ELLIPSIS and PRO FORMS

[mjaop]

Hi Good day, I'm doing a report about ellipsis and pro forms,

i'm quite confused of how I can explain the criteria of ellipsis; which are

a) the ellipted words are precisely recoverable
b) the elliptical construction is grammatically 'defective'
c) the insertion of the missing words result in a grammatical sentence (with the same meaning)
d) the missing word(s) are textually recoverable, and
e) are present in the text in exactly the same form

i need some examples. please help? :((( ASAP

[orangutan]

Where did you get these criteria, as a matter of interest? Some of them (notably the last) seem to be oversimplified, at least as given.

But as for examples - there are several types of ellipsis, one of the best known being "VP ellipsis":

- John sent a letter to The Times and Mary did too.

Recovered form:

- John sent a letter to The Times and Mary did [send a letter to the Times] too.

(the recovered material being a VP)

[mjaop]

I got all of this from the book: "a comprehensive grammar of the English language"

yeah they're too simple, but when I read the examples, I can't identify their differences and examples. thanks anyway :|

[orangutan]

OK, that's a good source.

But as you can see in my example, the form of the word reconstructed is not necessarily quite the same as that present in the text.

[mjaop]

(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)
+ + + + + ========(1)I'm happy if you are(happy).
+ + + + - ========(2)She sings better than I can(sing).
+ ? - + (+)========(3)She works harder than him(*works)
+ + + - 0 ========(4)(I am) glad to see you

in this four examples, I just can't understand how they are applied

+ satisfied
- not satisfied
? doubt about satisfaction of the criteria
(+) missing expression is recoverable
0 missing expression is an exact copy of the antecedent :(

[orangutan]

OK, so they are criteria which are not always satisfied. That makes more sense.

In your examples:

(2) criterion 5 is not satisfied because it is "sing" not "sings" (like in my example)
(3) criterion 2 is perhaps not satisfied because the sentence with ellipsis is already grammatical and interpretable; criterion 3 is not satisfied because if you insert "works" you do not get a grammatical sentence;

...and so on.

[mjaop]

Thank you so much for your answers! :) At least now, I understand. Thanks for your patience!

[mjaop]

OK, so they are criteria which are not always satisfied. That makes more sense.

In your examples:

(2) criterion 5 is not satisfied because it is "sing" not "sings" (like in my example)
(3) criterion 2 is perhaps not satisfied because the sentence with ellipsis is already grammatical and interpretable; criterion 3 is not satisfied because if you insert "works" you do not get a grammatical sentence;

...and so on.

Sorry, but may I ask another question, this one is about the types of ellipsis? What are their differences? Is it about the criteria they satisfy?

[orangutan]

In generative linguistics (IF that is what you are interested in - it may not be) - ellipsis is classified according to various properties, mainly structural. For example in VP ellipsis the ellipsis site is the entire VP (as already discussed), for other types it is something else. You should be able to find a list of these types on the internet, if the Comprehensive Grammar doesn't give one. Key words to search for might include VP ellipsis, gapping, pseudo-gapping, stripping, sluicing and antecedent-contained ellipsis.

I have never heard of the criteria you are using being used to classify the different ellipsis constructions. That is not to say that it couldn't be done, but it isn't usual to the best of my knowledge.

[mjaop]

Thank you so much ! :) sorry for asking too many questions :)