---
title: "Preposition omission under English pseudogapping — Nykiel 2025"
description: "Pseudogapping usually offers a continuous PP correlate, so parallelism favours keeping the preposition. 130 references."
authors: ["Joanna Nykiel"]
year: 2025
venue: "Glossa: a journal of general linguistics"
source: "https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/15203/"
doi: "10.16995/glossa.15203"
licence: "CC BY 4.0"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/nykiel-2025-preposition-omission-under-english-pseudogapping/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/nykiel-2025-preposition-omission-under-english-pseudogapping/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2025](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2025/page/18/) / Preposition omission under English pseudogapping

# Preposition omission under English pseudogapping

**Authors:** Joanna Nykiel · **Year:** 2025 · **Venue:** [Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/) ([Glossa a journal of general linguistics 2025](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/2025/)) · **Publisher:** [Ubiquity Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/ubiquity-press/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.15203) · [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/15203/galley/35998/download) · [DOI 10.16995/glossa.15203](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.15203) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W4406818777)

**Citations:** 0 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary
The paper asks whether a processing-based account of preposition omission (P-omission) generalizes beyond sluicing and fragments, the only constructions where it had been studied. P-omission means answering with a bare NP where the antecedent contains a PP. Nykiel tests this on English pseudogapping: an auxiliary is stranded and followed by a remnant, as in "he does the private sector". Examples come from COCA. They are analysed against two efficiency principles from Hawkins (2004), Minimize Domains (MiD) and Minimize Forms (MiF), which Nykiel & Hawkins (2020) had already applied to ellipsis.

Two findings stand out:
- Keeping the preposition is much more common than dropping it, which matches the cross-linguistic default for clausal ellipsis.
- When omission does occur, it responds to MiD and MiF.

The author explains the bias against omission as a preference for structural parallelism. Pseudogapping usually offers a continuous PP correlate, so parallelism favours keeping the preposition. The conclusion is that P-omission is grammatical but shaped by processing pressures. The paper ends with testable cross-linguistic predictions.

## Key points
- **Data.** Pseudogapping tokens come from COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English), and the dataset is public at osf.io/sy96z.
- **Correlate definition.** A correlate is defined through the antecedent head's argument structure, not through matching syntactic category. On this view, an NP remnant is a "deprepositionalized" PP, a term from Levin (1986). Supporting evidence:
  - the dative alternation with *give* (Miller 2014);
  - Dutch *laten* (Levelt & Kelter 1982).
- **Sprouting.** When the antecedent PP is only implicit (e.g. "Harvey is afraid"), the remnant or fragment must keep its preposition.
- **Parallelism under ellipsis.** Poppels & Miller (2023) found that, in comparative pseudogapping, parallelism violations are penalized about as much as in the same sentences without ellipsis. This differs from the ellipsis-specific penalty reported for VPE.
- **Predictions (Table 8).**

  | Discontinuous PP correlates (via stranding) | Strong word-external dependencies | P-omission preferred |
  |---|---|---|
  | Yes | Yes | Yes |
  | No | Yes | Maybe |
  | No | No | No |

## Interesting ideas
- Link an elliptical remnant to an argument slot of the antecedent's head rather than to a phrase of the same category, so a bare NP can legitimately fill a PP role.
- An implicit (sprouted) argument requires an overt preposition on the remnant, whereas an overt PP correlate allows dropping it. This gives a crisp, checkable licensing condition.
- Keep "rare" separate from "ungrammatical": frequency gaps can come from competing soft preferences such as parallelism versus economy, not from grammar rules.
- Model the choice to drop or keep a function word as soft constraints in competition: MiD and MiF favour dropping, structural parallelism favours keeping.
- Turn a theory into a small factorial table of predictions that can be falsified cell by cell.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (frames): ellipsis resolution in prag could attach a remnant to the antecedent verb's VerbNet role, even when the remnant lacks the preposition the frame expects.
- **I2** (tree): a post-parse validator could flag NP remnants that have no overt PP correlate, and use this to choose between ellipsis analyses.
- **I3** (learn): self-induced repair rules and silver-data filters should not discard rare but licensed patterns like P-omission as parser errors.
- **I4** (back): when generating elliptical clauses, default to keeping the preposition when the antecedent PP is continuous, and allow omission mainly when the antecedent strands its preposition.
- **I5** (learn): evaluation suites could be organized as similar factor grids, with negative-control cells where the predicted behaviour must not appear.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [University of California, Davis](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-california-davis/) — University, Davis, United States · 34 works · 42,940 citations

📚 Shelves (6): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 17,450 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 17,296 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 1,649 works · [💭 Developmental and Educational Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/developmental-and-educational-psychology/) · 523 works · [🧠 Neuroscience](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/neuroscience/) · 186 works · [🧠 Cognitive Neuroscience](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/neuroscience/cognitive-neuroscience/) · 185 works

🧭 Topics (1): [English](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/english/) · 2,379 works

## Cite

Cite as: Joanna Nykiel. 2025. Preposition omission under English pseudogapping. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{nykiel2025preposition,
  title = {{Preposition omission under English pseudogapping}},
  author = {Joanna Nykiel},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2025},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.15203},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.15203}
}
```

- [← previous Predicate Semantics in Old English Chronicle and Medical Texts: a Comparative Analysis](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/yakovleva-2025-predicate-semantics-old-english-chronicle/)
- [next → Preserving Comorian Linguistic Heritage: Bidirectional Transliteration Between the Latin Alphabet and the Kamar-Eddine System](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/naira-2025-preserving-comorian-linguistic-heritage-bidirectional/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2025](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2025/page/18/)

## References

130 references, 3 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Abe, Jun. 2015. The in-situ approach to sluicing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.222 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/la.222)
2. Abeillé, Anne & Hassamal, Shrita. 2019. Sluicing in Mauritian: A fragment-based approach. In Piñón, Christopher (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 12. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Abeill%C3%A9%2C+Anne+%26+Hassamal%2C+Shrita%2E+2019%2E+Sluicing+in+Mauritian%3A+A+fragment%2Dbased+approach%2E+In+Pi%C3%B1%C3%B3n%2C+Christopher+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Empirical+Issues+in+Syntax+and+Semantics+12%2E)
3. Abeillé, Anne & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2022. Me too fragments in English and French: a direct interpretation approach. The Linguistic Review 39(3). 495–524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ tlr-2022-2095 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/)
4. Abels, Klaus. 2017. On the interaction of P-stranding and sluicing in Bulgarian. In Mueller-Reichau, Olav & Guhl, Marcel (eds.), Aspects of Slavic linguistics: Formal grammar, lexicon and communication, volume 16 of Language, Context and Cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110517873-002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110517873-002)
5. Almeida, Diogo A. de A. & Yoshida, Masaya. 2007. A problem for the preposition stranding generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2). 349–362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling. 2007.38.2.349 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling)
6. Alshaalan, Yara & Abels, Klaus. 2020. [Resumption as a sluicing source in Saudi Arabic: Evidence from sluicing with prepositional phrases](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/alshaalan-2020-resumption-as-sluicing-source-saudi/). Glossa 5(1). 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.841 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.841)
7. Anand, Pranav & Hardt, Daniel & McCloskey, James. 2021. The Santa Cruz Sluicing Data Set. Language 97(1). e68–e88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0009 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0009)
8. Anand, Pranav & Hardt, Daniel & McCloskey, James. 2023. The Domain of Formal Matching in Sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00495 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00495)
9. Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London-New York: Routledge. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ariel%2C+Mira%2E+1990%2E+Accessing+Noun+Phrase+Antecedents%2E+London%2DNew+York%3A+Routledge%2E)
10. Arregui, Ana & Clifton, Charles Jr. & Frazier, Lynn & Moulton, Keir. 2006. Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 55. 232–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.005 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.005)
11. Bates, Douglas & Maechler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. [Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bates-2015-fitting-linear-mixed-effects-models/). Journal of Statistical Software 67. 1–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/ jss.v067.i01 [↗](https://doi.org/10.18637/)
12. Bock, J. Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18. 355–387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6)
13. Bock, Kathryn & Dell, Gary S. & Chang, Franklin & Onishi, Kristine H. 2007. Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition 104(3). 437–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.003)
14. Branigan, Holly P. & Pickering, Martin J. & Cleland, Alexandra A. 2000. Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75(2). B13–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00081-5 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00081-5)
15. Bürkner, Paul C. 2018. Advanced Bayesian Multilevel Modeling with the R Package brms. The R Journal 10(1). 395–411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-017 [↗](https://doi.org/10.32614/rj-2018-017)
16. Caha, Pavel. 2011. Case in adpositional phrases. Ms., CASTL, Tromsø. lingbuzz/001325. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Caha%2C+Pavel%2E+2011%2E+Case+in+adpositional+phrases%2E+Ms%2E%2C+CASTL%2C+Troms%C3%B8%2E+lingbuzz%2F001325%2E)
17. Callahan, Sarah M. & Shapiro, Lewis P. & Love, Tracy. 2010. Parallelism effects and verb activation: The sustained reactivation hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39. 101–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9128-0 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9128-0)
18. Caplan, David & Waters, Gloria. 2013. Memory mechanisms supporting syntactic comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 20. 243–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0369-9 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0369-9)
19. Carlson, Katy. 2002. Parallelism and prosody in the processing of ellipsis sentences. New York: Routledge. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Carlson%2C+Katy%2E+2002%2E+Parallelism+and+prosody+in+the+processing+of+ellipsis+sentences%2E+New+York%3A+Routledge%2E)
20. Carlson, Katy & Harris, Jesse. 2018. Zero-adjective contrast in much-less ellipsis: The advantage for parallel syntax. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33(1). 77–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1080/23273798.2017.1366530 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
21. Chia, Katherine & Hetzel-Ebben, Hannah & Adolph, Maxwell & Amaral, Madison & Arriaga, Maynor & Booth, Holly & Boudreau, Victoria & Carpenter, Jennifer & Cerra, Carolina & Clouden, Megan & Cryderman, Jacob & Darji, Rida & Dollison, Jolie & Franco, Nicholas & Ghougasian, Lawrence & Hamilton, Laurel & Karosas, Kimiyo & Kenoyer, Casey & Krenz, Victoria & Lancaster, Samantha & Ma, Melissa & Markwell, Grace & Montoya, Faith & Nadler, Rebecca & Pinto, Samara & Rojas, Melissa & Sarmiento, Daniela & Stitik, Chloe & St. John, Jasmine & Valencia, Mariana & Walker, Kayla & Wells, Emma & Wolf, Julia & Wright, Destiny & Kaschak, Michael P. 2020. Examining the factors that affect structural repetition in question answering. Memory & Cognition 48. 1046–1060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01036-2 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01036-2)
22. Chung, Sandra. 2006. Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. In Cover, Rebecca T. & Kim, Yuni (eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31, 73–91. Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v31i1.896 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v31i1.896)
23. Chung, Sandra. 2013. Syntactic identity in sluicing: How much and why. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 1–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00118 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00118)
24. Craik, Fergus I. M. & Lockhart, Robert S. 1972. Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 11. 671–684. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X Culicover, Peter. 2016. Fragments all the way down. Workshop on Fragments, Saarbrücken University. [↗](https://doi.org/10)
25. Culicover, Peter & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001)
26. Culicover, Peter & Jackendoff, Ray. 2012. Same-except: A domain-general cognitive relation and how language expresses it. Language 88. 305–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0031 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0031)
27. Dickey, Michael Walsh & Bunger, Ann C. 2011. Comprehension of elided structure: Evidence from sluicing. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(1). 63–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01690961003691074 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/)
28. Dubey, Amit & Sturt, Patrick & Keller, Frank. 2005. Parallelism in coordination as an instance of syntactic priming: Evidence from corpus-based modeling. In HLT ’05 Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 827–834. Strousburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 3115/1220575.1220679 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
29. Fortin, Catherine. 2007. Indonesian sluicing and verb phrase ellipsis: Description and explanation in a minimalist framework. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fortin%2C+Catherine%2E+2007%2E+Indonesian+sluicing+and+verb+phrase+ellipsis%3A+Description+and+explanation+in+a+minimalist+framework%2E+Doctoral+dissertation%2C+University+of+Michigan%2C+Ann+Arbor%2E)
30. Frazier, Lyn & Taft, Lori & Roeper, Tom & Clifton, Charles Jr. & Ehrlich, Kate. 1984. Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition 12. 421–430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198303 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03198303)
31. Frazier, Lynn & Clifton, Charles Jr. 1998. Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 13(4). 499–520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/016909698386474 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/016909698386474)
32. Frazier, Lynn & Munn, Alan & Clifton, Charles Jr. 2000. Processing coordinate structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29. 343–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005156427600 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005156427600)
33. Gallo, David A. & Meadow, Nathaniel G. & Johnson, Elizabeth L. & Foster, Katherine T. 2008. Deep levels of processing elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection task. Journal of Memory and Language 58. 1095–1111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.001)
34. Gengel, Kirsten. 2013. Pseudogapping and ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665303.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665303.001.0001)
35. Ginzburg, Jonathan & Miller, Philip. 2018. Ellipsis in HPSG. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ginzburg%2C+Jonathan+%26+Miller%2C+Philip%2E+2018%2E+Ellipsis+in+HPSG%2E+In+van+Craenenbroeck%2C+Jeroen+%26+Temmerman%2C+Tanja+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+Oxford+Handbook+of+Ellipsis%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
36. Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A. 2000. Interrogative investigations. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ginzburg%2C+Jonathan+%26+Sag%2C+Ivan+A%2E+2000%2E+Interrogative+investigations%2E+Stanford%3A+CSLI+Publications%2E)
37. Goldberg, Adele & Perek, Florent. 2019. Ellipsis in construction grammar. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis, 188–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.8)
38. Griffiths, James. 2019. A Q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: Deriving the preposition stranding and island sensitivity generalizations without movement. Glossa 4(1). 12. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.5334/gjgl.653 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.653)
39. Griffiths, James & Lipták, Anikó. 2014. Contrast and island sensitivity in clausal ellipsis. Syntax 17. 189–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12018 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12018)
40. Gundel, Jeanette K. & Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of anaphoric expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/416535)
41. Harris, Jesse A. 2015. Structure modulates similarity-based interference: An eye tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology 6. Article 1839. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01839 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01839)
42. Harris, Jesse A. & Carlson, Katy. 2019. Correlate not optional: PP sprouting and parallelism in ‘much less’ ellipsis. Glossa 4(1). 83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.707 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.707)
43. Hassen, Amal & Abeillé, Anne. 2025. Preposition omission in French interrogative sluices: empirical findings and theoretical implications. Glossa 10(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/ glossa.15197 [↗](https://doi.org/10.16995/)
44. Hawkins, John A. 2000. The relative order of prepositional phrases in English: going beyond manner-place-time. Language Variation and Change 11(3). 231–266. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0954394599113012 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
45. Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001)
46. Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001)
47. Hoeksema, Jack. 2006. Pseudogapping: Its syntactic analysis and cumulative effects on acceptability. Research on Language and Computation 4. 335–352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11168-006-9023-x Hoffmann, Thomas. 2010. Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511933868 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511933868)
48. Hofmeister, Philip. 2007. Facilitating memory retrieval in natural language comprehension. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hofmeister%2C+Philip%2E+2007%2E+Facilitating+memory+retrieval+in+natural+language+comprehension%2E+Unpublished+PhD+dissertation%2C+Stanford+University%2E)
49. Hofmeister, Philip. 2008. The after-effects of linguistic form choice on comprehension. Poster presented at the 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Chapel Hill, 13–15 March. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hofmeister%2C+Philip%2E+2008%2E+The+after%2Deffects+of+linguistic+form+choice+on+comprehension%2E+Poster+presented+at+the+21st+Annual+CUNY+Conference+on+Human+Sentence+Processing%2E+Chapel+Hill%2C+13%E2%80%9315+March%2E)
50. Hofmeister, Philip. 2011. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 26. 376–405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01690965.2010.492642 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/)
51. Hofmeister, Philip & Jaeger, T. Florian & Arnon, Inbal & Sag, Ivan A. & Snider, Neal. 2013. The source ambiguity problem: distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes 28. 48–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965. 2011.572401 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965)
52. Hofmeister, Philip & Jaeger, T. Florian & Sag, Ivan A. & Arnon, Inbal & Snider, Neal. 2007. Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Featherston, Sam & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base, 185–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198621.185 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198621.185)
53. Ihara, Aya & Hayakawa, Tomoe & Wei, Qiang & Munetsuna, Shinji & Fujimakia, Norio. 2007. Lexical access and selection of contextually appropriate meaning for ambiguous words. NeuroImage 38. 576–588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.047 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.047)
54. Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A. 1990. Incomplete VP deletion and gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20. 64–81. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jayaseelan%2C+Karattuparambil+A%2E+1990%2E+Incomplete+VP+deletion+and+gapping%2E+Linguistic+Analysis+20%2E+64%E2%80%9381%2E)
55. Karimi, Hossein & Fukumura, Kumiki & Ferreira, Fernanda & Pickering, Martin J. 2014. The effect of noun phrase length on the form of referring expressions. Memory and Cognition 42. 993–1009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0400-7 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0400-7)
56. Kim, Christina S. & Kobele, Gregory M. & Runner, Jeffrey T. & Hale, John T. 2011. The acceptability cline in VP-ellipsis. Syntax 14. 318–354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612. 2011.00160.x Kim, Christina S. & Runner, Jeffrey T. 2018. The division of labor in explanations of Verb Phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 41. 41–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-017-9220-0 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612)
57. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2015. Syntactic and semantic identity in Korean sluicing: A direct interpretation approach. Lingua 66. 260–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.005 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.005)
58. Kim, Jong-Bok & Runner, Jeffrey T. 2022. Pseudogapping in English: a direct interpretation approach. The Linguistic Review 39(3). 457–494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2094 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2094)
59. Kim, Nayoun & Carlson, Katy & Dickey, Michael Walsh & Yoshida, Masaya. 2020. Processing gapping: Parallelism and grammatical constraints. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 73(5). 781–798. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820903461 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820903461)
60. Kobele, Gregory M. 2015. LF-copying without LF. Lingua 166. 236–259. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.lingua.2014.08.006 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
61. Kubota, Yusuke & Levine, Robert. 2017. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2). 212–257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00242 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00242)
62. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Pseudogapping puzzles. In Lappin, Shalom & Benmamoun, Elabbas (eds.), Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping, 141–174. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195123029.003.0007 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195123029.003.0007)
63. Lemke, Robin. 2021. Experimental investigations on the syntax and usage of fragments. Berlin: Language Science Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lemke%2C+Robin%2E+2021%2E+Experimental+investigations+on+the+syntax+and+usage+of+fragments%2E+Berlin%3A+Language+Science+Press%2E)
64. Leung, Tommy. 2014. The Preposition Stranding Generalization and conditions on sluicing: Evidence from Emirati Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 332–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ LING_a_00158 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/)
65. Levelt, Willem & Kelter, Stephanie. 1982. Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology 14. 78–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90005-6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90005-6)
66. Levin, Lori. 1982. Sluicing: A lexical interpretation procedure. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Levin%2C+Lori%2E+1982%2E+Sluicing%3A+A+lexical+interpretation+procedure%2E+In+Bresnan%2C+Joan+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+mental+representation+of+grammatical+relations%2E+MIT+Press%2E)
67. Levin, Nancy. 1986. Main verb ellipsis in spoken English (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). New York: Garland. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Levin%2C+Nancy%2E+1986%2E+Main+verb+ellipsis+in+spoken+English+%28Outstanding+Dissertations+in+Linguistics%29%2E+New+York%3A+Garland%2E)
68. Lewis, Richard L. & Vasishth, Shravan. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29. 375–419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15516709cog0000_25 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1207/)
69. Lewis, Richard L. & Vasishth, Shravan & VanDyke, Julie A. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 10. 447–454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007)
70. Lohse, Barbara & Hawkins, John A. & Wasow, Thomas. 2004. Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language 80. 238–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0089 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0089)
71. Martin, Andrea E. 2018. Cue integration during sentence comprehension: Electrophysiological evidence from ellipsis. PLoS ONE 13(11). e0206616. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0206616 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone)
72. Martin, Andrea E. & McElree, Brian. 2011. Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from sluicing. Journal of Memory and Language 64. 327–343. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jml.2010.12.006 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
73. Mason, Robert A. & Just, Marcel A. 2007. Lexical ambiguity in sentence comprehension. Brain Research 1146. 115–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.076 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.076)
74. McElree, Brian. 2000. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29. 111–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1005184709695 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/A:)
75. McElree, Brian & Foraker, Stephani & Dyer, Lisbeth. 2003. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 48. 67–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0749-596X(02)00515-6 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
76. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001)
77. Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3)
78. Merchant, Jason & Frazier, Lynn & Clifton, Charles Jr. & Wescott, Thomas. 2013. Fragment answers to questions: A case of inaudible syntax. In Goldstein, Louis (ed.), Brevity, 21–35. Oxford University Press: Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664986.003.0002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664986.003.0002)
79. Miller, Philip. 1990. Pseudogapping and Do so substitution. In Papers from the 26th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 293–305. Chicago, IL: CLS. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Miller%2C+Philip%2E+1990%2E+Pseudogapping+and+Do+so+substitution%2E+In+Papers+from+the+26th+regional+meeting+of+the+Chicago+Linguistic+Society%2C+293%E2%80%93305%2E+Chicago%2C+IL%3A+CLS%2E)
80. Miller, Philip. 2014. A corpus study of pseudogapping and its theoretical consequences. In Piñón, Christopher (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics vol. 10. 73–90. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Miller%2C+Philip%2E+2014%2E+A+corpus+study+of+pseudogapping+and+its+theoretical+consequences%2E+In+Pi%C3%B1%C3%B3n%2C+Christopher+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Empirical+issues+in+syntax+and+semantics+vol%2E+10%2E+73%E2%80%9390%2E)
81. Molimpakis, Emilia. 2019. Accepting preposition-stranding under sluicing cross-linguistically: A noisy-channel approach. Doctoral dissertation, University College London. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Molimpakis%2C+Emilia%2E+2019%2E+Accepting+preposition%2Dstranding+under+sluicing+cross%2Dlinguistically%3A+A+noisy%2Dchannel+approach%2E+Doctoral+dissertation%2C+University+College+London%2E)
82. Nairne, James S. 2002. Remembering over the short-term: The case against the standard model. Annual Review of Psychology 53. 53–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901. 135131 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901)
83. Nykiel, Joanna. 2013. Clefts and preposition omission in sluicing. Lingua 123. 74–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.011 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.011)
84. Nykiel, Joanna. 2014. Semantic dependencies and the history of ellipsis alternation. In Adams, Michael & Brinton, Laurel J. & Fulk, Robert D. (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language VI: Evidence and Method in Histories of English, 51–70. Walter de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1515/9783110345957.51 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
85. Nykiel, Joanna. 2015. Constraints on ellipsis alternation: A view from the history of English. Language Variation and Change 27. 227–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000071 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394515000071)
86. Nykiel, Joanna. 2017. Preposition stranding and ellipsis alternation. English Language and Linguistics 21. 27–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674315000477 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674315000477)
87. Nykiel, Joanna. 2018. Polish. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780198712398.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/)
88. Nykiel, Joanna & Hawkins, John A. 2020. English fragments, Minimize Domains, and Minimize Forms. Language and Cognition 12(3). 411–443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.6)
89. Nykiel, Joanna & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2021. Ellipsis. In Müller, Stefan & Abeillé, Anne & Borsley, Robert & Koenig, Jean-Pierre (eds.), [Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/muller-2021-hpsg-handbook/) (Empirically Oriented Theoretical Morphology and Syntax 9). Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5543318 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5543318)
90. Nykiel, Joanna & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2022a. Fragments and structural identity on a direct interpretation approach. Journal of Linguistics 58(1). 73–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0022226720000420 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/)
91. Nykiel, Joanna & KIm, Jong-Bok. 2022b. On the grammaticality of morphosyntactically reduced remnants in Polish sluicing. Linguistics 60(1). 177–213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ ling-2021-0071 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/)
92. Nykiel, Joanna & Kim, Jong-Bok & Sim, Rok. 2023. Case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis and the cue-based theory of sentence processing. Journal of Linguistics 59(2). 327–360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226722000068 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226722000068)
93. Onifer, William & Swinney, David A. 1981. Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension—Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition 9. 1–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196957 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196957)
94. Orth, Wesley & Yoshida, Masaya. 2025. Gaps that do not sprout. Linguistic Inquiry. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00551 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00551)
95. Overfelt, Jason. 2024. Having space to sprout: Failed sprouting in sub-clausal ellipses. In Autry, Robert & de la Cruz, Gabriela & Figueroa, Luis A. Irizarry & Mihajlovic, Kristina & Ni, Tianyi & Smith, Ryan & Harley, Heidi (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA. Cascadilla Proceedings Project. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Overfelt%2C+Jason%2E+2024%2E+Having+space+to+sprout%3A+Failed+sprouting+in+sub%2Dclausal+ellipses%2E+In+Autry%2C+Robert+%26+de+la+Cruz%2C+Gabriela+%26+Figueroa%2C+Luis+A%2E+Irizarry+%26+Mihajlovic%2C+Kristina+%26+Ni%2C+Tianyi+%26+Smit)
96. Öztekin, I. & McElree, Brian. 2007. Retrieval dynamics of proactive interference: PI slows retrieval by eliminating fast assessments of familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language 57. 126–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.011 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.011)
97. Parker, Dan. 2018. A memory-based explanation of antecedent-ellipsis mismatches: New insights from computational modeling. Glossa 3(1). 129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.621 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.621)
98. Parker, Dan & Shvartsman, Michael & van Dyke, Julie A. 2017. The cue-based retrieval theory of sentence comprehension: New findings and new challenges. In Escobar, Linda & Torrens, Vicenc & Parodi, Teresa (eds.), Language processing and disorders, 121–144. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Parker%2C+Dan+%26+Shvartsman%2C+Michael+%26+van+Dyke%2C+Julie+A%2E+2017%2E+The+cue%2Dbased+retrieval+theory+of+sentence+comprehension%3A+New+findings+and+new+challenges%2E+In+Escobar%2C+Linda+%26+Torrens%2C+Vicenc+%26+Parodi%2C+Te)
99. Parker, Dan & Phillips, Colin. 2016. Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition 157. 321–339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016. 08.016 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016)
100. Parker, Dan & Phillips, Colin. 2017. Reflexive attraction in comprehension is selective. Journal of Memory and Language 94. 272–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.002)
101. Philippova, Tatiana. 2014. P-omission under sluicing, [P clitic] and the nature of P-stranding. In Kohlberger, Martin & Bellamy, Kate & Dutton, Eleanor (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XXII, 133–155. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Philippova%2C+Tatiana%2E+2014%2E+P%2Domission+under+sluicing%2C+%5BP+clitic%5D+and+the+nature+of+P%2Dstranding%2E+In+Kohlberger%2C+Martin+%26+Bellamy%2C+Kate+%26+Dutton%2C+Eleanor+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+ConSOLE+XXII%2C+133%E2%80%93155%2E)
102. Poirier, Josée & Walenski, Matthew & Shapiro, Luis P. 2012. The role of parallelism in the real-time processing of anaphora. Language and Cognitive Processes 27. 868–886. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01690965.2011.601623 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.601623)
103. Poirier, Josée & Wolfinger, Katie & Spellman, Lisa & Shapiro, Lewis P. 2010. The real-time processing of sluiced sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39(5). 411–427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-010-9148-9 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-010-9148-9)
104. Poppels, Till & Kehler, Andrew. 2019. Reconsidering asymmetries in voice-mismatched VP-ellipsis. Glossa 4(1). 60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.738 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.738)
105. Poppels, Till & Miller, Philip. 2023. Remnant connectivity in pseudogapping: Experimental evidence for a direct generation approach. Journal of Linguistics 59. 293–325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226722000354 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226722000354)
106. Rodrigues, Cillene & Nevins, Andrew & Vicente, Luis. 2009. Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and preposition stranding. In Torck, Daniéle & Wetzels, Leo (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2006, 175–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.303.11rod [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.303.11rod)
107. Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? In Binnick, Robert & Davison, Alice & Green, Georgia & Morgan, Jerry (eds.), Papers from the 5th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286. Chicago Linguistic Society: Chicago. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ross%2C+John+R%2E+1969%2E+Guess+who%3F+In+Binnick%2C+Robert+%26+Davison%2C+Alice+%26+Green%2C+Georgia+%26+Morgan%2C+Jerry+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Papers+from+the+5th+regional+meeting+of+the+Chicago+Linguistic+Society%2C+252%E2%80%93286%2E+Chicago+Lin)
108. Rudin, Deniz. 2019. Head-based syntactic identity in sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 50. 253–283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00308 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00308)
109. Sag, Ivan A. & Nykiel, Joanna. 2011. Remarks on sluicing. In Mülller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG11 Conference. CSLI Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2011.11 [↗](https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2011.11)
110. Shapiro, Lewis P. & Hestvik, Arild & Lesan, Lesli & Garcia, Rachel. 2003. Charting the time-course of VP-ellipsis sentence comprehension: Evidence for an initial and independent structural analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 49. 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0749-596X(03)00026-3 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/)
111. Shen, Zheng. 2018. Fragment answers and movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36(1). 309–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9369-9 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9369-9)
112. Stigliano, Laura. 2022. P-omission in ellipsis in Spanish: Evidence for syntactic identity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 40. 1353–1389. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11049-021-09535-w Stjepanović, Sandra. 2008. P-stranding under sluicing in a non-P-stranding language? Linguistic Inquiry 37. 179–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.179 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.179)
113. Stjepanović, Sandra. 2012. Two cases of violation repair under sluicing. In Merchant, Jason & Simpson, Andrew (eds.), Sluicing. Cross-linguistic perspectives, 68–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645763.003.0004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645763.003.0004)
114. Stump, Gregory. 1977. Pseudogapping. Ms., Ohio State University, Columbus. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stump%2C+Gregory%2E+1977%2E+Pseudogapping%2E+Ms%2E%2C+Ohio+State+University%2C+Columbus%2E)
115. Sturt, Patrick & Keller, Frank & Dubey, Amit. 2010. Syntactic priming in comprehension: Parallelism effects with and without coordination. Journal of Memory and Language 62. 333–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.001)
116. Swinney, David A. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 645–659. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90355-4)
117. Szczegielniak, Adam. 2008. Islands in sluicing in Polish. In Abner, Natasha & Bishop, Jason (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 404–412. Somerville, MA, USA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Szczegielniak%2C+Adam%2E+2008%2E+Islands+in+sluicing+in+Polish%2E+In+Abner%2C+Natasha+%26+Bishop%2C+Jason+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+the+27th+West+Coast+Conference+on+Formal+Linguistics%2E+Cascadilla+Proceedings+Project%2C)
118. Tanner, Darren & Nicol, Janet & Brehm, Laurel. 2014. The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language 76. 195–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.07.003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.07.003)
119. Thoms, Gary. 2016. Pseudogapping, parallelism, and the syntax of focus. Syntax 19. 286–307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12122 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12122)
120. Troyer, Melissa & Hofmeister, Philip & Kutas, Marta. 2016. Elaboration over a discourse facilitates retrieval in sentence processing. Frontiers in Psychology 7. art. 374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2016.00374 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3389/)
121. Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. Invisible last resort: A note on clefts as the underlying source for sluicing. Lingua 120. 1714–1726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.002)
122. Van Dyke, Julie A. 2011. Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 65. 247–263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.002)
123. Van Dyke, Julie A. & Johns, Clinton L. 2012. Memory interference as a determinant of language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 193–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3. 330 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3)
124. Van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness. Dordrecht: Foris. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Van+Riemsdijk%2C+Henk%2E+1978%2E+A+case+study+in+syntactic+markedness%2E+Dordrecht%3A+Foris%2E)
125. Vicente, Luis. 2018. Sluicing and its subtypes. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 479–503. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.22 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.22)
126. Wagers, Matthew W. & Lau, Ellen F. & Phillips, Colin. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 61. 206–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.002)
127. Watkins, Olga C. & Watkins, Michael J. 1975. Build-up of proactive inhibition as a cue overload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 104. 442–452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.1.4.442 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.1.4.442)
128. Weir, Andrew. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Weir%2C+Andrew%2E+2014%2E+Fragments+and+clausal+ellipsis%2E+Doctoral+dissertation%2C+University+of+Massachusetts+Amherst%2E)
129. Weir, Andrew. 2017. But write what? In LaCara, Nicholas & Moulton, Keir & Tessier, Anne-Michelle. (eds.), A Schrit to Fest Kyle Johnson. Linguistics Open Access Publications. UMass Amherst. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Weir%2C+Andrew%2E+2017%2E+But+write+what%3F+In+LaCara%2C+Nicholas+%26+Moulton%2C+Keir+%26+Tessier%2C+Anne%2DMichelle%2E+%28eds%2E%29%2C+A+Schrit+to+Fest+Kyle+Johnson%2E+Linguistics+Open+Access+Publications%2E+UMass+Amherst%2E)
130. Wood, Jim & Barros, Matthew & Sigurdsson, Einar F. 2020. Case mismatching in Icelandic and clausal ellipsis. Journal of Linguistics 56(2). 399–439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0022226719000161 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/)

*Updated 2 November 2026*