@phdthesis{Paape2017,
  author    = {Paape, Dario L. J. F.},
  title     = {Antecedent complexity effects on ellipsis processing},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-411689},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {ix, 134},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {This dissertation explores whether the processing of ellipsis is affected by changes in the complexity of the antecedent, either due to added linguistic material or to the presence of a temporary ambiguity. Murphy (1985) hypothesized that ellipsis is resolved via a string copying procedure when the antecedent is within the same sentence, and that copying longer strings takes more time. Such an account also implies that the antecedent is copied without its structure, which in turn implies that recomputing its syntax and semantics may be necessary at the ellipsis gap. Alternatively, several accounts predict null effects of antecedent complexity, as well as no reparsing. These either involve a structure copying mechanism that is cost-free and whose finishing time is thus independent of the form of the antecedent (Frazier \& Clifton, 2001), treat ellipsis as a pointer into content-addressable memory with direct access (Martin \& McElree, 2008, 2009), or assume that one structure is 'shared' between antecedent and gap (Frazier \& Clifton, 2005). In a self-paced reading study on German sluicing, temporarily ambiguous garden-path clauses were used as antecedents, but no evidence of reparsing in the form of a slowdown at the ellipsis site was found. Instead, results suggest that antecedents which had been reanalyzed from an initially incorrect structure were easier to retrieve at the gap. This finding that can be explained within the framework of cue-based retrieval parsing (Lewis \& Vasishth, 2005), where additional syntactic operations on a structure yield memory reactivation effects. Two further self-paced reading studies on German bare argument ellipsis and English verb phrase ellipsis investigated if adding linguistic content to the antecedent would increase processing times for the ellipsis, and whether insufficiently demanding comprehension tasks may have been responsible for earlier null results (Frazier \& Clifton, 2000; Martin \& McElree, 2008). It has also been suggested that increased antecedent complexity should shorten rather than lengthen retrieval times by providing more unique memory features (Hofmeister, 2011). Both experiments failed to yield reliable evidence that antecedent complexity affects ellipsis processing times in either direction, irrespectively of task demands. Finally, two eye-tracking studies probed more deeply into the proposed reactivation-induced speedup found in the first experiment. The first study used three different kinds of French garden-path sentences as antecedents, with two of them failing to yield evidence for reactivation. Moreover, the third sentence type showed evidence suggesting that having failed to assign a structure to the antecedent leads to a slowdown at the ellipsis site, as well as regressions towards the ambiguous part of the sentence. The second eye-tracking study used the same materials as the initial self-paced reading study on German, with results showing a pattern similar to the one originally observed, with some notable differences. Overall, the experimental results are compatible with the view that adding linguistic material to the antecedent has no or very little effect on the ease with which ellipsis is resolved, which is consistent with the predictions of cost-free copying, pointer-based approaches and structure sharing. Additionally, effects of the antecedent's parsing history on ellipsis processing may be due to reactivation, the availability of multiple representations in memory, or complete failure to retrieve a matching target.},
  language  = {en}
}