37.2241, Confs: Panel at LV Simposio de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística: "Ellipsis and the Architecture of Language: When and Why Can an Element Be Elided?" (3rd. ed.) (Spain)

Thu Jul 2 11:05:02 UTC 2026

LINGUIST List: Vol-37-2241. Thu Jul 02 2026. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 37.2241, Confs: Panel at LV Simposio de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística: "Ellipsis and the Architecture of Language: When and Why Can an Element Be Elided?" (3rd. ed.) (Spain)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Mara Baccaro, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Valeriia Vyshnevetska <valeriia at linguistlist.org>

================================================================

Date: 01-Jul-2026
From: Carlos Martínez-García [carlos.martinez at urjc.es]
Subject: Panel at LV Simposio de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística: "Ellipsis and the Architecture of Language: When and Why Can an Element Be Elided?" (3rd. ed.)

Panel at LV Simposio de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística: "Ellipsis
and the Architecture of Language: When and Why Can an Element Be
Elided?" (3rd. ed.)
Short Title: LV Simposio SEL
Theme: Ellipsis

Date: 18-Jan-2027 - 21-Jan-2027
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
Contact: Carlos Martínez-García
Contact Email: carlos.martinez at urjc.es
Meeting URL: https://congresosalcala.fgua.es/sel2027/

Linguistic Field(s): Language Acquisition; Linguistic Theories;
Pragmatics; Semantics; Syntax
Subject Language(s): English (eng, stan1293)
                     Spanish (spa, stan1288)
Language Family(ies): Central Italian Romance (cent2427); Eastern
Romance (east2714); Galician Romance (gali1263); Gallo-Romance;
Ibero-Romance

Submission Deadline: 30-Sep-2026

Description
The goal of this panel is to maintain the meeting space for linguists
working on ellipsis that was initiated at the LII Simposio de la SEL,
held in Madrid in 2024. Given that the panel was successful in 2024
and 2026 (researchers from different universities and countries, such
as Spain, Korea, Austria, Germany, the United States of America and
Poland attended), we believe that the session can provide a fruitful
meeting space at the LIV Simposio de la SEL.
Ellipsis is the anaphoric phenomenon that has aroused most interest in
formal linguistics, within generative grammar and outside it (Pollard
& Sag 1994; Dalrymple 1999; Merchant 2001). By the term ellipsis, we
refer to those cases in which a part of a sentence can be interpreted
semantically by virtue of a discourse antecedent, even though it lacks
phonetic content. Since the syntactic component systematically
associates sound and meaning, the challenge posed by ellipsis lies in
explaining why the absence of phonetic content does not entail a loss
of meaning. In other words, how can meaning be generated without
sound? These questions were raised in the first edition of this panel,
and continue to be of scientific interest today.
Although some authors have argued that the semantic content of
ellipsis can be recovered without the aid of syntax (Culicover &
Jackendoff 2005), empirical evidence points to the contrary. The fact
that unpronounced material is accessible to syntactic operations, such
as extraction, agreement, or quantificational scope, provides a strong
argument in favor of the hypothesis that, in cases of ellipsis, what
is unpronounced has an abstract syntactic representation (Johnson
2001; Merchant 2001; Saab 2021). However, this type of argument does
not yield the same results for all types of ellipsis. This has led to
an intense debate about which ellipsis phenomena have syntactic
structure (Hankamer & Sag 1976).
Ellipsis phenomena have been classified into two types. We refer to
argument ellipsis and non-argumental ellipsis. In argument ellipsis,
nominal arguments of the verb are omitted, as in (1B). In
non-argumental ellipsis, the elided material does not represent a
syntactically homogeneous class: the elision may scope a finite
clause, as in (2a), or be circumscribed to a smaller sentence. For
example, in (2b), the elided part is a constituent of the SD, while in
(2c) the head of the SV is omitted (the parentheses indicate the
elided part of the speech, and the hooks indicate what serves as its
antecedent).
(1) Argument ellipsis
     A: ¿Ha comprado [Juan] [libros]?
          ‘Did John buy books?’
     B: Sí, (Juan) ha comprado (libros).
         ‘Yes, (John) has brought (books).’
(2) Non-argument ellipsis
      a. Juan [quiere trabajar], pero no sabe de qué (quiere
trabajar). [sluicing]
          ‘John wants to work, but (he) does not know on what (he
wants to work).’
      b. El [libro] de Cervantes y el (libro) de Quevedo están ahí.
[elipsis nominal]
          ‘The book by Cervantes and the (book) by Quevedo are here.’
      c. Juan [comprará] el queso y Pedro (comprará) el vino.
[gapping]
          ‘John will buy the cheese and Peter (will buy) the wine.’
The study of these two types of ellipses offers a unique opportunity
to shed light on key aspects of human language architecture. How does
the computational component interact with each interface of external
systems? What constraints does the computational component impose on
syntactic representations? What constraints affecting syntactic
representations are instead imposed by the interfaces? What structure
do the interfaces with which the computational component interacts
possess?
Goals:
 This panel is open to papers that address any of the basic questions
raised by the study of ellipsis, such as the following, among others.
I. What can be elided?
 According to its semantic interpretation, Standard Spanish
distinguishes two types of null arguments: definite and indefinite.
Definite ones are mostly licensed in subject position of finite
sentences, and receive a definite interpretation (Chomsky 1981;
Brucart 1987; Fernández Soriano 1989; Holmberg 2005; Camacho 2013).
Indefinite ones are mostly licensed in object position, and inherit
their indefinite interpretation from a non-specific, indefinite
antecedent, usually a bare noun (Campos 1986; Brucart 1999; Laca 2013;
Verdecchia 2022). Do the syntactic and semantic differences exhibited
by these two kinds of null arguments justify a separate analysis for
both phenomena, or can they be explained under a unified analysis
(Duguine 2014)? What other types of argument ellipsis exist in Spanish
whose syntactic and semantic properties are incompatible with the
pro-drop parameter (Ortega-Santos 2023)?
 Contrary to what happens in Standard Peninsular Spanish, certain
dialects of Spanish allow definite null arguments in object position.
These dialects are in contact with on-Indo-European languages that
license definite null objects (Suñer & Yépez 1988 for Quechua-contact
Quechua Spanish; Palacios 2000 for Paraguayan Spanish in contact with
Guarani; Guijarro-Fuentes et al. 2022 for Basque Spanish in contact
with Basque). How can the micro-variation observed in this group of
dialects be formalized? What mechanisms explain the transmission of
this phenomenon from one language to another? What representation do
null arguments receive in the minds of this group of bilingual
speakers?
II. When?
 Within generative grammar, ellipsis has traditionally been analyzed
as the result of a post-syntactic operation, either (i) as an
operation in Phonological Form (Tancredi 1977; Chomsky & Lasnik 1993;
Merchant 2001), or (ii) as a reconstruction process in Logical Form
(Zagona 1988; Lobeck 1995). However, within the Minimalist Program,
the opposite idea has been defended: ellipsis as a syntactic operation
(Aelbrecht 2010; Baltin 2012). According to this hypothesis, ellipsis
renders the elided structure inaccessible for further syntactic
operations. Therefore, syntactic movement from the elided material
would only be possible if it occurred ‘before’ the ellipsis operation.
The main argument in favor of this hypothesis is that, for certain
types of ellipsis, movement from the omitted structure is possible in
some cases, but not in all. This is the case for some null complement
anaphora. While the extraction of a relative pronoun is possible from
within the null complement of modal verbs such as poder, deber, or
querer (Busquets 2006; Dagnac 2010; Saab 2021), as shown in (3a),
argument clitics cannot be extracted from the elided SV (Brucart 1987;
Depiante 2000), as seen in (3b).
(3) a. Juan besa a quien puede (besar).
          ‘John kisses whom (he) can (kiss).’
     b. Juan no la puede leer, pero María la puede *(leer).
         ‘John cannot read it, but Mary can (read) it.’
 What other morpho-syntactic processes are blocked by ellipsis? Does
the fact that some processes cannot occur in ellipsis contexts help to
identify the grammatical level where the ellipsis takes place (Lasnik
1999)?
III. Why?
 A syntactic constituent must maintain an identity relation with its
antecedent to be elided. Is this relation semantic or syntactic, or
both (Fiengo & May 1994; Johnson 2001; Merchant 2001)?
In addition to this identity relationship, what syntactic conditions
must be in place to license ellipsis? How do the syntactic conditions
that give rise to different types of elliptical constructions vary
from language to language? Are there specific parameters for ellipsis
or does the observed cross-linguistic variation derive from
independent principles?
References:
Aelbrecht, L. (2010). The Syntactic Licensing of Ellipsis. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Baltin, M. (2012). “Deletion versus pro-forms: an overly simple
dichotomy?”. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30, 381-423.
Brucart, J. M.ª (1987). La elisión sintáctica en español. Barcelona:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Brucart, J. M. (1999). “La elipsis”. In Bosque & Demonte (eds.),
Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 2. Madrid:
Espasa-Calpe, 2787-2863.
Busquets, J. (2006). “Stripping vs. VP-ellipsis in Catalan: What is
deleted and when?”. Probus 18, 280-306.
Camacho, J. (2013). Null subjects. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Campos, H. (1986). “Indefinite object drop”. Linguistic Inquiry 17,
354-359.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Chomsky, N. y Lasnik, H. (1993). “The theory of principles and
parameters”. In Jacobs et al. (eds.), Syntax: An international
handbook of contemporary research, Vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter,
506-569.
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford:
Oxford Linguistic.
Dagnac, A. (2010). “Modal ellipsis in French, Spanish and Italian:
Evidence for a TP-deletion analysis”. In Arregi et al. (eds.), Romance
linguistics 2008: Interactions in romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
157-170.
Dalrymple, M. (1999). Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional
Grammar: The resource logic approach. MIT Press.
Depiante, M. (2000). The Syntax of Deep and Surface Anaphora: A Study
of Null Complement Anaphora and Stripping/Bare Argument Ellipsis. Ph.D
dissertation. UConn.
Duguine, M. (2014). “Argument ellipsis: a unitary approach to
pro-drop”. The Linguistic Review 31, 515-549.
Fernández Soriano, O. (1989). Rección y ligamiento en español:
Aspectos del parámetro del sujeto nulo. Ph.D dissertation. Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid.
Fiengo, R. & May, R. (1994). Indices and identity. MIT press.
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. et al. (2022). “Measuring the bilingual
competence: Null object constructions”. VI Spanish Dialects Meeting.
Universidad de Alcalá.
Hankamer, J. & Sag, I. (1976). “Deep and Surface Anaphora”. Linguistic
Inquiry 7, 391-426.
Holmberg, A. (2005). “Is there a little pro?”. Linguistic Inquiry 36,
533-564.
Johnson, K. (2001). Topics in Ellipsis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Laca, B. (2013). “Spanish bare plurals and topicalization”. In Kabatek
& Walls (eds.), New Perspectives on Bare Noun Phrases in Romance
Languages and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 95-120.
Lasnik, H. (1999). “Pseudogapping puzzles”. In Lapin & Benmamoun
(eds.), Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 141-174.
Lobeck, A. (1995). Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and
Identification. New York: Oxford University Press.
Merchant, J. (2001). The Syntax of Silence. Sluicing, Islands and the
Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Otega-Santos, I. (2023). “Is Chilean Spanish a Canonical Pro-drop
Variety? On Subjecthood in Chilean Spanish”. In Saab & Rodrigues
(eds.), Formal Approaches to Languages of South America. Cham:
Springer International Publishing, 203-233.
Palacios, A. (2000). “El sistema pronominal del español Paraguayo: un
caso de contacto de lenguas”. In Calvo Pérez (ed.), Teoría y práctica
del contacto: el español de América en el candelero. Madrid:
Iberoamericana / Vervuert, 122-143.
Pollard. C. & Sag. I. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Saab, A. (2021). Gramática de los silencios. Balance y propuesta.
Madrid: AKAL. En prensa.
Suñer, M. & Yépez, M. (1988). “Null Definite Objects in Quiteño”.
Linguistic Inquiry 19, 511-519.
Verdecchia, M. (2022). “Object drop in Spanish is not
island-sensitive”. Journal of Linguistics 58, 901-906.
Zagona, K. (1988). “Proper Government of Antecedentless VP in English
and Spanish”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 95-128.
Guidelines:
 Oral presentations will be 20 minutes long, followed by 10 minutes
for discussion. Please indicate in your submission that your abstract
should be considered for the panel. For the panel we only accept oral
presentations. We will notify the authors by October 31, 2026.
 Abstracts must be no longer than 500 words, including references,
font size 12, single-spaced. Submissions are limited to a maximum of
one individual and one joint abstract per author (or two joint
abstracts) for the entire conference. Submissions will open September
1, 2026.
Organizing Committee of the Panel:
Alejo Alcaraz, Universidad de Jaén (UJA)
alcaraz at outlook.es
Steffen Heidinger, Universität Graz (Uni Graz)
steffen.heidinger at uni-graz.at
Carlos Martínez-García, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (URJC)
carlos.martinez at urjc.es

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Australian Linguistics Society https://als.asn.au/Home

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

Wiley http://www.wiley.com

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-37-2241
----------------------------------------------------------