In the VP ellipsis considered here, which are features of English grammar, the elided VP must be a non-finite VP; it cannot be a finite VP. Further, the ellipsis must be introduced by an auxiliary verb or by the infinitive particle to. In the examples below, the elided material of VP ellipsis is indicated using subscripts and a smaller font and the antecedent to the ellipsis is bolded: Attempts at VP ellipsis that lack an auxiliary verb fail, unless the infinitive particle to is retained: Apparent exceptions to this restriction on VP ellipsis may be instances of null complement anaphora, e.g. ?Bill tried to leave, and Jim tried to leave too. A particularly frequent construction in which VP ellipsis occurs is the tag question:
The direction of ellipsis
VP ellipsis can be said to operate either forwards or backwards: it operates forwards when the antecedent to the ellipsis precedes the ellipsis and backwards when the antecedent follows the ellipsis. It can also be said to operate either upwards or downwards. It operates upwards when the antecedent appears in a clause that is subordinate to the clause containing the ellipsis, and downwards when the ellipsis appears in a clause subordinate to the clause containing the antecedent. In the above examples, the two clauses are coordinated, so neither is subordinate to the other, and hence the operation of the ellipsis is neither upward nor downward. Combinations of these directions of operation of ellipsis are illustrated with the following examples: Three of the four combinations are acceptable. However, as the fourth example shows, VP ellipsis is impossible when it operates both backwards and upwards.
Antecedent-contained ellipsis
An aspect of VP ellipsis that has been the subject of much theoretical analysis occurs when the ellipsis appears to be contained inside its antecedent. The phenomenon is called antecedent-contained ellipsis or antecedent-contained deletion. Canonical cases of antecedent-contained ellipsis occur when the ellipsis appears inside a quantified object NP, e.g. If it is assumed that the antecedent to the ellipsis is to be a complete verb phrase, then the only possible antecedent appears to be the VP in bold. This VP, however, contains the ellipsis itself. This analysis would imply an infinite regress, which is an impossibility, since it would mean that the ellipsis could never acquire full semantic content. One means of addressing antecedent-contained ellipsis that is pursued in some phrase structure grammars is to assume quantifier raising. Quantifier raising raises the quantified NP to a position where it is no longer contained inside its antecedent VP. An alternative explanation, pursued in dependency grammars, is to assume that the basic unit of syntax is not the constituent, but rather the catena. On this analysis, the antecedent to the ellipsis does not need to be a complete constituent, but can be merely a catena, which need not contain the ellipsis.
Argument contained ellipsis
As noted above, VP ellipsis is generally impossible if it would operate both backwards and upwards. There are also certain other restrictions on the possibility of ellipsis, although a complete theoretical analysis may be lacking. Two examples of environments in which ellipsis fails are now given: The inability of VP ellipsis to occur in these cases has been explored in terms of so-called argument contained ellipsis. The ellipsis appears inside an argument of the predicate represented by the antecedent to the ellipsis. A satisfactory account of the inability of VP ellipsis to occur in these sentences is lacking.
