Answer ellipsis (= answer fragments) is a type of ellipsis that occurs in answers to questions. Answer ellipsis appears very frequently in any dialogue, and it is present in probably all languages. Of the types of ellipsis mechanisms, answer fragments behave most like sluicing, a point that shall be illustrated below.
Examples
Standard instances of answer ellipsis occur in answers to questions. A question is posed, and the answer is formulated in such a manner to be maximally efficient. Just the constituent that is focused by the question word is uttered. The elided material in the examples in this article is indicated using a smaller font and subscripts:
- Q: Who walked the dog? A: Tom walked the dog. - Subject noun as answer fragment
- Q: Whom did you call? A: I called Sam. - Object noun as answer fragment
- Q: What did you try to do? A: I tried to Fix the hard drive. - Verb phrase as answer fragment
- Q: Whose house is too big? A: Fred's house is too big. - Possessor as answer fragment
- Q: When did they arrive? A: They arrived At noon. - Temporal adjunct prepositional phrase as answer fragment
- Q: Why will they resist our help? A: They will resist our help Due to excessive pride. - Causal adjunct prepositional phrase as answer fragment
This sort of data could easily be expanded. An answer fragment is possible for any constituent that can be questioned using a question word. An important aspect of the elided material of answer ellipsis is that it usually does not correspond to a constituent. This fact is problematic for theories of ellipsis, a point which is examined below.
Noteworthy traits
Answer ellipsis behaves curiously in a couple of noteworthy ways. The answer fragment should not, for instance, encompass more than the focused constituent:
- Q: What did you try to begin to repair?
- a. A: I tried to begin to repair My bike.
- b. A: I tried to begin to *Repair my bike.
- c. A: I tried to *Begin to repair my bike.
- d. A: I *Tried to begin to repair my bike.
- e. A: I tried to begin to repair my bike.
- Q: What did you try to begin to repair?
Either just the focused constituent (i.e. the constituent that is focused by the question word in the question) or the entire sentence must appear as the answer. If an intermediate constituent appears, the answer is unacceptable.
Another noteworthy aspect of answer ellipsis is that a negation can be part of the elided material. Answer ellipsis is like sluicing in this regard, but unlike gapping, stripping, VP-ellipsis, and pseudogapping, e.g.
- Q: Who has not done their homework? A: Connor has not done his homework. - Negation is part of elided material of answer ellipsis.
- Tom did not do the problem, and I don't know why he did not do the problem. - Negation is part of elided material of sluicing.
- Sam did not say it twice, *and Susan did not say it once. - Gapping fails to include negation in the ellipsis
- Larry did not pose the question, *and Bill did not pose the question. - Stripping fails to include the negation in the ellipsis
- Christine has not exaggerated, *and Jerry has not exaggerated, too. - VP-ellipsis fails to include the negation in the ellipsis
- She does not want to date him more than *he does not want to date her. - Pseudogapping fails to include the negation in the ellipsis
These data demonstrate that answer ellipsis and sluicing have something important in common that distinguishes them from other ellipsis mechanisms.
Theoretical analyses
Theoretical accounts of answer ellipsis are faced with the same basic problem that challenges the accounts of other ellipsis mechanisms. This problem revolves around the fact that the elided material often does not form a constituent in surface syntax. The following trees illustrate the problem. The tree on the left is a constituency-based tree of a phrase structure grammar, and the tree on the right is the corresponding dependency-based tree of a dependency grammar:
In both trees, the elided material I said, which is indicated using the lighter font shade, does not form as a constituent. In other words, it does not qualify as a complete subtree. The theory of ellipsis is therefore challenged to produce an analysis of such cases that can account for the fact that ellipsis appears to be eliding non-constituent units.
Movement first, ellipsis second
One prominent means of dealing with this problem is to assume that the answer fragment is first moved out of an encompassing constituent so that this encompassing constituent can then be elided. The following tree illustrates such an analysis in a phrase structure grammar:
The object nothing is moved to the left out of the constituent S in such a manner that S (the lower S) can then be elided. This sort of analysis allows one to preserve the assumption that ellipsis mechanisms (in this case answer ellipsis) are eliding constituents. A constituent-based theory of syntax can therefore be maintained.
Analyses of fragment answers that incorporate movement of the remnant of ellipsis in the manner just sketched have a way of accounting for two important facts documented in the literature. First, in languages that require preposition pied-piping such as German, fragment answers that retain the preposition (pied-pipe it, on the movement analysis) are judged significantly more acceptable than those that do not retain it, a phenomenon related to what is known as the (or Merchant's Generalization). Second, fragment answers appear to be sensitive to locality restrictions on movement, including islands:
- Q: Does Abby speak the same Balkan language that Ben speaks?
- A: *No, "Charlie".
- A: No, she speaks the same Balkan language that "Charlie" speaks.
Notes
- For a movement-first-ellipsis-second approach to answer fragments, see Merchant (2004).
- For a discussion of answer fragments and preposition stranding, see Merchant et al. (2013).
- For evidence in support of locality restrictions on movement as an explanation for the answer fragments that are and are not possible, see Merchant (2004).
References
- Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 661–738.
- Merchant, J., L. Frazier, C. Clifton Jr., and T. Weskott. 2013. Fragment answers to questions: A case of inaudible syntax. In L. Goldstein (ed.), Brevity, 21–35. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
- Osborne, T., M. Putnam, and T. Groß 2012. Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15, 4, 354–396.
Answer ellipsis answer fragments is a type of ellipsis that occurs in answers to questions Answer ellipsis appears very frequently in any dialogue and it is present in probably all languages Of the types of ellipsis mechanisms answer fragments behave most like sluicing a point that shall be illustrated below ExamplesStandard instances of answer ellipsis occur in answers to questions A question is posed and the answer is formulated in such a manner to be maximally efficient Just the constituent that is focused by the question word is uttered The elided material in the examples in this article is indicated using a smaller font and subscripts Q Who walked the dog A Tom walked the dog Subject noun as answer fragment Q Whom did you call A I called Sam Object noun as answer fragment Q What did you try to do A I tried to Fix the hard drive Verb phrase as answer fragment Q Whose house is too big A Fred s house is too big Possessor as answer fragment Q When did they arrive A They arrived At noon Temporal adjunct prepositional phrase as answer fragment Q Why will they resist our help A They will resist our help Due to excessive pride Causal adjunct prepositional phrase as answer fragment dd This sort of data could easily be expanded An answer fragment is possible for any constituent that can be questioned using a question word An important aspect of the elided material of answer ellipsis is that it usually does not correspond to a constituent This fact is problematic for theories of ellipsis a point which is examined below Noteworthy traitsAnswer ellipsis behaves curiously in a couple of noteworthy ways The answer fragment should not for instance encompass more than the focused constituent Q What did you try to begin to repair a A I tried to begin to repair My bike b A I tried to begin to Repair my bike c A I tried to Begin to repair my bike d A I Tried to begin to repair my bike e A I tried to begin to repair my bike dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd Either just the focused constituent i e the constituent that is focused by the question word in the question or the entire sentence must appear as the answer If an intermediate constituent appears the answer is unacceptable Another noteworthy aspect of answer ellipsis is that a negation can be part of the elided material Answer ellipsis is like sluicing in this regard but unlike gapping stripping VP ellipsis and pseudogapping e g Q Who has not done their homework A Connor has not done his homework Negation is part of elided material of answer ellipsis dd Tom did not do the problem and I don t know why he did not do the problem Negation is part of elided material of sluicing dd Sam did not say it twice and Susan did not say it once Gapping fails to include negation in the ellipsis dd Larry did not pose the question and Bill did not pose the question Stripping fails to include the negation in the ellipsis dd Christine has not exaggerated and Jerry has not exaggerated too VP ellipsis fails to include the negation in the ellipsis dd She does not want to date him more than he does not want to date her Pseudogapping fails to include the negation in the ellipsis dd These data demonstrate that answer ellipsis and sluicing have something important in common that distinguishes them from other ellipsis mechanisms Theoretical analysesTheoretical accounts of answer ellipsis are faced with the same basic problem that challenges the accounts of other ellipsis mechanisms This problem revolves around the fact that the elided material often does not form a constituent in surface syntax The following trees illustrate the problem The tree on the left is a constituency based tree of a phrase structure grammar and the tree on the right is the corresponding dependency based tree of a dependency grammar dd In both trees the elided material I said which is indicated using the lighter font shade does not form as a constituent In other words it does not qualify as a complete subtree The theory of ellipsis is therefore challenged to produce an analysis of such cases that can account for the fact that ellipsis appears to be eliding non constituent units Movement first ellipsis second One prominent means of dealing with this problem is to assume that the answer fragment is first moved out of an encompassing constituent so that this encompassing constituent can then be elided The following tree illustrates such an analysis in a phrase structure grammar dd The object nothing is moved to the left out of the constituent S in such a manner that S the lower S can then be elided This sort of analysis allows one to preserve the assumption that ellipsis mechanisms in this case answer ellipsis are eliding constituents A constituent based theory of syntax can therefore be maintained Analyses of fragment answers that incorporate movement of the remnant of ellipsis in the manner just sketched have a way of accounting for two important facts documented in the literature First in languages that require preposition pied piping such as German fragment answers that retain the preposition pied pipe it on the movement analysis are judged significantly more acceptable than those that do not retain it a phenomenon related to what is known as the or Merchant s Generalization Second fragment answers appear to be sensitive to locality restrictions on movement including islands Q Does Abby speak the same Balkan language that Ben speaks A No Charlie A No she speaks the same Balkan language that Charlie speaks dd NotesFor a movement first ellipsis second approach to answer fragments see Merchant 2004 For a discussion of answer fragments and preposition stranding see Merchant et al 2013 For evidence in support of locality restrictions on movement as an explanation for the answer fragments that are and are not possible see Merchant 2004 ReferencesMerchant J 2004 Fragments and ellipsis Linguistics and Philosophy 27 661 738 Merchant J L Frazier C Clifton Jr and T Weskott 2013 Fragment answers to questions A case of inaudible syntax In L Goldstein ed Brevity 21 35 Oxford University Press Oxford Osborne T M Putnam and T Gross 2012 Catenae Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis Syntax 15 4 354 396
