---
title: "Towards a QUD-Based Analysis of Gapping Constructions (2016)"
description: "It argues that properties usually treated as syntactic are really discourse-pragmatic. 32 references, cited by 1 paper here."
authors: ["Sang-Hee Park"]
year: 2016
venue: "Proceedings of the 30th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation: Oral Papers"
source: "https://aclanthology.org/Y16-2028/"
licence: "CC BY 4.0 (ACL Anthology)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/park-2016-qud-based-analysis-gapping-constructions/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/park-2016-qud-based-analysis-gapping-constructions/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2016](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2016/page/4/) / Towards a QUD-Based Analysis of Gapping Constructions

# Towards a QUD-Based Analysis of Gapping Constructions

**Authors:** [Sang-Hee Park](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/sang-hee-park/) · **Year:** 2016 · **Venue:** [Proceedings of the 30th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation: Oral Papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/paclic/) ([PACLIC 2016](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/paclic/2016/)) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0 (ACL Anthology)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://aclanthology.org/Y16-2028/) · [PDF](https://aclanthology.org/Y16-2028.pdf) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2742029025)

**Citations:** 2 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · 1 in our library, of the 141,840 papers whose bibliographies we read

## Summary
The paper looks at Gapping, a kind of ellipsis in which a later clause loses its verb and sometimes more material, as in "Mary loves apples, and Tom, pears". It argues that properties usually treated as syntactic are really discourse-pragmatic. Three earlier families of analysis are tested against data: deletion, movement (verb raising out of conjoined VPs) and construction-based accounts. Each runs into trouble with some of the following:
- gapped clauses that have no grammatical full-clause counterpart;
- wide-scope readings of negation and modals;
- a nominative subject occurring together with wide scope;
- mismatches with extraction constraints.

The author also weakens two common assumptions. Against the Major Constituent Hypothesis, the paper uses preposition-complement and determiner-gapping remnants. Against the coordination-only restriction, it uses web-found examples with *before* and *because*. The proposal is formulated in HPSG, following Ginzburg & Sag and Ginzburg. The source clause is treated as a partial answer that keeps a Question Under Discussion open. The remnants of the gapped clause are focal elements, and the clause's meaning comes from beta-reducing the source's unfocused open proposition with those remnants. This places Gapping inside a general theory of fragment utterances.

## Key points
- The paper groups prior work into deletion-based (Ross, Sag, Hartmann, Chaves), movement-based (Johnson 2009/2014) and construction-based (Culicover & Jackendoff, Abeillé et al.) approaches.
- Key problem data:
  - "Paul saw Leslie, but not Leslie Paul" and "or him that ice cream", where the remnant subject is accusative;
  - wide vs. distributive readings of "Ward can't eat caviar, and Sue, beans";
  - P-complement remnants, as in "Bill, syntax";
  - determiner gapping, as in "and cat, Alpo".
- Native-speaker consultants judged the subordinate-clause gapping examples more acceptable when they carried pauses and contrastive pitch accent. The author takes this as evidence against purely syntactic constraints.
- The new `gapped phrase` type has these features:
  - a mother HEAD value left underspecified, so it can combine with *as well as* and *but not*;
  - a MAX-QUD containing an FEC set of focal elements and an abstract Q;
  - two or more remnant daughters.
- The analysis makes three predictions:
  - remnants must contrast in focus with their correlates;
  - case mismatch is allowed;
  - a passive source followed by an active-order gapped clause (the Casablanca/Chinatown example) is correctly ruled out.
- The work is purely theoretical, with no corpus or quantitative evaluation. The effect of prosody is left for future research.

## Interesting ideas
- The elided clause's meaning is rebuilt by abstracting the unfocused part of the antecedent into an ordered lambda and applying the remnants in sequence, with no copying of syntax.
- Because the abstract is order-sensitive, a remnant pair that answers a differently ordered question (a passive source with active-order remnants) fails to compose, which explains why such sentences sound odd.
- A source clause is treated as a partial answer that leaves its question open, so later fragments resolve against that still-active question.
- The paper separates statistical tendencies (remnants tend to be major constituents) from hard constraints and tests each claimed rule against naturally occurring counterexamples.
- Prosody and contrastive focus are what license gapping, and in written text commas stand in for pauses.

## For Mova

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

- **I1** (frames): When the tree marks a gapping clause (e.g. UD `orphan`), prag could build the frame by reusing the source frame with its contrasted role slots emptied and filling them in order from the remnants, recording the derivation as an explanation.
- **I2** (frames): Role assignment for remnants should follow the source frame's argument order, including its voice, and should flag mismatches as low-confidence readings rather than silently swapping agent and patient.
- **I3** (world): The text world could keep an explicit stack of open questions, so that fragments and follow-up clauses in fables or dialogues attach to the right pending question.
- **I4** (learn): Silver-data rules and self-induced repair rules for ellipsis could be checked against small curated counterexample sets, used as negative controls, before they are promoted to hard constraints.
- **I5** (tree): Parser features or repair rules could treat the comma-separated "NP, NP" pattern after a conjunction or a subordinator like *because*/*before* as a gapping cue, instead of forcing an apposition or coordination analysis.

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

📚 Shelves (4): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 9,296 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 9,206 works · [🧠 Neuroscience](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/neuroscience/) · 95 works · [🧠 Cognitive Neuroscience](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/neuroscience/cognitive-neuroscience/) · 95 works

## Cite

Cite as: Sang-Hee Park. 2016. Towards a QUD-Based Analysis of Gapping Constructions. Proceedings of the 30th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation: Oral Papers.

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

```bibtex
@inproceedings{park2016qud,
  title = {{Towards a QUD-Based Analysis of Gapping Constructions}},
  author = {Sang-Hee Park},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation: Oral Papers},
  year = {2016},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/Y16-2028/}
}
```

- [← previous The IBM 2016 English Conversational Telephone Speech Recognition System](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/saon-2016-ibm-2016-english-conversational-telephone/)
- [next → Universal quantification as degree modification in Arabic](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/hallman-2016-universal-quantification-as-degree-modification/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2016](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2016/page/4/)

## References

32 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Andrew Kehler. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Andrew+Kehler%2E+2002%2E+Coherence%2C+Reference%2C+and+the+Theory+of+Grammar%2E+CSLI%2E)
2. Anne Abeillé, Gabriela Bı̂lbı̂ie, and Francois Mouret. 2013. A Romance perspective on Gapping constructions. In Romance in Construction Grammar, ed. H. Boas and F. Gonzalvez Garcia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Craige Roberts. 1996/2012. [Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/roberts-2012-information-structure-discourse-towards-integrated/). Semantics & Pragmatics 5(6): 1-69.
3. Daniel Büring. 2003. On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26:511-545. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Daniel+Bu%CC%88ring%2E+2003%2E+On+D%2Dtrees%2C+beans+and+B%2Daccents%2E+Linguistics+and+Philosophy%2C+26%3A511%2D545%2E)
4. Ivan A. Sag. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ivan+A%2E+Sag%2E+1976%2E+Deletion+and+logical+form%2E+Ph%2ED%2E+Dissertation%2E+MIT%2E)
5. James D. McCawley. 1988. The Syntactic Phenomena of English, Vol. 1. University of Chicago Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=James+D%2E+McCawley%2E+1988%2E+The+Syntactic+Phenomena+of+English%2C+Vol%2E+1%2E+University+of+Chicago+Press%2E)
6. James D. McCawley. 1993. Gapping with shared operators. In D. A. Peterson (ed.), Berkeley Linguistics Society, 245-253. University of California, Berkeley, California. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v19i1.1507)
7. Jason Merchant. 2004. Fragments and Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27:661–738. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3)
8. Jerry Hobbs. 1985. On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse. CSLI-85-37. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jerry+Hobbs%2E+1985%2E+On+the+Coherence+and+Structure+of+Discourse%2E+CSLI%2D85%2D37%2E)
9. Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1): 39–100. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jeroen+Groenendijk+and+Martin+Stokhof%2E+1991%2E+Dynamic+Predicate+Logic%2E+Linguistics+and+Philosophy+14%281%29%3A+39%E2%80%93100%2E)
10. John R. Ross. 1970. Gapping and the order of constituents. In M. Bierwisch and K. Heidolph (eds.), Progress in Linguistics, 249–259. The Hague: Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=John+R%2E+Ross%2E+1970%2E+Gapping+and+the+order+of+constituents%2E+In+M%2E+Bierwisch+and+K%2E+Heidolph+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Progress+in+Linguistics%2C+249%E2%80%93259%2E+The+Hague%3A+Mouton%2E)
11. Jonathan Ginzburg and Ivan A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative investigations: the form, meaning and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jonathan+Ginzburg+and+Ivan+A%2E+Sag%2E+2000%2E+Interrogative+investigations%3A+the+form%2C+meaning+and+use+of+English+interrogatives%2E+Stanford%3A+CSLI+Publications%2E)
12. Jonathan Ginzburg. 2012. The Interactive Stance: meaning for conversation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jonathan+Ginzburg%2E+2012%2E+The+Interactive+Stance%3A+meaning+for+conversation%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2C+Oxford%2E)
13. Jorge Hankamer. 1973. Unacceptable Ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(1):17–68. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jorge+Hankamer%2E+1973%2E+Unacceptable+Ambiguity%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry%2C+4%281%29%3A17%E2%80%9368%2E)
14. Katharina Hartmann. 2000. Right Node Raising and Gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. John Benjamins Publishing. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/z.106)
15. Kyle Johnson. 2009. Gapping is not (vP-) ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(2):289–328. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.289)
16. Kyle Johnson. 2014. Gapping. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kyle+Johnson%2E+2014%2E+Gapping%2E+Ms%2E%2C+University+of+Massachusetts%2C+Amherst%2E)
17. Linton Wang, Eric McCready, and Nicholas Asher. 2006. Information dependency in Quantificational Subordination. Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier, 267–304. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080462608_016)
18. Mark J. Steedman. 1990. Gapping as constituent coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2):207–263. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00630734)
19. Massimo Poesio and Alessandro Zucchi. 1992. On Telescoping. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theoty 2. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Massimo+Poesio+and+Alessandro+Zucchi%2E+1992%2E+On+Telescoping%2E+Proceedings+of+Semantics+and+Linguistic+Theoty+2%2E)
20. Matthew Reeve. 2014. If there’s anything cleft-ellipsis resembles, it’s (pseudo)gapping. In R. E. Santana-LaBarge (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 351–360. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Matthew+Reeve%2E+2014%2E+If+there%E2%80%99s+anything+cleft%2Dellipsis+resembles%2C+it%E2%80%99s+%28pseudo%29gapping%2E+In+R%2E+E%2E+Santana%2DLaBarge+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+the+31st+West+Coast+Conference+on+Formal+Linguistics%2C+351%E2%80%93360%2E)
21. Muffy E. A. Siegel. 1984. Gapping and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry, 15:523–530. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Muffy+E%2E+A%2E+Siegel%2E+1984%2E+Gapping+and+interpretation%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry%2C+15%3A523%E2%80%93530%2E)
22. Nancy Levin and Ellen Prince. 1986. Gapping and causal implicature. Papers in Linguistics, 19, 351– 364. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818609389263)
23. Neal Whitman. 2010. Deriving wide-scoping operators in an associative Lambek categorial grammar. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Neal+Whitman%2E+2010%2E+Deriving+wide%2Dscoping+operators+in+an+associative+Lambek+categorial+grammar%2E+LSA+Annual+Meeting+Extended+Abstracts%2E)
24. Peter Culicover and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Peter+Culicover+and+Ray+Jackendoff%2E+2005%2E+Simpler+Syntax%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
25. Petra Hendriks. 2004. Coherence relations, ellipsis and contrastive topics. Journal of Semantics, 21(2): 133– 153. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.2.133)
26. Ray S. Jackendoff. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2(1):21–35. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ray+S%2E+Jackendoff%2E+1971%2E+Gapping+and+related+rules%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry+2%281%29%3A21%E2%80%9335%2E)
27. Richard A. Hudson. 1989. Gapping and grammatical relations. Journal of Linguistics, 25(1):57–94. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s002222670001210x)
28. Mats E. Rooth. 1985. Association with Focus. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mats+E%2E+Rooth%2E+1985%2E+Association+with+Focus%2E+Ph%2ED%2E+dissertation%2E+University+of+Massachusetts%2C+Amherst%2E)
29. Rui P. Chaves. 2005. A linearization-based approach to gapping. Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Formal Grammar and the 9th Meeting on Mathematics of Language, 1–14. CSLI. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rui+P%2E+Chaves%2E+2005%2E+A+linearization%2Dbased+approach+to+gapping%2E+Proceedings+of+the+10th+Conference+on+Formal+Grammar+and+the+9th+Meeting+on+Mathematics+of+Language%2C+1%E2%80%9314%2E+CSLI%2E)
30. Rui P. Chaves. 2007. Coordinate Structures: constraint-based syntax-semantics processing. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Lisbon. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rui+P%2E+Chaves%2E+2007%2E+Coordinate+Structures%3A+constraint%2Dbased+syntax%2Dsemantics+processing%2E+Ph%2ED%2E+Dissertation%2E+University+of+Lisbon%2E)
31. Yusuke Kubota and Robert Levine. 2014. The scope anomaly of Gapping. In Proceedings of NELS, 44: 247–260. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Yusuke+Kubota+and+Robert+Levine%2E+2014%2E+The+scope+anomaly+of+Gapping%2E+In+Proceedings+of+NELS%2C+44%3A+247%E2%80%93260%2E)
32. Yusuke Kubota and Robert Levine. 2016. Gapping as hypothetical reasoning. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34(1):107–156. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9298-4)

*Updated 24 October 2026*