Language& Commuhication Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 137-149,1982. 0271-5309/82/020137-13$03.

00/O
Printed in Great Britain. Pergamon Press Ltd.

ELLIPSIS AND COORDINATION: NORMS AND PREFERENCES

SIDNEY GREENBAUM and CHARLES F. MEYER

All known languages have coordination constructions of two major types: full co-
ordination of sentences or clauses and elliptical coordination of parts of clauses, the sites
of permissible ellipsis varying from language to language.’ Thus, English permits the
speaker to choose full coordination, as in (la), or-parallel to (la)-varying degrees of
elliptical coordination, as in (1b) and (1 c).
(1) (a) Susan is working during the day and she is studying at night.
(b) Susan is working during the day and is studying at night.
(c) Susan is working during the day and studying at night.
Several attempts have been made to formulate rules for relating elliptical coordination to
full coordination, particularly for English; for example, Tai 1969, Koutsoudas 1971,
Hudson 1976, Harries-Delisle 1978, and the earlier treatments surveyed in Stockwell
et al. 1973. These studies are intended to account for the types of coordination that are
possible.
The co-existence in the same language of varying coordinations that seem to be approxi-
mately synonymous poses interesting questions for those who are concerned with the use
of language. Why are some kinds of coordination more .acceptable and more frequently
used than others? Is there any relationship between the relative acceptability and frequency
of elliptical coordinations in particular languages and the universal range of possible
elliptical coordinations? What motivates the use of the less acceptable and less frequent
coordinations?
Answers to the first question are suggested in Sanders 1977, a typological study of
elliptical coordinations. The same study may provide the basis for answers to the second
question. Sanders defines elliptical coordination as synonymous with a corresponding
full coordination. He points out that there are six possible ellipsis sites in elliptical
coordinations: the initial, medial and final positions of each of the two clauses.2 The
ellipsis for each position is marked below by a deletion slant, and the position for the
corresponding antecedent (the realized unit that corresponds to the ellipted unit) is
circled. In the first three coordinations the ellipsis precedes the antecedent.

A B C & 0 E F (A)
A B C & D a F (B)
A B C & D E a (C)
@ B C & 0 E F (D)
ABC&DE F (E)
A B 0 & D E F (F)

137
138 SIDNEY GREENBAUM AND CHARLES F. MEYER

Sanders claims that although there are 64 logically possible combinations of permissible
ellipsis sites (including no ellipsis), only six combinations actually occur in the languages
of the world. Here are the six language types for elliptical coordination.
Permitted Excluded
Chinese-type D,C APB, E,F
English-Japanese-type D,C,E A,B F
Quechua-type D, E,F A,B,C
Russian-type D,C,E,F A,B
Hindi-Zapotec-type D,C,E,F,B A
Tojolabal-type D,C,E,F,B,A
The typology shows that every language has at least two permissible sites, one of which
must be D. Furthermore, there are implicational relationships between the permissibility
of one ellipsis site and the permissibility of other ellipsis sites:
If a language lacks E, it also lacks F.
If it lacks C and/or F, it also lacks B.
If it lacks B, it also lacks A.
The implicational rules indicate a hierarchy from most permissible to least permissible
sites in languages.
D
E
C,F
B
A
Sanders also calculates the positional resistance to ellipsis in terms of the number of
language types that exclude each site. The resultant hierarchy is slightly different from
the previous one.
Number of exclusions Degrees of resistance
D 0 0
C,E 1 1
F 2 2
B 4 3
A 5 4
Sanders correlates his scale of degrees of resistance with a hypothetical model of
decoding language communication, in which the relative ease of understanding elliptical
constructions depends on two effects: the presence or absence of suspense, and the serial
position of the ellipsis site. The suspense effect applies when the ellipted item precedes
its antecedent-ellipsis sites A,B and C, whose antecedents are D,E and F respectively;
ellipsis is therefore easier to interpret in the second clause-sites D,E and F-where
there is no suspense. This effect predicts a ranking of the ellipsis sites into two sets, the
first set being more favorable to ellipsis:
D,E,F
A,B,C
The serial position effect predicts which are the most prominent parts of a series, and
therefore the easiest to remember: the first antecedent position (A) followed by the
second (B) and last (F), followed by the third (C) and fifth (E), followed by the fourth (D),
 ELLIPSIS AND COORDINATION 139

the least prominent position.3 These antecedent positions provide a ranking of ellipsis sites
from most favorable to least favorable for ellipsis, the more easily remembered antecedents
being more conducive to ellipsis in the related sites.
D
E,C
F,B
A
Sanders considers that the serial position effect provides the better explanation, since it
correlates more closely with the typological rankings.
We can produce one ranking for the combined force of both these effects if we amend
the ranking for the serial position effect to take account of those ellipsis sites that are also
subject to the suspense effect. We would then place the two sites C and B later in the
hierarchy than E and F respectively.4 This hierarchy coincides exactly with the one
derived from the typological implicational rules for the permissibility of ellipsis sites.
D
E
C,F
B
A
We could further discriminate between C and F if we assigned a different weighting to the
two effects: C would be higher than F if we weighted more heavily the serial position
effect, whereas F would be higher than C if we weighted more heavily the suspense effect.
Sanders’ paper allows for five hierarchies of most favorable to least favorable, two based
directly on the crosslinguistic data and three on psychological explanations for the data.
The difference between the two typological hierarchies is slight, merely whether C is to be
ranked with E or F. The differences between the psycholinguistic hierarchies are more
considerable. But clearly the binary division indicated by the suspense effect is too restricted
to account for the typological data, and even the ranking for the serial position effect does
not explain the data fully. Only a ranking based on the combined force of both effects
accounts for the data.
Though Sanders does not do so, we can construct from his typological explanations
two putative universals that have empirical consequences. We can transfer his charac-
terization of resistance to ellipsis from language typology to individual languages. We give
first the stronger version of the universal principles.
1. If a language has more than one type of elliptical coordination, the acceptability
ranking of the types will parallel the ranking of the types across languages.
2. If a language has more than one type of elliptical coordination, the frequency
ranking of the types will parallel the ranking of the types across languages.
Weaker versions of these putative universals would merely state that a universal ellipsis
type (D-ellipsis) would be more acceptable and more frequently used in all human languages
than non-universal ellipsis types.’ In this paper we examine the validity of these typological
universals for elliptical coordinations in English. Further investigations will test their
validity for other languages. It is also possible that similar universal principles apply to
other language features. That is to say, if we find related structures differing in their
presence or absence across languages, the structures that appear in more language types
140 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
SIDNEY GREENBAUM AND CHARLES F. MEYER

may be more acceptable and more frequent in a language that has more than one
structure.6
Sanders claims that English allows only three positions for ellipsis. We give here examples,
placing first D-ellipsis, which is possible for all languages.
D-ellipsis: the beginning of the second clause (and of subsequent clauses, if present)
e.g. Susan is working during the day and X studying at night.
C-ellipsis: the end of the first clause (and of subsequent clauses, if present, except for
the last clause)
e.g. The President implied A , and an aide stated explicitly but unofficially, that massive
cuts in government defense expenditure would soon be announced.
E-ellipsis: the middle of the second clause (and of subsequent clauses, if present)
e.g. The plot was exciting and the characterization ,( plausible.
We consider first the evidence for the relative frequency and acceptability of the different
ellipsis types in English. Our evidence comes from experiments eliciting judgments of relative
frequency and acceptability; the results of the experiments are reported in greater detail
in Greenbaum 1977, Greenbaum and Meyer 1980, and Meyer 1979 and 1981. All the
sentences were presented in written form.’
We might expect that full coordination should generally be preferred to elliptical
coordination, since for the hearer as Sanders points out ‘other things being equal, ellipsis
serves to increase the difficulty of determining the intended grammatical and semantic
relationships of constituents’ (Sanders 1977, p. 260). Our evidence shows that subjects
prefer D-ellipsis-ellipsis at the beginning of the second clause-over full coordination,
in both their frequency and their acceptability judgments. The sentences with D-ellipsis
in (a) below were preferred over the corresponding full coordination in (b). The preference
was constant for several variables: an identical subject or a pronominalized subject in
the second clause for full coordination; the presence or absence of an auxiliary; and the
retention or ellipsis of an auxiliary in the elliptical clause.
(1) no auxiliary; subject in (b) repeated (Meyer 1979, p. 134).
(a) Harry corrected the tests and planned his next lecture.
(b) Harry corrected the tests and Harry planned his next lecture.
(2) no auxiliary; subject in (b) pronominalized (Meyer 1979, p. 134).
(a) Tom broke his arm and sprained his ankle.
(b) Tom broke his arm and he sprained his ankle.
(3) auxiliary retained; subject in (b) pronominalized (Greenbaum and Meyer 1980, p. 4).
(a) Mary has washed the dishes, has dried them, and has put them in the cupboard.
(b) Mary has washed the dishes, she has dried them, and she has put them in the
cupboard.
(4) auxiliary ellipted; subject in (b) pronominalized (Greenbaum 1977, p. 100).
(a) Our children will see the movie and visit the zoo.
(b) Our children will see the movie and they will visit the zoo.
Furthermore, subjects tended to prefer more ellipsis to less ellipsis, regardless of the type
of ellipsis. Thus, in the following pairs of sentences, subjects preferred the fuller ellipsis
in (a) to the more partial ellipsis in (b), both for D-ellipsis in (5) and for E-ellipsis in (6).
(5) (a) D-ellipsis of subject auxiliary; (b) D-ellipsis of subject alone (Greenbaum and
Meyer 1980, p. 5).
(a) My sister is washing the dishes and drying them.
(b) My sister is washing the dishes and is drying them.
 ELLIPSIS AND COORDINATION 141

(6) (a) E-ellipsis of auxiliary and verb; (b) E-ellipsis of verb alone (Greenbaum and
Meyer 1980, p. 3).
(a) John will fix the sink and Fred the stove.
(b) John will fix the sink and Fred will the stove.
The preference for ellipsis where no inhibiting factors intervene is understandable. From
the speaker’s viewpoint, elliptical sentences are preferable because they require less effort,
and speakers naturally wish to communicate with as little redundancy as possible. We may
note the abbreviatory utterances that are common in ordinary conversation (cf. Quirk
et al. 1972,7.88,9.18-22).
Coffee?
One cup, please.
Want a light?
See you later.
From the hearer’s viewpoint, ellipsis is also preferable-if the situational or linguistic
context makes the message clear-because the communication is received more quickly.
Indeed, in complex sentences the redundant information may obscure the message.
Furthermore, in avoiding the repetition of information readily available from the context,
the elliptical form highlights the new information (Quirk et al. 1972,9.4).
C-ellipsis and E-ellipsis, however, seem to be more difficult to decode than D-ellipsis.
Although they are more economical for the speaker, the speaker uses them less frequently,
presumably out of consideration for the hearer. Our evidence shows that C-ellipsis-
ellipsis at the end of the first clause- is less favored than either the full form (7a) or
D-ellipsis (8a), and similarly that E-ellipsis-ellipsis in the middle of the second clause,
often termed ‘gapping’ -is less favored than either the full form (9a) and (1Oa) or D-ellipsis
(1 la).
(7) (a) full form; (b) C-ellipsis at end of first clause (Meyer 1979, p. 135).
(a) George walked home and Harry jogged home.
(b) George walked, and Harry jogged, home.
(8) (a) D-ellipsis of second subject; (b) C-ellipsis at end of first clause (Meyer 1979,
p. 133).
(a) Fred wrote a book and edited a magazine.
(b) I wrote, and he sent, the letter.
(9) (a) full form; (b) E-ellipsis of verb (Greenbaum and Meyer 1980, p. 3).
(a) John bought a car and Jim bought a truck.
(b) John bought a car and Jim a truck.
(10) (a) full form; (b) E-ellipsis of auxiliary (Greenbaum 1977, p. 100).
(a) Some students have complained to the Chairman and others have written to the
Dean.
(b) Some students have complained to the Chairman and others written to the Dean.
(11) (a) D-ellipsis of second subject; (b) E-ellipsis of verb (Meyer 1979, p. 133).
(a) John walked to school and attended his first class.
(b) Ed likes steak and Sally fish.
So far our, evidence has shown that, for English, D-ellipsis is preferred over C-ellipsis
and E-ellipsis. If it can be shown that D-ellipsis is preferred over other types of ellipsis in
all the language types, at least the weaker version of the universal rules will be established.
The relative acceptability and perceived frequency in English of C-ellipsis and E-ellipsis
142 SIDNEY GREENBAUM AND CHARLES F. MEYER

is more difficult to determine. Our experiments included frequency and acceptability

judgments on sentences exemplifying C-ellipsis (12a) and E-ellipsis (12b). There was no
significant difference between the judgments for the two types of ellipsis.
(12) (a) C-ellipsis; (b) E-ellipsis (Meyer 1979, p. 133).
(a) Mike hated, and Ed liked, the course.
(b) Tom ordered a coke and Sue a glass of water.
Dwight Bolinger (personal communication) suggested that (12b) would have been more
acceptable than (12a) if the stimuli in the experiment had been oral. We then presented
those two sentences orally to 53 students in sophomore courses for acceptability and
frequency judgments on a five-point scale. For both types of judgments, the mean scores
for (12b) were indeed significantly higher than those for (12a). The different results for
the written and oral tests may have a stylistic explanation: it is possible that C-ellipsis in
English is primarily a literary device.’ Since C-ellipsis and E-ellipsis are ranked together in
two of Sanders’ hierarchies-in particular in the hierarchy assignable by the positional
effect, which he considers ‘sufficient to generate the complete ranking of positional
resistance’ (Sanders 1977, p. 265)-the results of the judgment tests are in harmony with
the stronger version of the universal rules.
Sanders’ typological explanation is not an unequivocal basis for explaining the relative
frequency and acceptability judgments for English. One problem arises from Sanders’
assertion that English permits ellipsis in only the three positions C,D and E. It is arguable
that English also permits F-ellipsis. One example is the ellipsis of certain kinds of loosely-
attached adverbials.
Kathy mowed the lawn lust night and Peter watered it x .
Kathy will mow the lawn if the weather is fine and Peter will water it’ x.
However, we could claim that these adverbials are extraposed from their normal position
at the beginning of the sentence and that a more satisfactory explanation is that the scope
of the adverbial is extended over the whole sentence (Quirk et al. 1972, 9.85). At first sight,
it seems that we can make a convincing claim for F-ellipsis in sentences ending in an
auxiliary.’
I can ride a bicycle and my sister can (too).
But again, we could reject the ellipsis analysis and claim instead that the auxiliary is a
pro-form by pointing to the paradigmatic equivalence with the undoubted pro-form do,
which does not permit the insertion of predication from the first clause (cf. Quirk et al.
1972,9.79).
I ride a bicycle and my sister does (too).
I ride a bicycle and my sister does ride a bicycle (too).
As further support for the pro-form analysis, we note that although the various coordination
ellipsis types are generally not permissible in subordination, the auxiliaries are available to
represent the predicate.
Joan will play if she can.
And just as a pronoun in the matrix clause may not have as its antecedent a noun phrase
in a following subordinate clause:
She will play if Joan can. (She f Joan)
so an auxiliary may not represent the predicate in a following subordinate clause (cf. Quirk
et al. 1972,9.5):
John may if Tom resigns. (may f may resign).
 ELLIPSIS AND COORDINATION 143

The existence of F-ellipsis in English is therefore not fully established.” If we had been
forced to accept an F-ellipsis for the sentences we have cited, we would have been forced
to reject the putative universal rules based on Sanders’ typology, since such sentences seem
clearly preferable to sentences with C-ellipsis or E-ellipsis. Yet in none of the hierarchies
is F-ellipsis ranked higher than E-ellipsis, and only for the suspense effect is it ranked
higher than C-ellipsis.
A further problem is that Sanders’ definition of ellipsis includes coordination of subject
noun phrases, and ellipsis in that position would have to be C-ellipsis.
Bob k and Peter studied Economics in college.
= Bob studied Economics in college and Peter studied Economics in college.
But that type of C-ellipsis is clearly preferable to the type of C-ellipsis we have earlier
exemplified, the ellipsis of a direct object. Again, we can save the putative universal rules
by excluding from ellipsis the coordination of subject noun phrases. Such an exclusion,
not warranted by Sanders’ definition, is proposed in Quirk et al. 1972, 9.95f. for subject
noun phrases-and by extension for other noun phrases, such as object noun phrases-on
the grounds that if the verb is in the present tense the insertion results in lack of concord
with the subject.
Bob and Peter study Economics in college.
Bob study Economics in college and Peter study Economics in college.
Ellipsis is considered in Quirk et al. 1972, 9.2f. to be a surface phenomenon, to be dis-
tinguished from the transformational deletion.
Sanders reasonably explains the relative undesirability of ellipsis in the first clause-
C-ellipsis in English-as due to the greater strain on the hearer’s short-term memory, since
hearers have to wait for the realized item in the second clause before they can supply the
ellipsis and complete the decoding of the first conjunct (Sanders 1977, p. 263). Less
convincing is his explanation of the relative undesirability of E-ellipsis: the serial position
of its antecedent B is less prominent than that of the antecedent A of D-ellipsis and is
therefore less easily retained in short-term memory. In the first place, it is implausible to
suggest that the short-term memory will be overloaded by distances in sentences as short
as those tested for E-ellipsis, for example (11 b), repeated here.
Ed likes steak and Sally fish.
Secondly, the memory factor should also affect pro-forms, which require to be matched
with a preceding item. But sentences with pro-forms in the medial position of the second
clause seem to be much more acceptable and much more frequently used.
Ed likes his steak rare, and Sally likes hers well done.
Connie is taking a vacation this month and Debbie is doing so next month.
1. M. Schlesinger (personal communication) has suggested that the gapping in the second
clause may introduce ambiguity. For example, in (11 b) the two noun phrases at the inner
margins of the clauses may be initially perceived as coordinated (Ed likes steak and Sally)
or the two noun phrases in the second clause may be misheard or misread as related in
some other way (Sa/ly andfish or Sally Fish). In interpreting the results of her experiments
on the development of coordination in child language, Ardery similarly posits a Coordina-
tion Strategy which may well serve as a perceptual strategy in adult language: ‘Any sequence
of two or more elements joined by and with the same constituent structure and function
should be interpreted as a single larger constituent that has the same function as the
individual elements joined by and’ (Ardery 1979, p. 754). Further experimentation may
144 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
SIDNEY GREENBAUM AND CHARLES F. MEYER

explain the medial effect in E-ellipsis and hence why E-ellipsis is less desirable than
D-ellipsis. l1
Kuno has also noted that elliptical coordinations may be ambiguous, and has suggested
two principles that affect interpretation in potentially ambiguous cases. His minimal
distance principle asserts that there is a tendency in gapping constructions for the con-
stituents in the second clause to be matched with the last constituents in the first clause
(Kuno 1976, p. 306). Thus, in (13) the elliptical second clause is more likely to be
interpreted as Bob will interview Peter this afternoon (D-ellipsis) than Peter will interview
Tom this afternoon (E-ellipsis).
(13) Bob will interview Tom this morning and Peter this afternoon.
A more potent reason may be that in ambiguous constructions, the preferred D-ellipsis
will be the preferred interpretation. Kuno maintains that the minimal distance principle
may be overriden by the plausibility principle, which asserts that the interpretation of
the ellipsis may depend on semantic and pragmatic factors (Kuno 1976, p. 317, n. 30).
Thus, we interpret &fly in (14a) as subject and cookies in (14b) as object.
(14) (a) Sue baked a cake yesterday and Sally today.
(b) Sue baked a cake yesterday and cookies today.
In (15a), the minimal distance principle leads to an implausible interpretation. The
presence of two objects in the first clause burdens the interpretation of the two noun phrases
in the elliptical second clause and appears to make the sentence unacceptable.
(15) (a) The article gave Bill a lot of pleasure and the book a lot of pain.
In the more acceptable (ISb), on the other hand, the presence of the preposition to in the
first clause clearly marks the function of one of the noun phrases and rules out that
function for the noun phrases in the second clause.”
(15) (b) The article gave a lot of pleasure to Bill and the book a lot of pain.
We will now consider the motivations for using one type of coordination rather than
another. First we must re-examine Sanders’ definition of ellipsis, which stipulates
synonymy between an elliptical coordination and a corresponding full coordination. It
can be argued that there are implicational differences that may be crucial in particular
instances. For example, (16a) appears to contain C-ellipsis-ellipsis of the direct object in
the first clause-as well as the D-ellipsis that it shares with (16b).
(16) (a) My sister is washing and drying the dishes.
(b) My sister is washing the dishes and drying them.
Nevertheless, our evidence (Meyer 1981, p. 2) shows that (16a) is favored over (16b). The
explanation seems to be that (16a) is an instance of semantic coupling: the actions denoted
by the verbs are not viewed as two discrete actions but rather as one coupled action. As
evidence of the coupling we notice the oddity of inserting then in the second clause of
(16~).
(16) (c) My sister is washing and then drying the dishes.
Semantic coupling is most obvious in coordinated verbs such as saf and drank (cf. sat
drinking) try and make (ct. try to make), and talked and talked (cf. kept talking). These
examples are close collocations at one extreme of the gradient of semantic coupling.
At the other extreme of the gradient, we have the two discrete activities denoted in
(17b). Here we have no semantic coupling and in speech the first verb is followed by a
perceptible pause or intonation break.
(17) (a) My father boiled some eggs and ate them.
(b) My father boiled and ate some eggs.
 ELLIPSIS AND COORDINATION 145

It is not surprising that subjects preferred (a) to (b), since the additional ellipsis in (b) is
subject to the suspense effect (Meyer 1981, p. 3). The coordination of the two verbs in
(17b) suggests a coupling that is spurious. Unlike (16a), (17b) admits the insertion of then,
an indication that there is no coupling. And unlike (16a), (17b) does not easily zyxwvutsrqponmlkj
allow the
progressive, since the progressive in (17~) suggests that the activities are either simultaneous
or overlapping.”
(17) (c) My father is boiling and eating some eggs.
Between the two extremes on the gradient, we find a sentence such as (18a), in which
written and complained denotes a single activity corresponding to written complaining or
written to complain. Although (18a) was slightly preferred to (18b), the difference was not
statistically significant, perhaps because the collocation is not as close as in washing and
drying (Meyer 1981, p. 3).14
(18) (a) Some students have written and complained to the chairman.
(b) Some students have written to the chairman and complained to him.
Although, as we have seen from (l)-(4) above, D-ellipsis is usually preferred over the
full form, full coordination is favored if two discrete points are being made, as in the two
separate judgments of (19).
(19) He probably looked archaic to some of his peers, but he looked just right to me; . . .
(‘The Amish Farmer’ by Vance Bourjaily, E&&e, October 1980, p. 94).
Indeed in the written medium, writers can set off fully coordinated clauses more sharply
with semicolons or periods. In the spoken medium, distinct pauses may have a simiiar effect.
On the other hand, elliptical coordination is favored in (2O), the semantic coupling reflecting
the concessive relationship between the clauses (cf. Greenbaum 1969, p. 250) and in (21),
where the second clause is a restatement of the first.
(20) Did John break the window and refuse to pay for it?
(21) On that day we started a lifetime relationship together and will never be apart again
(‘Reunion of identical twins, raised apart, reveals some astonishing similarities’ by
Donald Dale Jackson, Smithsonian, October 1980, p. 56).
In (22) we can contrast the ellipsis of it in the and-clause, indicating one movement, with
its retention in the or-clause, indicating a separate movement.”
(22) For example, in the old days, a leg did not simply execute a grand battement, a
kick; instead, it reached into space and stayed there for an agonizing moment of
suspension, or it thrust forth in anger or in ecstasy (‘An effort to save the masterpieces
of modern dance’ by Walter Terry, Smit~onian~ October 1980, p. 64).
The length of the first clause is a factor favoring full coordination, usually in combination
with a perception of discreteness. If the first predicate is long, the ellipsis of the subject in
the second clause taxes short-term memory. Hence, the subject is repeated in (23).
(23) In every Kayapo village, the people group themselves into many formal associations
according to sex, age, name, stage of life and personal choice, and they do this for
all sorts of purposes-sports, ceremonies, work (‘A Shattered Peace’ by Daniel R.
Gross, GEO, April 1981, p. 27).
As exemplified by (24) and (25), full coordination is virtually obligatory when the first
clause ends in a subordinate clause, since the second clause may be misperceived as linked
with the immediately preceding subordinate clause.
(24) They learned that although there are some grounds for optimism, the future is far
from secure, and they discovered some of the flaws in cherished myths of demo-
146 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
SIDNEY GREENBAUM AND CHARLES F. MEYER

graphers (‘Population Bomb Revisited’ by Jeremy Cherfas, Science, November

1980, p. 14).
(25) ‘I try to take in as much information as I can about her, about her point of view,
but when I dance, I feel like me, Linda’ (‘An effort to save the masterpieces of
modern dance’ by Walter Terry, Smithsonian, October 1980, p. 68).
Full coordination may be preferred over D-ellipsis because it provides more complete
parallelism for rhythm, as in the classic example (26) and in (27). The asyndeton enhances
the parallelism; the coordinator and would interrupt.
(26) Icame, Isaw, Iconquered.
(27) 77zey’ve heard recordings of the sonorous tunes of the humpback whale, they’ve read
of wild dolphins playing with children, they’ve seen testimonials from men rescued
from drowning by porpoises (‘Are dolphins trying to say something, or is it all much
ado about nothing?’ by Michael Parfit, Smithsonian, October 1980, p. 73).
The reiteration of subject and verb in the parallel clauses of (28) places the focus on the
direct objects, which receive incrementally greater emphasis with the increasing
predictability of the rest of the clause.
(28) He’s fooling the oil companies. He’s fooling the government. He’s fooling OPEC.
And he’s fbohtg the prof~sion~ (~iiwaukee Journal, May 18, 1981, part 2, p. 15)
C-ellipsis is used to avoid, on the one hand, repeating a long complementation of the
verb and, on the other hand, substituting a pronoun whose reference may be unclear.
Suspense may also be intended for rhetorical reasons, to focus on the complementation.
(29) Recent polls had indicated and political observers had believed that Kasten had been
running second in the race (The Milwaukee Sentinel, November 5, 1980, part 1, p. 1).
This type of ellipsis is more usual when the second subject is also ellipted (D-ellipsis).
(30) But while fertility in Indonesia has fallen to 4.2 births per woman, in Kenya the
average woman has, and wants to have, just over 8 children, one of the highest levels
in the world (‘Population Bomb Revisited’ by Jeremy Cherfas, Science, November
1980, p. 16).
C-ellipsis probably occurs most frequently in legal English, where verb complementation
is sometimes lengthy and unclear pronoun reference can lead to litigation. The examples
in (3 1) and (32) are taken from a mortgage, the second displaying subject ellipsis as well.
(31) The covenants and agreements herein contained shall bind, and the rights hereunder
shall inure to, the respective successors and assigns of Lender and Borrower,
subject to the provisions of paragraph 17 hereof.
(32) Lender may make or cause to be made reasonable entries upon and inspections of
the Property, provided that Lender shall give Borrower notice prior to any such
inspection specifying reasonable cause therefor related to Lender’s interest in the
Property.
E-ellipsis is a rhetorical device to enhance rhythm and to highlight parallelism.
(33) The results were haphazard and the flying dangerous (‘Five Fighters in the Sky’ by
George Larson, Quest, October 1980, p. 63).
(34) Coops have to be cleaned and maintained, and the roofs kept in good repair (‘The
Pigeon Game’ by Jane Schwartz, Quest, November 1980, p. 98).
Rhythm and parallelism are further promoted in gapped constructions that are asyndetic,
a feature common in Biblical poetry and some modern prose.
(35) The mountains skipped like rams, the hills like young sheep (Psalm 114: 4).
 ELLIPSIS AND COORDINATION I47

(36) Her arms were rather short, her shoulders quite square, and she stood dancer-style
with her feet spread and toed out . . . (‘The Amish Farmer’ by Vance Bourjaily,
Esquire, October 1980, p. 94).
In (37) the combination of asyndeton, ellipsis, and very brief clauses is mimetic of the
sudden, sharp executions.
(37) In 1977 Princess Mishaal and her lover were executed for adultery. She was shot;
he, beheaded (‘Saudi Arabia: The Kingdom and Its Power’ by Robert Azzi, National
Geographic, September 1980, p. 332).
E-ellipsis may sometimes be intended also to avoid too much repetition, particularly if
the gapping affects two or more clauses. Indeed, this type of ellipsis seems more common
with three clauses and asyndeton, as in (38).
(38) His cheeks seem to grow pouchier, his eyes more sadly knowing, his manner ever
more wisely patient (Time, October 13, 1980, p. 108).
(39) One must here record a startling fact that one would scarcely know from reading
the scholars: some of the psalms are rather poor poetry. (though some are remarkably
worthy), some of the narration clumsy and inept (though most is quite skilful), and
some of the ideas not only not exalted but downright offensive to any sensitive,
thinking person (The Enjoyment of Scripture, S. Sandmel, OUP, N.Y. 1972).
In (39), the verb be would appear in the full form at least five times. Three of these are
syntactically required: one as the verb in the first clause of the series following the colon,
and the other two as the verb in the parenthetic subordinate clauses (cf. Quirk et al. 1972,
9.5, n. b). Furthermore, the parallelism in the series of three clauses is enhanced by the
ellipsis of be, since the ellipsis avoids the irrelevant number distinction of are and is
required for the full forms.r6

In this paper we have considered possible explanations of the norms for English
coordinations, relating evidence from informant judgments to a typology of coordinations
in human language. Further evidence from other languages is needed to establish the
putative universals we have examined. Psycholinguistic experimentation could determine
the effects of short-term memory and perceptual factors on the comprehension and
retention of different types of coordination. We have also discussed communicative
factors that might explain the restricted use of less favored types of coordination. Large-
scale corpus studies could explore the communicative and stylistic factors that favor or
inhibit the use of the different types in English and in other languages. Particular attention
should be directed to differences between the written and spoken media and to differences
among registers. Most studies of coordination attempt to account for the possible ellipsis
types. More studies are needed to account for their functions.

NOTES
* We are grateful for comments on earlier drafts of this paper from Gail Ardery, Dwight Bolinger, Fred
Eckman, Edith Moravcsik and I. M. Schlesinger. We are indebted to Linda Hawkins for computational and
statistical help.
2 Ellipsis may of course affect more than two coordinated clauses, but the same possibilities apply.
3 Sanders cites evidence from serial position learning experiments in Baker 1960 and Millward 1971.
4 Sanders (1977, p. 265) mistakenly calculates that a combination of the two effects would give the ranking
D
C,E,F
A,B
148 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
SIDNEY GREENBAUM AND CHARLES F. MEYER

’ On the relationship between syntactic frequency and syntactic acceptability, see Greenbaum 1976.
’ For example, Sanders and Tai 1972, p. 171 suggests that all languages have dislocations (e.g. Thosepoliticiuns,
I don’t trust them or I don’t trust them, those politicians), but only some languages have topicalizations
(Those politiciuns I don’t trust). In accordance with the hypothesis, dislocations should be more frequent and
more acceptable than topicalizations in languages that have both constructions. The contrast active/passive
would be another example, if a cross-linguistic definition of active/passive could be established (cf. Greenbaum
1977,9lf.)
’ On the form of the experiments, see Greenbaum 1977. The syntactic variation tested in each pair of sentences
was repeated for another pair with different lexical content. We cite only one pair.
s In her study of child acquisition of coordination in English, Ardery found that E-ellipsis was mastered earlier
than C-ellipsis in a comprehension experiment (Ardery 1979, pp. 748-50). The stimuli sentences were of course
presented orally.
9 The same applies to sentences ending with the lexical verb be and (especially for British English) have:
Barbara wasn’t at home, but her sister was x .
I have (I car and my sister has x (too).
lo Dwight Bolinger (personal communication) cites what seems a genuine instance of F-ellipsis after be sure:
The President suspected that the Congressman had accepted the bribe, but we were absolutely sure x .
But such ellipsis does not appear generalizable.
I1 I. M. Schlesinger (personal communication) argues that we expect material in the first clause to be retained
in an analyzed form in the short-term memory, in which case there are no longer ‘positions’ within the clause.
He suggests that if ambiguity is a major factor in the lower acceptability of E-ellipsis, sentences which do not
contain two juxtaposed noun phrases should be more acceptable:
Sue baked today and Sally yesterday.
Similarly, sentences should be more acceptable if the clauses are linked by but, which would not allow the
misperception of the two noun phrases as coordinated:
Sue baked a cake but Sally cookies.
l2 In this respect it is interesting that if a preposition is present at the place of gapping, the gapped construction
is judged to be relatively more frequent and acceptable (Greenbaum and Meyer 1980, p. 3).
Joan is writing to her parents and Ed to his brother.
The preposition marks more clearly that there is gapping and therefore prevents misperceptions of the
relationships of the noun phrases. See also Ardery 1979, p. 753, which reports that gapped verb coordlnations
were easier for children to comprehend when a verbal particle was stranded in the second conjunct (e.g. The
horse jumped into the cat and the dog into the turtle).
I3 Dwight Bolinger (personal communication) envisages a situation in which (17b) and (17~) would be perfectly
appropriate. A bachelor who eats several eggs at a single meal and who owns only a small saucepan has to go
from boiling to eating and back again.
t4 For both the sentences a confounding factor may be that complained could be misinterpreted as a simple Past
form. The co-occurrence of a perfect and a perceived simple past would lower the acceptability of both
sentences. Further research would show whether D-ellipsis of a perfect auxiliary is frequent in actual use.
t5 For further discussion of semantic coupling, see Quirk et 01. 1972, 9.92-94 and Bolinger 1977, pp. 5-7.
16 E-ellipsis may be more common when a form of the verb be is ellipted; we may compare the ellipsis of be
in abreviated -ed and verbless clauses (if captured, though huppy) and modifying -ed clauses (the book
prescribedfor thecourse), cf. Quirk et al. 9.7,9.9 and 9.10.

REFERENCES
ARDERY, G. 1979 The development of coordinations in child language. Journal of Verbal Leurning und Verbal
Behavior 18.745-56.
BAKER, L. M. 1960 Generul Experimental Psychology. Oxford University Press, New York.
BOLINGER, D. 1977 Metming and Form. Longman, London.
GREENBAUM, S. 1969 The question of but. Folia Linguistica 3,245-54.
GREENBAUM, S. 1976 Syntactic frequency and acceptability. Linguu 40, 99-l 13. [Also in T. A. Perry (Ed.),
EvidenceandArgumentation in Linguistics, 1980, pp. 301-14. de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.]
GREENBAUM, S. 1977 Judgments of syntactic acceptability and frequency. Studio Linguistica 31, 83-105.
GREENBAUM, S. and MEYER, C. F. 1980 Coordination Constructions in Enalish: Judgments of Their
Frequency and Acceptability. Department of English, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (mimeograph).
 ELLIPSIS AND COORDINATION 149

HARRIES-DELISLE, H. 1978 Coordination reduction. In J. Greenberg, C. Ferguson and E. Moravcsik (Eds.),

Universals of Human Language, pp. 515-83. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
HUDSON, R. 1976 Conjunction reduction, gapping, and right-node raising. Language 52.555-61.
KOUTSOUDAS, A. 1971 Gapping, conjunction reduction, and coordinate deletion. Foundations of Language
1,337-86.
KUNO, S. 1976 Gapping: A functional analysis. LinguisticInquiry 8.300-18.
MEYER, C. F. 1979 The greater acceptability of certain English elliptical coordinations. Studio Linguistica 33,
130-37.
MEYER, C. F. 1981 Further Experiments in the Frequency and Acceptability of Coordination Constructions in
English. Department of English, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (mimeograph).
MILLWARD, R. B. 1971 Theoretical and experimental approaches to human learning. In J. W. Kling and L. A.
Riggs (Eds.), ExperimentalPsychology, 3rd ed., pp. 905-1017. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
QUIRK, R., GREENBAUM, S., LEECH, G. and SVARTVIK, J. 1972 A Grammar of Contemporary English.
Longman, London.
SANDERS, G. A. 1977 A functional typology of elliptical coordinations. In F. Eckman (Ed.), Current Themes
in Linguisfics, pp. 241-70. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, D.C.
SANDERS, G. A. and TAI, J. H.-Y. 1972 Immediate dominance and identity deletion. Foundations of
Language8, 161-98.
STOCKWELL, R., SCHACHTER, P. and PARTEE, B. 1973 The Major Syntactic Structures of English.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
TAI, J. H.-Y. 1969 Coordination reduction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.