Abstract
Gapping in embedded environments may occur in two configurations: (i) the whole coordination containing both conjuncts is embedded (= embedded gapping, EG), (ii) the second (i.e. elliptical) clause is embedded within its own conjunct (= single conjunct embedded gapping, SCEG). Languages seem to differ in their restrictions on these two structures: EG in some languages does not allow for a complementizer in the elliptical conjunct, while it does in other languages. SCEG is outright unacceptable in some languages but acceptable in other languages. Overall, languages seem to fall into two groups such that one group allows a complementizer in the elliptical conjunct of EG and generally allows SCEG, whereas the other group allows neither. We present four experiments in Spanish on the acceptability of the complementizer que ‘that’ in the elliptical conjunct in EG. Our results suggest that que in Spanish EG is overall subject to similar restrictions as SCEG gapping: There are different degrees of degradation depending on the (type of) embedding verb without outright unacceptability. While the relevant property has been argued to be factivity for SCEG, we argue that it is not the factivity of the embedding verb as such that drives acceptability, but assertion embedding. We outline a theoretical proposal building on existing accounts of structural ambiguity in gapping, the truncation of complement CPs under some verbs including factives, and the general flexibility of the semantic/pragmatic categories factivity and assertion.
Appendix: Embedding verbs of the experiments
| Non-Factives (with indicative) | ‘True’ Factives (with subjunctive) | Non-Factives (with subjunctive) | Semi-Factives (with indicative) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spanish | English | Spanish | English | Spanish | English | Spanish | English |
| cree | thinks | desaprueba | disapproves | demanda | demands | acepta | accepts |
| dice | says | critica | criticizes | desea | desires | admite | admits |
| sospecha | suspects | aprueba | approves | desmiente | denies | averigua | finds out |
| considera | considers | consiente | tolerates | duda | doubts | conoce | knows |
| imagina | imagines | alaba | praises | espera | expects | descubre | discovers |
| relata | relates | lamenta | regrets | niega | denies | ignora | ignores |
| calcula | estimates | admira | admires | prohíbe | forbids | nota | notes |
| cuenta | tells | apoya | supports | propone | proposes | observa | observes |
| afirma | claims | detesta | detests | quiere | wants | oculta | hides |
| piensa | thinks | odia | hates | rechaza | rejects | oye | hears |
| presume | presumes | defiende | defends | recomienda | recommends | sabe | knows |
| supone | supposes | respeta | respects | teme | fears | ve | sees |
References
Anand, Pranav & Valentine Hacquard. 2014. Factivity, belief and discourse. In Luka Crnič & Uli Sauerland (eds.), The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim, 69–90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory & Language 68. 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.Search in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Bolker Ben & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Search in Google Scholar
Bîlbîie, Gabriela & Israel de la, Fuente. 2019. Can gapping be embedded? Experimental evidence from Spanish. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1). Article 110, 1–39.10.5334/gjgl.782Search in Google Scholar
Bîlbîie, Gabriela & Pegah Faghiri. 2022. An experimental perspective on embedded gapping in Persian. The Linguistic Review. This issue.10.1515/tlr-2022-2097Search in Google Scholar
Bonke, Max. In preparation. Complementizers in embedded gapping. Köln: Universität zu Köln dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Centeno, Naiara. 2011. Gapping and determiner sharing in Spanish. Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea-University of the Basque Country dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Cuba, Carlos de & Jonathan E. MacDonald. 2013. On the referential status of embedded polarity answers in Spanish. In Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro, Gillian Lord, Ana de Prada Pérez & Jessi Elana Aaron (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 312–323. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Search in Google Scholar
Degen, Judith & Judith Tonhauser. Accepted. Are there factive predicates? An empirical investigation. Language.10.1353/lan.0.0271Search in Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta & Olga Fernández-Soriano. 2009. Force and finiteness in the Spanish complementizer system. Probus 21. 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2009.002.Search in Google Scholar
Depiante, Marcela A. 2004. Dos casos de elipsis con particula de polaridad en Español – Evidencia a favor de una visión no uniforme de la elipsis. RASAL Lingüistica 1. 53–69.Search in Google Scholar
Erschler, David. 2018. Typology of bizarre ellipsis varieties. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Farudi, Annahita. 2013. Gapping in Farsi: A cross-linguistic investigation. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Fernández-Sánchez, Javier. 2019. Against a clausal ellipsis account of all stripping strings in Spanish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 55(1). 53–87.10.1515/psicl-2019-0003Search in Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert W. 1974. Semantic conditions on surface structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Garcia-Marchena, Oscar. 2018. Polar verbless clauses and gapping subordination in Spanish. In Eric Fuß, Marek Konopka, Beata Trawiński & Ulrich H. Waßner (eds.), Grammar and Corpora 2016, 169–182. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
García-Núñez, José María. 2020. On the left periphery of Spanish indirect interrogatives. Probus 32(1). 55–92.10.1515/probus-2019-0005Search in Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116. 1651–1669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.03.014.Search in Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1979. Deletion in coordinate structures. New York: Garland Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina. 2000. Right node raising and gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.106Search in Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan & Sandra Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 465–497.Search in Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1975. On assertive predicates. In John P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics 4, 91–124. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368828_005Search in Google Scholar
Hope, Ryan M. 2013. Rmisc: Ryan miscellaneous. R package version 1.5. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Rmisc.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2014. Gapping. Ms. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2019. Gapping and stripping. In Jeroen van Cranenbroek & Tanja Temmerman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 562–604. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.24Search in Google Scholar
Jung, Wonsuk. 2016. The non-unity of gapping. Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea-University of the Basque Country dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics 4. 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817109370248.Search in Google Scholar
Lleó, Conxita. 1979. Some optional rules in Spanish complementation – Towards a study of the speaker’s intent. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111346045Search in Google Scholar
Majías-Bikandi, Errapel. 1994. Assertion and speaker’s intention: A pragmatically based account of mood in Spanish. Hispania 77(4). 892–902.10.2307/345752Search in Google Scholar
Martínez Vera, Gabriel. 2020. On recomplementation, high adverbs and V-movement in Spanish. In Irene Vogel (ed.), Selected papers from the 47th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Newark, Delaware (Romance languages and linguistic theory 16), 187–202. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/rllt.16.12marSearch in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Potter, David, Michael Frazier & Masaya Yoshida. 2017. A two-source hypothesis for gapping. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35. 1123–1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9359-y.Search in Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2010. On the (un)stability of mood distribution in Romance. In Martin G. Becker (ed.), Mood and modality in Romance: Modal interpretation, mood selection, and mood alternation, 163–179. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110234343.2.163Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2021. R: A language & environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/.Search in Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2009. Negation in gapping. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199543601.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Je Hak Yoon & A. Kathol (eds.), Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics (OSUWPL) Volume 49: Papers in semantics, 91–163. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.10.3765/sp.5.6Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics 5. 1–69 [Reprint of Roberts 1996].10.3765/sp.5.6Search in Google Scholar
Singmann, Henrik, Bolker Ben, Jake Westfall, Frederik Aust & Mattan S. Ben-Shachar. 2021. afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R package version 1.0-1. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex.Search in Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1999. La subordinación sustantiva. La interrogación indirecta. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, vol. 2, 2149–2195. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Search in Google Scholar
Terrell, Tracy & Joan Hooper. 1974. A semantically based analysis of mood in Spanish. Hispania 57(3). 484–494. https://doi.org/10.2307/339187.Search in Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, David I. Beaver & Judith Degen. 2018. How projective is projective content? Gradience in projectivity and at-issueness. Journal of Semantics 35(3). 495–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy007.Search in Google Scholar
Villa-García, Julio. 2016. TP-ellipsis with a polarity particle in multiple-complementizer contexts in Spanish: On topical remnants and focal licensors. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 5(2). 135–172.10.7557/1.5.2.3781Search in Google Scholar
Villa-García, Julio. 2019. Recomplementation in English and Spanish: Delineating the CP space. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1). 1–44.10.5334/gjgl.845Search in Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 1996. V2-Effekte: Wortstellungen und Ellipsen. In Ewald Lang & Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Deutsch – Typologisch, 142–180. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110622522-008Search in Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 1997. Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. In Artemis Alexiadou & T. Alan Hall (eds.), Studies on universal grammar and typological variation, 59–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.13.04wilSearch in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
