 49. 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0749-596X(03)00026-3 ↗
  111. Shen, Zheng. 2018. Fragment answers and movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36(1). 309–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9369-9 ↗
  112. Stigliano, Laura. 2022. P-omission in ellipsis in Spanish: Evidence for syntactic identity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 40. 1353–1389. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11049-021-09535-w Stjepanović, Sandra. 2008. P-stranding under sluicing in a non-P-stranding language? Linguistic Inquiry 37. 179–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.179 ↗
  113. Stjepanović, Sandra. 2012. Two cases of violation repair under sluicing. In Merchant, Jason & Simpson, Andrew (eds.), Sluicing. Cross-linguistic perspectives, 68–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645763.003.0004 ↗
  114. Stump, Gregory. 1977. Pseudogapping. Ms., Ohio State University, Columbus. find
  115. Sturt, Patrick & Keller, Frank & Dubey, Amit. 2010. Syntactic priming in comprehension: Parallelism effects with and without coordination. Journal of Memory and Language 62. 333–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.001 ↗
  116. Swinney, David A. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 645–659. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4 ↗
  117. Szczegielniak, Adam. 2008. Islands in sluicing in Polish. In Abner, Natasha & Bishop, Jason (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 404–412. Somerville, MA, USA. find
  118. Tanner, Darren & Nicol, Janet & Brehm, Laurel. 2014. The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language 76. 195–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.07.003 ↗
  119. Thoms, Gary. 2016. Pseudogapping, parallelism, and the syntax of focus. Syntax 19. 286–307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12122 ↗
  120. Troyer, Melissa & Hofmeister, Philip & Kutas, Marta. 2016. Elaboration over a discourse facilitates retrieval in sentence processing. Frontiers in Psychology 7. art. 374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2016.00374 ↗
  121. Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. Invisible last resort: A note on clefts as the underlying source for sluicing. Lingua 120. 1714–1726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.002 ↗
  122. Van Dyke, Julie A. 2011. Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 65. 247–263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.002 ↗
  123. Van Dyke, Julie A. & Johns, Clinton L. 2012. Memory interference as a determinant of language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 193–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3. 330 ↗
  124. Van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness. Dordrecht: Foris. find
  125. Vicente, Luis. 2018. Sluicing and its subtypes. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 479–503. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.22 ↗
  126. Wagers, Matthew W. & Lau, Ellen F. & Phillips, Colin. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 61. 206–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.002 ↗
  127. Watkins, Olga C. & Watkins, Michael J. 1975. Build-up of proactive inhibition as a cue overload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 104. 442–452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.1.4.442 ↗
  128. Weir, Andrew. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. find
  129. Weir, Andrew. 2017. But write what? In LaCara, Nicholas & Moulton, Keir & Tessier, Anne-Michelle. (eds.), A Schrit to Fest Kyle Johnson. Linguistics Open Access Publications. UMass Amherst. find
  130. Wood, Jim & Barros, Matthew & Sigurdsson, Einar F. 2020. Case mismatching in Icelandic and clausal ellipsis. Journal of Linguistics 56(2). 399–439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0022226719000161 ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/nykiel-2025-preposition-omission-under-english-pseudogapping/