Talk:Ellipsis (linguistics)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please merge any relevant content from Ellipsis (figure of speech) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellipsis (figure of speech). (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:55Z

How do we know that "More girls were there today than were there yesterday" is not an ellipsis of "More girls were there today than there were girls there yesterday"? If that were the case, then the ellipsis would be optional. Is there really a good case that ellipsis is sometimes mandatory?UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis introduces a word combination as the elided material that is not matched by any word combination in the matrix clause. Furthermore, the two elided words there and girls would not form any sort of discernible syntactic unit, they would not qualify as a constituent nor would they qualify as a catena. These two points represent significant challenges to your analysis, I think. If one assumes that ellipsis can at times be mandatory, neither of these problems arises because the elided material, just girls, matches an antecedent in the matrix clause and is also a constituent.

There is further evidence that ellipsis is at times obligatory. Consider instances of VP-ellipsis involving do/did:

Sam eats meat, and

a. ??Bill does eat meat too.

b. Bill does, too.

Larry works a lot, and

a. ??Fred does work a lot, too.

b. Fred does, too.

My sense of acceptability clearly prefers the b-variants here. When VP-ellipsis does not occur as in the a-sentences, it seems that the sentence is trying to establish a contrast that is not necessarily licensed by the context. The a-variants seem strongly marginal to me. For some mysterious reason, this pattern is valid only for the auxiliary verb do. It does not occur with other auxiliaries. For some reason, VP-ellipsis can be mandatory when the auxiliary verb is do. --Tjo3ya (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the (a) cases could be bad simply because of the additional unnecessary do. For instance, this (c) example is fine:

Sam eats meat, and

c. Bill eats meat, too.

The typical view is that ellipsis necessitates the use of do since ellipsis in English always requires an overt auxiliary (similar to what as Tjo3ya notes). It's not that do itself makes ellipsis obligatory, but the other way around. Do is used without ellipsis all the time (e.g., for emphasis [Bill DOES work a lot], in questions [Does Bill work a lot?], in verb phrase fronting [Bill says he works a lot, and work a lot he does], and negation [Bill does not work a lot]). Looking at it this way gives a more consistent view of do and a more consistent picture of the conditions under which ellipsis occurs (i.e., with an auxiliary).

Still, there are a few places where ellipsis is probably mandatory. Kennedy and Merchant ^{[mand 1]} talk about cases like Sam wrote a better book than you can, where there is no apparent non-elliptical equivalent (*Sam wrote a better book than you can write a (good) book). Certain kinds of parenthetical expressions seem to behave similarly (Larry works a lot, as does Fred (*work a lot).) Nlacara (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article, in my opinion, reads pretty poorly. It is written like an essay or piece of homework, not like an encyclopaedia entry, and is more concerned with using as much jargon as is possible than with offering an explanation to the reader. All the sections about "more research needed" have no place in the article. Needs a re-write, I reckon. 109.158.249.60 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you not understand? What is unclear? What is poorly written? The "jargon" is all well established terminology. People who have studied ellipsis are familiar with the terminilogy employed, e.g. gapping, stripping, pseudogapping, sluicing, etc. If the article were to avoid those terms, it would have difficulty saying anything concrete about ellipsis. It would not be able to distinguish between the various types of ellipsis. --Tjo3ya (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that some jargon isn't needed, but right from the preamble the language is far more complex than is necessary. Even the naming of a section "Preliminary Comments" makes it read like an essay. I'm sure the content is fine, but readers want concise, clear explanations, not an essay. Phrases like "With such data in mind, it is apparent that more work on ellipsis needs to be done before any sort of complete inventory of ellipsis mechanisms can be stipulated." don't really fit in. You're not writing for "people who have studied ellipsis", you're writing for people who don't know anything about it, so please write accordingly. Also, on a completely unrelated note, the first example of Null Complement Anaphora seems to have a question mark where a full stop would be more appropriate (in the answer section). 109.158.249.60 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ellipsis occurs in multiple languages, yet this article completely skips any language that is not English. Yes, this is the English language Wikipedia but the topic is part of linguistics which comprises all languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloStraub (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to raise these on the talk page rather than in a big stack of cleanup/dispute tags, though the basic {{Refimprove}} is necessary.

• The vast majority of this article is unsourced. Most of it reads as correct to me (I have a minor in linguistics, and am not a professional in that field), but it still has to be verifiable.
• A lot of it smells of minor original research transgression, particular synthesis of multiple (unnamed) sources – a personal summarization of "what I know". We do in fact have to summarize sources and arrange the facts from them into a cohesive encyclopedic piece, and this involves a certain kind of "synthesis" that isn't forbidden, but some of this material appears to be crossing the WP:AEIS line. Whether it is, and which bits of it might be, will become clearer and be reparable as the sourcing improves.
• Has no information at all on other languages, which is a WP:Systemic bias problem, especially given that this is a general linguistic topic, not an English grammar one. Each of the example lists would benefit from at least one illustration of the principle at work in another language, and preferably not just the same one over and over again, but with some language-family diversity. (Though we also do not want 15 examples of each in random languages.) It's an important encyclopedic fact that these processes do not actually look exactly the same in every language, and any given type of ellipsis may or may not be employed by a particular language at all. There may even be some ellipsis types that are missing from the article because they're not used in English, though that's above my pay grade.
• The whole article has a WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK problem of pedagogical tone (also still found in a lot of our more obscure mathematics articles). I've done a couple of edits to remove the worst brow-beating (e.g., treatment of our readers like they're brain-damaged and can't understand that material in a section pertains to the topic of the section), and to encyclopedia-ize some almost advocacy-style commentary on what research has to be done and why (which can't be stated in WP's own voice). But some tone problems remain. Any time it reads like a lecture, this is a mistake. See also previous comments about {{Essay}} style and overuse of unexplained jargon.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is the following ellipsis grammatically correct?

in actual usage both words occur and have for at least 300 years
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/different

--Backinstadiums (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The elliptical adverb clause is not present in the article, and I don't see where it would go except as another in the already long list of *assorted ellipses*. I guess I would propose adding more structure (for example, the verb phrase ellipses already seem like a cohesive grouping). An example of this kind of sentence:

• I will give you a period of time lasting from now until 10 February to complete this task.

But since I am not an expert in the field, I am reticent to impose a homemade structure onto something there's scholarship around.Speedfranklin (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section on theoretical challenges contains a paragraph about the "catena". This section was written by User:Tjo3ya. This user is the researcher who has proposed the "catena" category. This lead to an issue of possible WP:COI / WP:ADVOCACY on the Catena (linguistics) page. The same issue appears here, but only in this section, and probably in many other places.

It should be checked that the paragraph is really relevant, and is not tangentially related self-advertisement. Kaĉjo (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also possible WP:OR. Largoplazo (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ellipsis_(linguistics)&diff=prev&oldid=1054187773.

The catena concept appears as the centerpiece in many articles in prominent linguistics journals (Lingua, Syntax, Cognitive Linguistics, Folia Linguistica, etc.). It occupies a central position in the DG article on ellipsis in the Oxford Handboook of Ellipsis. I am reverting it back. Please respond here before reverting my edit.--Tjo3ya (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can barely make heads or tails of the text you posted in the article. By contrast, Botterweg14's text is intelligible without needing to unencrypt anything. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The catena concept is not difficult to understand. Any subtree of a syntax tree is a catena. You might spend a bit of time reading here. Take a look at the trees. I can certainly clarify the text, though, but that would likely involve adding trees. Would you support that occurring?

I have no issue with the concepts at play. The wording of the text, however, is convoluted and at times ungrammatical, repetitive, and unencyclopedic. I'd scrap it and start from scratch if I had the time. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the "resolved" header here because of the reverted edit. The problem, for me, is not so much whether the text is understandable or not, but that it contains too many self-references. If the concept is so prominent as User:Tjo3ya suggests, you can wait for others to mention it to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. User:Botterweg14's text mentions catena with a suitable level of prominence, it seems to me. Kaĉjo (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above discussion I suggest to use User:Botterweg14's text. I will post another reminder of this discussion on User:Tjo3ya's talk page and wait for 72 hours before proceeding with this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaĉjo (talk • contribs) 10:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider what is occurring here. I have provided much content on syntax to Wikipedia. I have been entirely open and transparent about who I am, my qualifications, and my work. At present, two anonymous editors, Kacjo and Botterweg, are attempting to remove content I have provided, and another, Kent Dominic (who is pleasantly not anonymous) dislikes the grammar of the sentences I have written -- the latter issue could easily be corrected and I have no problem with changes of that sort occurring. The main issue at present seems to be the content I have provided about the catena unit. When I point out that the catena unit is backed by numerous articles in prominent linguistics journals (Syntax, Cognitive Linguistics, Lingua, Folia Linguistica, etc.) and it that it is a central idea in the article on Dependency Grammar in the Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (this article here is about ellipsis), this information appears to have no effect for these anonymous editors. Perhaps their background in syntax is not strong and they do not recognize the prominence of these linguistics journals. By the way, the catena unit is now the centerpiece of another peer-reviewed article. This one demonstrates its value for shedding light on the nature of bracketing paradoxes and on morphosyntax in general: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/psicl-2021-0016/html. The point, then, is that now yet more editors and reviewers see value and potential in the catena unit. Note as well that the catena unit is not my invention, but rather it preexists my works and the works of my coauthors. I picked up on it from William O'Grady in his article on idioms in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory (another prominent linguistics journal).

My suggestion to Kacjo, who self-identifies as a graduate student of linguistics, is that he or she might now broaden his linguistic horizon by reading a bit outside of his/her comfort zone (and the comfort zone of his/her advisor). Here's a link to the article on the catena in Syntax:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00172.x

Here's a link to the article on the catena in Cognitive Linguistics:

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cog-2012-0006/html

My concern about Botterweg, who self-identifies as a formal semanticist, is that he or she may lack exposure to the field of syntax and may not know about the prominence of the linguistics journals mentioned for the field of syntax. With these points made, I am hoping that Botterweg and Kacjo can help us seek a compromise that allows mentions of the catena to remain in this article and in other Wikipedia articles. --Tjo3ya (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our concerns here should be about the article text, not about each other and certainly not about whether we choose to be anonymous. My main concern is that the current text advocates for the catena in Wikivoice, e.g. stating that the catena "opens the door to a much more parsimonious theory of ellipsis". To be clear, my concern is not about the legitimacy of the catena, which honestly seems pretty cool.

I would like to propose my text, but with the addition of "such as the catena" in the last sentence. Botterweg14 (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, concerns about anonymity, expertise, qualifications, and number of contributions to Wikipedia are entirely irrelevant, as has been pointed out to you before (User_talk:Tjo3ya/Archive_1#Unacceptable_behaviour). Please refrain from this type of comments. You also misrepresent User:Kent Dominic's contribution to the discussion who did not only say that the text is ungrammatical, but also that it is convoluted, repetitive, unencyclopedic, and best to be scrapped.

My concern is with the fact that you seem to be very invested in the catena concept, even if it is not your invention. This is only confirmed by the fact that all three articles you mention are from your hand. The Queen of England should not edit House of Windsor even though she may know a lot about it. This violates policies like WP:COI, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:OR, a point which you do not address. By these policies, you should not even be involved in writing texts on the catena concept (let alone reverting an edit that sought to resolve those issues without engaging the discussion on the Talk page in which you had been mentioned). So you are right that the fact that the catena appears in publications A and B in journals X and Y has no effect on that position because it misses the point that these contributions are contrary to Wikipedia policy. I therefore second User:Botterweg14's proposal. Kaĉjo (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of my concerns, in one fell swoop: 'A more recent approach [to what?] states [QUESTION: Can approaches "state" anything?] that the challenges posed by ellipsis [what presumptive challenges?] to phrase structure theories of syntax [why this interpolation of phrase structure?] are due to the phrase structure component of the grammar. [Says who?] In other words, [< an implicit admission that the preceding sentence is quite convoluted] the difficulties facing phrase structure theories stem from the theoretical prerequisite that syntactic structure be analyzed in terms of the constituents that are associated with constituency grammars (= phrase structure grammars). [How is this relevant to ellipsis?] If the theory departs from phrase structures and acknowledges the dependency structures of dependency grammars[5] instead, the ability to acknowledge a different sort of syntactic unit as fundamental opens the door to a much more parsimonious theory of ellipsis.[citation needed; tangential observation] This [this what??] unit is the catena.[6] The assumption is now that ellipsis mechanisms are eliding catenae, whereby many of these catenae fail to qualify as constituents. [So what? Ellipsis mechanisms can elide virtually anything; catena is not somehow special.] In this manner, [what manner?] the need to posit movement to "rectify" much of the ellipsis data disappears.' [citation needed; relevance unclear; significance is argumentative, not elucidative of anything.] --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Botterweg, I don't specifically recall what you proposed. Whatever it was, please substitute it for the above text. Kaĉjo and I will back you re consensus. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]