VP ellipsis

[Ivan A. Sag]

Hi Tibor,

> I have a simple question concerning VP ellipsis (Ivan listen!):

I'm listening...

> As a continuation of (1), which of the cases in (2) are grammatical?
>
> (1) John may have been sleeping, and
>
> (2) a. Mary, too.
>     b. Mary may, too.
>     c. Mary may have, too.
>     d. Mary may have been, too.

(2b) is questionable, but there may be analogous examples that are
well formed, e.g. with should or could instead of may.

> I would also appreciate a very brief brush-up on the history of VP-ellipsis
> in generative grammar, particularly from 1957-1976.

VP-Ellipsis, if memory serves, was already proposed as a transformation by
Zellig Harris, was included in Chomsky 1955 (Logical Structure of Linguistic
Theory) and was part of the analysis of the English auxiliary system that
contributed greatly to the success of transformational grammar. It was
commonly assumed as a transformation throughout early generative grammar and
was taken as a test for constituency, alongside the do so test. In the late
60s and early 70s, non-deletion analyses were considered that involved
base-generated elements. Wasow's (1972) thesis develops the view that
elliptical VPs are generated with internal structure, i.e. lots of empty
nodes. This view was assumed by Williams (1977) and argued against by Sag
(1976), which takes you to the end of the time you asked about.

All Best,
Ivan

>
> Best
>
> Tibor
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Dr. Tibor Kiss -- Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut
> Ruhr-Universität Bochum, D-44780 Bochum
> +49-234-3225114 // +49-177-7468265 // +49-234-3214137 (fax)
> You come here, you must think about minimalism
>