English comparative modals are combinations of the adverbs rather, sooner and better with an auxiliary. There is recent consensus that the comparative modals rather and sooner have over time developed a different syntax and semantics than better. However, potential differences in the syntax of rather and sooner with respect to patterns of complementation haven’t been explored. This article reports the results of a corpus study of these two modals and finds that rather patterns like object-raising verbs, allowing a range of complements that are unavailable for sooner. Our analysis of these patterns draws on recent work in the Construction Grammar framework, with forays into its formal implementation, Sign-Based Construction Grammar, and we propose that rather differs from sooner in that it constitutes a micro-construction whose features are licensed by both the Modal Construction and the Object-Raising Construction, the latter a subtype of the Transitive Construction.

Ellipsis has been, and continues to be, of both theoretical and empirical interest. It affects the syntax of phrases or clauses by stranding their various constituents but keeps the semantics of the stranded constituents identical to that of their non-elliptical counterparts. The theoretical value of ellipsis lies, therefore, in the relationship between meaning and form that it encodes, such that a complete propositional meaning is paired with what appears to be a syntactically incomplete form. This property of ellipsis has inspired researchers to probe, in particular, the syntax of ellipsis and the role the surrounding context plays in helping resolve ellipsis, as stranded constituents depend on the surrounding context for their interpretation. Among the constructions that have attracted considerable attention over the years are clausal ellipsis (e.g. sluicing (Example 1), sprouting (Example 2), stripping (Example 3), and fragments (Example 4)), pseudogapping (Example 5), gapping (Example 6), and Right Node Raising (RNR) (Example 7), all of which are discussed in the contributions to this special issue.

This paper is concerned with case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis. We begin by considering available crosslinguistic data that indicate that variation in case marking on a fragment is delimited by the argument structure of the lexical head that assigns case to the fragment’s correlate in the antecedent clause. We then offer experimental evidence for a case-matching preference in Korean when a fragment and its correlate may differ in case marking. This case-matching preference corresponds to a known case of mandatory case-matching in Hungarian, but their relationship is not predicted by any of the existing syntactic accounts of case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis. We propose a novel perspective on fragments that derives case-matching effects, including optional and mandatory case matching, from the predictions of cue-based retrieval. Two further acceptability judgment studies are offered in support of our proposal.

This paper examines the relationship between merger and sprouting fragments, which are typically taken to involve clausal ellipsis. We argue that structural identity constraints on fragments and their correlates should, where appropriate, make reference to the argument structure of lexical heads in the antecedent clauses. Our proposal is spelled out as part of a direct interpretation approach to clausal ellipsis, but, in addition, it incorporates processing-based preferences as a means to motivate the contrast between merger and sprouting fragments. We propose specifically that phrases which are available to serve as correlates for fragments are maximal categories derived from the argument structure of lexical heads in the antecedents. This proposal successfully predicts form-matching effects that surface under clausal ellipsis, as well as well-known limits on clausal ellipsis regarding the morphosyntactic form of fragments. We take advantage of the fact that fragments are not embedded in unpronounced structures, which allows us to articulate a proposal that avoids the difficulty of having to simultaneously relate a fragment to the structure of the antecedent and to its own unpronounced structure, a difficulty that current PF-deletion accounts face.

We offer an account of preposition drop under clausal ellipsis in terms of two language processing principles: Minimize Domains and Minimize Forms. We argue that when Minimize Domains operates within the PP domain, it disfavors preposition drop due to the preferred independent processability of the PP fragment. When it operates within the VP domain it favors preposition drop in proportion to the number and strength of semantic dependencies between V and P in a given language: the more dependencies there are, and the stronger they are, the stronger the preference for preposition drop. In this way fragments are avoided with long dependencies between P and a distant V. We demonstrate this pattern in English corpora and propose it as an explanation for the typologically unusual preference that English shows for NP fragments. Minimize Forms supports preposition drop in easy-to-process environments cross-linguistically and in English when the more minimal fragment (NP) can be easily linked to its correlate in the antecedent, disfavoring preposition drop elsewhere. The predictions of Minimize Domains and Minimize Forms receive support from a mixed-effects regression model fitted to data from spoken US English, and can be understood as motivations for construction-specific constraints and preferences in clausal ellipsis.

Ellipsis alternation refers here to the alternation between two kinds of ellipsis remnants whose correlates are prepositional phrases. One kind of remnant includes the preposition hosted by its correlate and the other doesn't. This alternation is now known to be cross-linguistically widespread although it was originally assumed to be banned in languages without preposition stranding under wh-movement. I argue that there is a nonsyntactic relationship between ellipsis alternation and preposition stranding that helps explain the availability and distribution of both types of remnants in terms of general performance preferences. Two pieces of corpus evidence from English are offered in support of this argument. The first piece of evidence reveals that the content of a remnant and its correlate affects ellipsis alternation both in languages without preposition stranding and in English. The second piece of evidence shows that the availability of preposition stranding in English nonelliptical clauses supports the use of prepositionless remnants via structural persistence, that is, reuse of syntactic structure found in antecedent clauses. These data lead me to conclude that ellipsis alternation is subject to a stronger processing constraint in English than in languages without preposition stranding.

I offer a diachronic perspective on English ellipsis alternation, or the alternation between inclusion and omission of prepositions from remnants under sluicing and bare argument ellipsis. The relative freedom to omit prepositions from remnants has not been stable in English; this freedom is connected to the strength of semantic dependencies between prepositions and verbs. Remnants without prepositions are first attested, but remain less frequent than remnants with prepositions, as late as Early Modern English and gain in frequency following this period. I demonstrate that three constraints—correlate informativity, structural persistence, and construction type—predict ellipsis alternation in Early and Late Modern English. However, predicting ellipsis alternation in present-day English requires semantic dependencies in addition to the three constraints. The constraints can be subsumed under principles of language processing and production (considerations of accessibility, a tendency to reuse structure, and a conventionalized performance preference for efficiently accessing constituents that form processing domains), permitting a unified processing account of ellipsis alternation with cross-linguistic coverage.