Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Boxell, Oliver; Felser, Claudia; Cunnings, Ian (2017)
Publisher: John Benjamins
Languages: English
Types: Article
We report the results from an eye-movement monitoring study investigating native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers' real-time processing of antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), a type of verb phrase ellipsis in which the ellipsis gap forms part of its own antecedent. The resulting interpretation problem is traditionally thought to be solved by quantifier raising, a covert scope-shifting operation that serves to remove the gap from within its antecedent. Our L2 group comprised advanced, native German-speaking L2 learners of English. The analysis of the eye-movement data showed that both L1 and L2 English speakers tried to recover the missing verb phrase after encountering the gap. Only the native speakers showed evidence of ellipsis resolution being affected by quantification, however. No effects of quantification following gap detection were found in the L2 group, by contrast, indicating that recovery of the elided material was accomplished independently from the object's quantificational status in this group.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Dekydtspotter, L., & Miller, A.K. (2013). Inhibitive and facilitative priming induced by traces in the processing of wh-dependencies in a second language. Second Language Research, 29, 345-372.
    • Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Duffield, N., & Matsuo, A. (2009). Native-speakers' vs. L2 learners sensitivity to parallelism in VP-Ellipsis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 1-31.
    • Duffield, N., Matsuo, A., & Roberts, L. (2009). Factoring out the parallelism effect in VP-ellipsis: English vs. Dutch contrasts. Second Language Research, 25, 427- 467.
    • Felser, C. (2015). Native vs. non-native processing of discontinuous dependencies. Second Language, 14.
    • Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in English as a second language: The role of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571-603.
    • Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9-36.
    • Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2000). On bound variable interpretations: The LF-only hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 125-140.
    • Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2001). Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy alpha. Syntax, 4, 1-22.
    • Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2005). The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax, 8, 121-174.
    • Gibson, E., Jacobson, P., Graff, P., Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., & Piantadosi, S.T. (2014). A pragmatic account of complexity in definite Antecedent-ContainedDeletion relative clauses. Journal of Semantics. Published online, doi:10.1093/jos/ffu006
    • Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I.A. (2000). Interrogative investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    • Hackl, M., Koster-Hale, J., & Varvoutis, J. (2012). Quantification and ACD: evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics, 29, 145-206.
    • Hardt, D. (1993). VP ellipsis and contextual interpretation. Technical Reports (CIS). Paper 417. http://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/417.
    • Harley, H. (2002). ACD, WCO and QR of DPs. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 659-664.
    • Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell. Malden, MA.
    • Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Offline and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 463- 483.
    • Hornstein, N. (1994). An argument for minimalism: The case of antecedent-contained deletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 455-480.
    • Ionin, T., Luchkina, T., & Stoops, A. (2014). Quantifier scope and scrambling in the second language acquisition of Russian. In U. Minai et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition-North America (pp. 169-180). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    • Jacobson, P. (1998). Direct compositionality and variable-free semantics: The case of antecedent contained deletion. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Topics in ellipsis (pp. 30-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    • Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
    • Kaplan, J. (1984). Obligatory too in English. Language, 60, 510-518.
    • Kennedy, C. (1997). Antecedent contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 662-688.
    • Kiguchi, H., & Thornton, R. (2004). Binding principles and ACD constructions in child grammars. Syntax, 7, 234-271.
    • Lobeck, A. (1995). Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification. New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53-78.
    • Marsden, H. (2004). Quantifier scope in non-native Japanese: A comparative interlanguage study of Chinese, English, and Korean-speaking learners. PhD dissertation, University of Durham.
    • Martin, A.E., & McElree, B. (2008). A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 879-906.
    • May, R. (1985). Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    • Murphy, G.L. (1985). Processes of understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 290-303.
    • Patterson, C., Trompelt, H., & Felser, C. (2014). The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5:147. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00147.
    • Phillips, C., & Parker, D. (2014). The psycholinguistics of ellipsis. Lingua, 151, 78- 95.
    • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye-movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
    • Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333-357.
    • Rosales Sequeiros, X. (2004). Interpretation of reflexive anaphora in L2 VP-ellipsis: Relevance Theory and paradigms of explanation. Second Language Research 20, 256-280.
    • Ross, J.R. (1969). Guess who? In R.I. Binnick, A. Davidson, G.M. Green & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 252-286). Chicago, IL: CLS.
    • Sag, I.A. (1976). Deletion and Logical Form. MIT dissertation.
    • Shapiro, L.P., & Hestvik, A. (1995). On-line comprehension of VP-ellipsis: Syntactic reconstruction and semantic influence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 517-532.
    • Shapiro, L.P., Hestvik, A., Lesan, L., & Garcia, A.R. (2003). Charting the time-course of sentence processing: Reconstructing missing arguments in VP-ellipsis constructions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 1-19.
    • Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of "interface" in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1-33.
    • Sugawara, A., Kotek, H., Hackl, M., & Wexler, K. (2013). Long vs. short QR: Evidence from the acquisition of ACD. Proceedings of Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 37. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    • Syrett, K., & Lidz, J. (2009). Quantifier Raising in 4-year-olds. Language Acquisition, 16, 67-81.
    • Syrett, K., & Lidz, J. (2011). The locality of QR: Evidence from children's interpretations of antecedent contained deletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 305-337.
    • Szabolcsi, A. (2014). Quantification and ACD: What is the evidence from real-time processing evidence for? A reply to Hackl et al. (2012). Journal of Semantics, 31, 135-145.
    • Tanenhaus, M., & Carlson, G.N. (1990). Comprehension of deep and surface verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 257 - 280.
    • Winkler, S. (2005). Ellipsis and focus in generative grammar. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
    • Ying, H.G. (2005). Relevance and second language learners' interpretation of reflexive anaphora in VP-ellipsis. Language Sciences, 27, 551-570.
    • Yoshida, M., Walsh Dickey, M., & Sturt, P. (2013). Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and ellipsis in real-time sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 272-302.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok