16.2485, Review: Syntax/Typology: McShane (2005)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2485. Thu Aug 25 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.2485, Review: Syntax/Typology: McShane (2005)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Lindsay Butler <lindsay at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at dooley at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 24-Aug-2005
From: Ruixi Ai < rai at fas.harvard.edu >
Subject: A Theory of Ellipsis 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:22:17
From: Ruixi Ai < rai at fas.harvard.edu >
Subject: A Theory of Ellipsis 
 

AUTHOR: McShane, Marjorie J.
TITLE: A Theory of Ellipsis
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2005
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-1025.html 

Ruixi Ressy Ai, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University

SYNOPSIS

In this volume, McShane develops a theory of ellipsis that is quite 
holistic. Unlike the traditional approach, which tackles only one aspect of 
ellipsis, e.g., with reference either to syntax, semantics, discourse, 
lexical semantics, prosody or stylistics, McShane deals with them all. The 
approach is captured under extensible parameters-and-values. For 
parameters, they range over syntax, lexical semantics, morphology, 
pragmatics, stylistics and many others. The values for these parameters 
are usually of multi-valance. Take the direct object ellipsis with a like 
antecedent for example. One of the parameters that are related to syntax 
of this kind of construction can be represented as syntactic structure. 
The values for this parameter can be: 
(a) VP coordination; 
(b) Clausal coordination (the verbs have different subjects); 
(c) A clause and its elaboration; 
(d) Main clause and gerund phrase and 
(e) Main clause and subordinate clause. 

As we can see from this example, the parameter is quite descriptive in 
nature and the values are intended to exhaust all the possibilities that 
the parameter can predict. This parameter, combined with many others 
that may or may not be in the domain of syntax, e.g., in the domain of 
morphology, semantics, pragmatics, discourse, stylistics and so on, can 
not only describe what is elided but also predict what can be (sometimes, 
has to) be elided. Based on all these parameters and values, we can start 
from one parameter, follow its value setting and reach (possibly) another 
parameter. Following the value setting of that parameter, we can possibly 
reach yet another parameter. If we repeat this cycle, we can gradually 
reach the conclusion that co-reference between the ellipsis under 
investigation and some kinds of antecedents can be of high or low 
probability, thus resolving ellipsis. This whole process can be developed 
into a kind of algorithm, with great potentials to become a real computer 
program that can detect, interpret and generate elliptical utterances. 

The focus of this book, however, is not on developing these real computer 
programs. Instead, it focuses on describing linguistic facts, followed by 
suggested algorithms for computational linguists or computer experts. As 
the author defines, if 'one had to name the field to which this work 
belongs, it might best be called descriptive computational linguistics' 
(p.viii). 

The ellipsis that this book covers includes: (a) syntactic ellipsis; (b) 
semantic ellipsis and (c) morphological ellipsis. The discussion of all 
these elliptical phenomena is dispersed into 13 chapters, which make up 
the whole book. The main target language in this book is Russian, followed 
by (usu. a comparison with) Polish, Czech and English.  

Chapter 1 Getting Started
This is the cornerstone of the whole book. Instead of detailed data 
description, this chapter focuses on the more theoretical (sometimes 
philosophical) discussions. The main topics discussed in this chapter 
include: 
(a) What is a linguistic theory; 
(b) Why do we need a new linguistic theory for ellipsis; 
(c) How can we build a holistic linguistic theory for ellipsis that can 
cut across language modules (i.e., across syntax, semantics, pragmatics, 
etc.); 
(d) What is the methodology employed in developing such a theory; and 
(e) How do we evaluate such a theory eventually? 

It is based on these discussions that a theory of parameters-and-values 
emerges. Under this theory, parameters, with their entailed values, are 
drawn from various language modules (e.g., syntax, semantics, 
morphology, discourse, pragmatics, etc.). More significantly, these 
parameters (with their relevant values) can interact with each other, 
regardless of their background (i.e., from which language module they are 
drawn). It is this interaction among parameters across language modules 
that makes this theory for ellipsis holistic. It is also based on this approach 
that all the elliptical data will be described in later chapters. 

This chapter also differentiates two types of ellipsis: 
(a) syntactic ellipsis and 
(b) semantic ellipsis (e.g., 'I like reading Tolstoy' = 'I like reading 
[books written by] Tolstoy', which is not a possible utterance in 
Mandarin). 

The latter is of great significance to NLP, though it is less studied in 
literature. A preliminary (yet quite complete) inventory of all elliptical 
phenomena is also provided in this chapter (p.6-7).  

Chapter 2 Object Ellipsis: Preliminaries
This is the prelude for the next five chapters which deal exclusively with 
object ellipsis. This is of great significance because compared with 
subject and verb ellipsis, object ellipsis is not widely discussed in the
literature. McShane argues that the study of object ellipsis should be 
related to case marking. Take Russian for example, all three kinds of case 
assignments (i.e., configurational, lexical and semantic) are all involved 
in assigning case to the object. Thus, the case parameter for object 
ellipsis should include various cases like: 
(a) accusative; 
(b) genitive; 
(c) instrumental; 
(d) dative and 
(e) prepositional. 

These various case-bearing null objects can be related to various 
antecedents that may or may not bear the same case with the relevant null 
object. Exactly how the null object establishes the co-reference 
relationship with their possible antecedents under the case cue is of 
primary concern for the next five chapters.  

Chapter 3 Direct Object Ellipsis with a Like Antecedent
This chapter considers Direct Object (DO) ellipsis with a DO antecedent. 
In terms of case morphology, both the elided object and its antecedent 
bear accusative case (ACC). The licensing condition for the DO ellipsis 
with a DO antecedent, however, is not restricted to the case morphology 
alone. Instead, it is combined with syntactic, lexico-semantic and 
pragmatic factors. Thus, the parameters with their entailed values will be 
drawn from all these domains. An example of the parameter from the 
syntactic domain is provided at the beginning of this synopsis. An example 
of the parameter from the lexico-semantic domain would be something like 
the nature of the selectional restrictions of the verbs in the ellipsis 
clause, with its values set as being typical or being narrow. The 
pragmatic parameter would include something like stylistic force with its 
values set as being neutral or emphatic. All these possible parameters and 
values are discussed in detail with abundant data from Russian. Polish and 
Czech are also compared with Russian to validate this initial inventory of 
parameters and values. It is shown that these parameters and values can 
be extensible whenever something that has not been considered has 
turned up. 

In other words, in McShane's theory, new parameters and values across 
language modules can always be added. The theory is thus expandable by 
itself. Some sample processing algorithms are also provided, showing how 
the description derived from a theory like this can be applied in practice. All 
the algorithms designed are trying to resolve the co-reference between the 
DO ellipsis and its possible antecedents. The larger resolution of reference 
is excluded from these algorithms. 

Chapter 4 Direct Object Ellipsis with a Nominative Antecedent
In this chapter, the DO ellipsis (in ACC) is associated with a nominative 
(NOM) antecedent, which can be either a nominative subject or an 
independent nominative topic - this by itself can be a parameter with its 
values in resolving the co-reference between the DO ellipsis with a NOM 
antecedent. Other parameters include the nature of the selecting verbs, 
the syntactic relation between clauses and how the topic is presented. A 
cross-linguistic comparison with Czech and Polish, together with a sample 
algorithm, is also provided. 

Chapter 5 Direct Object Ellipsis with an Oblique Antecedent
In this chapter, the potentially elided category is a DO with 
configurational ACC case marking. The antecedent is a syntactically 
accessible object with oblique case marking. This includes: (a) 
complements of verbs with genitive (GEN), dative (DAT) or instrumental 
(INSTR) case marking and (b) complements of prepositions with GEN, 
DAT, INSTR, prepositional (PREP) or (loosely) ACC case marking. Other 
parameters that might promote ellipsis include: 
(a) R-expression versus pronominal antecedent (pronoun antecedents 
seem to incur ellipsis more readily); 
(b) the nature of the clause complex; 
(c) narrow selectional restrictions of the ellipsis-clause verb; 
(d) adverbs; 
(e) the Assertion (A) and Elaboration (E) strategy; 
(f) common semantic or pragmatic context and 
(g) rhythm, prosody. 

The interaction among these factors seems to be too complex and too 
general to produce any predictive algorithms at the moment. 

Chapter 6 Elided Lexically Case-Marked Objects
Lexically case-marked objects, which can bear GEN, INSTR, and DAT case 
marking in Russian can be elided in verbal repetition structures. If the 
verb in the antecedent clause and that in the ellipsis clause are not 
identical, it seems that only the (lexically case-marked) Datives can 
undergo ellipsis. While (lexically cased-marked) GEN and INSTR will be 
ambiguous between ellipsis and unexpressed objects. An algorithm to 
determine the co-reference between the elided lexically case-marked 
object and its antecedent seems to be possible and it is provided in this 
chapter (p.113). 

Chapter 7 Unexpressed Objects That Do Not or May Not Represent 
Syntactic Ellipsis
Missing objects can be due to: 
(a) syntactic ellipsis; 
(b) the non-selection of optional objects; 
(c) object non-expression triggered by modality; 
(d) the non-expression of generalized-human referents; and 
(e) the non-expression of objects in series. 

These five factors (or five nodes in a broad plane) can radiate and 
borders among them are not that clear. Since this involves both syntactic 
and semantic ellipsis, not only co-reference resolution algorithms, but 
also reference resolution algorithms - that is, to specify 'the generalized 
or specific object that people understand to be referred to in all such 
contexts' (p.127), should be developed. 

Chapter 8 Head Noun Ellipsis ... or Not?
Russian is significantly different from English in that adjectives in 
Russian can be: 
(a) real adjectives that can license head noun ellipsis. This is not 
possible in English, and instead of head noun ellipsis, one-substitution is 
usually employed, which is an instance of semantic ellipsis since 'one(s) 
must be linked to a real-world referent for a full semantic representation' 
(p.128); 
(b) diachronically substantivized adjectives (deadjectival nominals) that 
function as full-fledged nouns. 

In the latter case, no ellipsis is involved.

Chapter 9 Verbal Ellipsis with One Licensor
Four types of verbal ellipsis are discussed in this chapter: 
(a) Gapping; 
(b) Stripping; 
(c) Sluicing; and 
(d) Verb Phrase Ellipsis. 

Only (a) is of great significance. Compared with Gapping in English, 
Gapping in Russian shows the following differences: 
(a) it is stylistically unrestricted; 
(b) morphologically realized case marking in Russian expands Gapping 
potential; and 
(c) Gapping in Russian can be conjunctionless. 

Only one of two basic strategies is involved in the aforementioned four 
types of verbal ellipsis: either interclause parallelism ((a) and (b)) or  
a lexical licensor (a wh-element for (c) and an auxiliary for (d)).

Chapter 10 Verb Ellipsis with a Combination of Licensors
Multilicensor Verbal Ellipsis (Multi-VE) is quite productive in Russian 
(limited in Polish and Czech). It refers to the verb ellipsis which is 
licensed by the combined semantics of the overt categories (NP argument; 
NP adverbial; Impersonal predicate; etc.). It is the combined semantics of 
these overt categories, sometimes with the help of the context that ensure 
the recoverability of the relevant (elided) verb meaning. Orienting the 
description in this domain towards processing is highly possible and 
necessary.   

Chapter 11 Ellipsis of Minor Parts of Speech
This chapter describes the ellipsis of some minor parts of speech. This 
includes: 
(a) ellipsis of conjunctions and relative pronouns; 
(b) ellipsis of prepositions; 
(c) ellipsis of conditional particles; and 
(d) ellipsis of reciprocal and reflexive particles.

Chapter 12 Dependencies in Ellipsis: A Polish Case Study
This chapter presents a clear example of dependencies in ellipsis (i.e., 
the interdependence among overt and elided categories). Three elidable 
categories in Polish: the multifunctional particle 'sie', the conditional 
particle or morpheme 'by'/'-by' and direct objects with default ACC case 
marking, are included in the discussion. 

Chapter 13 More Elliptical Phenomena
The last chapter discusses: 
(a) syntactic ellipsis with or without co-reference; 
(b) semantic ellipsis; 
(c) unexpressed morphemes; and 
(d) language strategies (which is used in determining special processing 
algorithm for that language). 

Under these discussions, the resolution of ellipsis under co-reference 
(which is the focus for most of the book) is now brought into the larger 
framework of reference resolution (i.e., linking to real-world referent).  

CRITICAL EVALUATION

This book has made a great contribution to the theoretical and 
computational study of ellipsis. First of all, the parameters-and-values 
approach has provided us with a bird's eye view towards the description of 
the licensing condition for ellipsis - instead of a (more traditional) worm's 
one. As far as I know, this is the first time that the holistic view towards the 
licensing condition of ellipsis has been developed into a serious linguistic 
theory. 

Second, the parameters-and-values approach does not only give rise to a 
new theory for ellipsis, but also provides us with a methodology for 
describing ellipsis. As mentioned in the synopsis (under chapter 3), the 
theory is self-extensible. Thus, future work on ellipsis can be easily 
accommodated into this framework. The only thing we have to do is to 
keep on adding parameters and its entailed values into this system. In this 
sense, this system of parameters-and-values is dynamic in nature. 

Third, the sample algorithms have exposed computational linguists and 
computer experts to a huge temptation to make these into real computer 
programs. This is a great contribution to NLP in terms of (co-)reference 
resolution. 

Fourth, the book has provided a detailed inventory for ellipsis that can 
hardly be found anywhere else in ellipsis literature. 

Fifth, the book is equipped with the richest examples of the relevant 
phenomena that I have ever seen. All in all, the book will be of great 
benefit to theoretical linguists, computational linguists, field/descriptive 
linguists and anyone who is interested in ellipsis in Slavic languages. 

I have three further comments concerning the book. First, object ellipsis 
has been discussed extensively in the book (6 chapters in total). This is 
reasonable since this is not extensively discussed in literature, compared 
with the study of subject and verb ellipsis. This is partially because so 
far, the study of ellipsis is based largely on English (as the target 
language), which seldom allows object ellipsis (but McShane has 
mentioned some exceptions in the book). Thus, the extensive discussion 
of object ellipsis in Russian is a great contribution. The study of object 
ellipsis in other languages, e.g., Mandarin: Huang (1984, 1991), Li (2002); 
Japanese: Hoji (1997, 1998); Korean: Kim (1999), Mandarin, Japanese 
and Korean: Tomioka (2003); Hebrew: Doron (1999), Goldberg (2003), 
has also picked up a lot of momentum recently. Thus, it will be of great 
benefit to see how McShane's theory can be technically extended to those 
languages which might or might not have case marking. 

Second, the study of VP ellipsis can be further explicated (compared with 
what McShane has described in the book). It is well known that VP ellipsis 
may not be as universal as other types of ellipsis, e.g., Sluicing. How to 
account for the cross-linguistic variations and how to set those parameters 
in VP ellipsis is going to be the next item in the ellipsis agenda. Take 
Mandarin for example, it has been argued that only deontic 
auxiliaries/modals can license VP ellipsis (Wu, 2003).

Third, in general, the book is quite clear and pleasant to read. But the 
lack of alignment between the Cyrillic/transliteration Russian and the 
English gloss does make the reading of the examples hectic sometimes 
(though I understand there is a good reason for McShane to have done 
so). 

REFERENCES

Doron, E. (1999) "V-Movement and VP-Ellipsis", in Shalom Lappin and 
Elabbas Benmamoun (eds.) Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping, 
New York: Oxford University Press, 124-140.

Goldberg, L. (2003) "Deriving V-stranding VP Ellipsis", paper presented at 
NELS-34 at Stony Brook University, New York.

Hoji, H. (1997) "Sloppy Identity and Formal Dependency", in Proceedings 
of WCCFL 15, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 209-223. 

Hoji, H. (1998) "Null Object and Sloppy Identity in Japanese", Linguistic 
Inquiry 29, 127-152.

Huang, C.-T. J. (1984) "On the Distribution and Reference of Empty 
Pronouns", Linguistic Inquiry 15.4: 531-574.

Huang, C.-T. J. (1991) "Remarks on the Status of the Null Object", in 
Robert Freidin (ed.) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 
Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 56-76.

Kim, S. (1999) "Sloppy/strict Identity, Empty objects, and NP ellipsis," 
JEAL 8, 255-284.

Li, H.-J. G. (2002) Ellipsis Constructions in Chinese, doctoral 
dissertation, University of Southern California.

Tomioka, S. (2003) "The Semantics of Japanese Null Pronouns and its 
Cross-linguistic Implications", in Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler 
(eds.) The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures, 
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Wu, H.-H. (2003) On Ellipsis and Gapping in Mandarin Chinese, MA. 
thesis, National Tsing-Hua University. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Ruixi Ressy Ai is a Teaching Fellow and PhD student at the Department of 
Linguistics, Harvard University. His research interests lie in the areas 
of East Asian Languages, Theoretical Linguistics and Computational 
Linguistics. Particularly, he is interested in ellipsis and event 
structure.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2485