This part will discuss some common types of ellipsis used in complex sentences as inconhesive ellipsis especially the elements can be omitted. Incohesive ellipsis focuses on the occurrence of an elliptical construction within the sentence, between individual clauses; in which it is perceived from or presupposed based on the intra- sentence perspective. Although intra-sentence ellipsis does not contribute to the cohesion, it will still be relevant to this study because according to Quirk et al.
(1989), there are several criteria in which ellipsis may be utilized.
The very first criterion is precise recoverability of all the elliptical items, which means that in a context where no ambiguity arises, there should be no confusion as to what words that are needed to recover and fill the omitted items.
The second criterion is the grammatical defectiveness of the elliptical structure, which means that it should be obvious to notice that there are several words that have been omitted.
The third criterion explains that after the missing words are being re-inserted, the meaning of the grammatical sentence remains unchanged to the original sentence before the ellipsis is applied.
The last two criteria are interdependent. One of them needs the omitted item to be textually recoverable while the other one says that the missing item is present in the text in exactly the same form. The latter criterion is dependent on the former.
In examining instances of ellipsis, it is necessary to distinguish three major factors: recoverability type, functional type and formal type. Unless all these factors are taken into account, it is impossible to say exactly how and where ellipsis can take place.
In terms of recoverability type there are three types of ellipsis: textual ellipsis, structural ellipsis, and situational ellipsis. (Quirk & Green Baum, 1990) textual ellipsis is strongly connected to the missing elements within the sentences that have at least two clauses. The textual ellipsis will be divided even further into different parts in accordance to which elements are being elliptical. It may be differentiated
19
based on ellipsis of subject, auxiliary, predicate, etc. Situational ellipses are not dependent on the linguistic context for their interpretation. The interpretation may depend on knowledge of a specific extra-linguistic context. Structural ellipsis is the ellipsis where the elliptical word(s) can be identified purely on the basic of grammatical knowledge. We can illustrate structural ellipsis by citing the zero conjunction “that”, and the elliptical prepositions.
In terms of functional type we distinguish between general ellipsis where the functional relation between the elliptical and antecedent construction is not important, and special ellipsis, where the possibilities of omission are closely determined by the relation between these two constructions in a sentence.
As for the form of ellipsis, Quirk refers to three types, which is initial, medial and final ellipses. Initial ellipsis is the ellipsis where initial elements are omitted, and it applies to the subject and operator. Final ellipsis is the ellipsis where final elements are omitted, and it applies to the predication. Medial ellipsis is the ellipsis where only medial elements of a unit are omitted. Quirk says that it is better to argue that medial ellipsis is a structural illusion which results from looking at too large a constituent in the sentence. When conditions of ellipsis are examined more carefully, medial ellipsis can often be treated as a special case of either initial or final ellipsis.
Basing on Quirk’s viewpoints and the analysis on complex sentences and subordinate clause in complex sentences, the author would like to categorize the ellipsis of the elements which can be omitted in subordinate or main clauses in terms of the elliptical elements according to functional types and structural types.
2.3.2.1. Ellipsis in noun phrase
Ellipsis of noun phrases can be found within the complex sentence. Quirk et al.
(1985:900) state that elliptical noun phrases result from final ellipsis, i.e. post modifiers (if any) and head tends to be elliptical, for example:
He had to admit that Sarah’s drawings were as good as his own. (Quirk, 1985:900)
In this instance, the head noun “drawings” is omitted, then the post- determiner functions as a head.
Quirk et al. says that noun phrase ellipsis requires a degree of parallelism between the elliptical construction and the antecedent. By virtue of this, some item(s) in the
20
elliptical construction can be said to REPUDIATE, or semantically cancel out, some item(s) in the antecedent. For example:
Although Helen is the oldest girl in the class, Julie is the tallest ∆.
The tallest may be said to repudiate the oldest (p. 901).
Quirk et al. (1985) states that ellipsis in the noun phrase, takes place according to the following order ellipsis of post modifiers (s) alone, ellipsis of head noun plus post-modifier, ellipsis of pre-modifier + head noun + post-modifier, ellipsis of head alone.
a. Ellipsis of post-modifiers (s) alone
When post-modifier in the first clause is the same as in the second, to make the sentence more effective, post-modifier located in the second clause is omitted as in the example:
If you need any of that firewood, I’ll give you plenty (of that firewood)
(Quirk et al, 1985: 902) In this example, noun phrase located in the second clause are “you, I” and “plenty of that firewood”. In the phrase “plenty of that firewood”, “plenty” is the head of that noun phrase while “of that firewood” is a post modifier. In this case post modifier in the first clause is the same as in the second one. Thus, to make the sentence more effective, post modifier located in the second clause is omitted.
b. Ellipsis of head noun plus post-modifier
Ellipsis of head noun plus post-modifier phenomenon occurs in the final position of the sentence as in the following example:
The second novel she wrote was very different from the first (novel she wrote)
(Quirk et al, 1985: 901) The first novel and the second novel are both noun phrases and their head nouns are the same, which is novel. At the same time, the post modifiers which are “she
wrote” are also same. Therefore, the second head noun and post modifier need to be omitted. This is also similar to the following example:
Although Helen is the oldest girl in the class, Julie is the tallest (girl in the class).
(Quirk et al, 1985: 901) c. Ellipsis of pre-modifier + head noun + post-modifier
Ellipsis of pre-modifier+ head noun + post-modifier occurs in the following example:
21
The second historical novel she wrote was very different from the first (historical novel she wrote)
(Quirk et al, 1985: 903) Here it is understood that the whole expression historical novel she wrote is elliptical, including the pre-modifying adjective “historical” head noun “novel”
and the post modifier “she wrote”
d. Ellipsis of head noun alone
He had to admit that Sarah’s drawings were as good as his own (∆).
(Quirk et al, 1985: 900) Sarah’s drawings and his own (drawings) are both noun phrases and their head nouns are the same, which is drawings. This comparative sentence, a kind of complex sentences, can be converted fully as: He had to admit that Sarah’s drawings were as good as his own drawings. When being converted like that, its meaning and grammar are acceptable. From this analysis, it is known that the head noun “drawing” in the second clause can be omitted. This is the case of the ellipsis of head noun alone
Quirk et al . (1985) states that not all modifiers elements can readily act as heads of elliptical noun phrases. They restrict comparative and absolute adjectives.
According to Quirk et al.(1985) ellipsis of the head of a noun phrase, when preceded by the indefinite article and another modifier, is less acceptable. There is a considerable variety in the structural relation between the elliptical noun phrase and its antecedent noun phrase. The shift of function from a modifier to head is to be explained by the obvious fact that an 'understood' noun has been emitted. This is very much in common with what Halliday and Hasan (1976) say; they refer to ellipsis as SOMETHING UNDERSTOOD ( pp.142 , 144 ) .
2.3.2.2. Elliptical clauses
a. Ellipsis of predication in finite clauses
General ellipsis in the finite clause is similar to general ellipsis in the noun phrase, in that the dominant type of ellipsis is final. Typically, the clause is divided into two parts: subject and operator (which remain), and predication (which is elliptical). In terms of V, O, C, and A, the constituency of the elliptical predication can be varied.
a1. Ellipsis of subject complement alone
Ellipsis of subject complement alone happens in the second clause of a sentence:
I am happy if you are (happy) (Quirk et al, 1985: 905)
22
“Happy” in the independent clause and conditional clause in this complex sentence functions as a subject complement. The omission applies to “happy” happens in the second clause not in the first one.
a2. Ellipsis of adverbial
- The ellipsis of “SUBJECT COMPLEMENT + ADVERBIAL” can occur in the dependent clause or in independent clause as in the following example:
If they’re not ready by lunchtime, they ought to be (ready by lunchtime).
There are more hungry people in the world today than there were (hungry
people in the world) (Quirk et al, 1985: 905)
In the first example, the ellipsis appears in the main clause while in the second example it occur in the dependent clause
- The ellipsis of ADVERBIAL ONLY: It happens as in the example:
His father was at Oxford when Harold Wilson was (at Oxford)
(Quirk et al, 1985: 905)
“at Oxford” in the above sentence functions as an adverb of place, and it can be omitted in the dependent clause
a3. The ellipsis of NONFINITE PART OF VERB
Non-finite parts of a verb are those that do not indicate number, person or tense.
The common non-finite forms are: the base form, the present participle or ing form, the past participle, the to-infinitive.
There are also other non-finite forms, such as: the continuous to infinitive, the perfect to infinitive, the passive to infinitive.
As Quirk refers the ellipsis of nonfinite part of verb has following cases:
- The ellipsis of NONFINITE PART OF VERB alone
The ellipsis of verb alone can occur in declarative and comparative sentences.
Moreover, it appears in the subordinate clauses in complex sentences. For example:
I’ll gladly pay for the hotel if you will (pay) for the food. (ellipsis of verb
“pay” alone) (Quirk et al, 1985: 907)
- The ellipsis of NONFINITE PART OF VERB + ADVERBIAL:
When Shirley resigns from the committee, I’m sure that a number of other people will (resigns from the committee)
(Quirk et al, 1985: 905) - The ellipsis of NONFINITE PART OF VERB plus object
23
The ellipsis of nonfinite verb plus object also occur in the subordinate clauses in declarative and comparative sentences.
Although my father can’t (sing that song), I can sing that song well. (ellipsis of verb and object) (Quirk et al, 1985: 905)
b. Ellipsis of the predicate
Ellipsis of the predicate means in general that the only part of the clause to remain is the subject. This type of ellipsis is not widespread: it comes under the heading of special ellipsis, and in complex sentence it occurs only in comparative constructions:
Nigel finished the exam at the same time as George (finished the exam).
(Quirk et al, 1985: 906) Ellipsis of the predication is one of the constructions of English which requires DO to support.
There are constructions (eg clause negation, subject-operator inversion, emphatic operator constructions) in which the operator would occur for independent reasons, and in these cases DO fulfills the conditions of standard ellipsis of the predication:
Rupert wanted to attend the bullfight, although his wife didn't (want to attend the bullfight) (Quirk et al, 1985: 906)
c. Ellipsis in Wh-clause
In Quirk’s viewpoint, a more thorough-going reduction of a clause by ellipsis involves ellipsis of the whole clause, or the whole clause except for an introductory word. This type of ellipsis is restricted to wh-interrogative clause.
Have you ever want to start a successful business? This book tells you how ∆.
(Quirk et al, 1985: 908) Ellipsis in Wh-clause does not apply to the relative type of monomial wh-clause, nor to clauses introduced by if or whether.
d. Ellipsis in to- infinitive clause
Like the elliptical wh-clause, the elliptical to-infinitive clause normally consists of just one word: in this case, the introductory unstressed participle to. Since to is unstressed, the nucleus of the tone unit normally falls on the preceding verb or noun. For example:
You can borrow my pen if you want to ∆. (Quirk et al, 1985: 908)
Quirks states that an stranded “to” also occurs as a result of ellipsis following the marginal modals ought to and used to and following semi-auxiliary constructions
24
such as be able, be going to, have to, and be supposed to (cf3. 47):
We don’t save as much money these days as we used to ∆.
I won’t disturb you again unless I have to ∆.
(Quirk et al, 1985: 909) e. Special types of ellipsis
As Quirk concerns, there are some special types of ellipsis which are defined by a particular structural relation between the elliptical construction and the antecedent construction. Unlike general ellipsis, all cases of special ellipsis allow initial ellipsis.
NONFINITE CLAUSES:
Nonfinite clause is a special case of ellipsis in which the subject and operator of subordinate clause are both omitted.
Although (he was) exhausted by the climb, he continued his journey.
Dogs will learn fast if (they are) working in reasonable conditions.
(Quirk et al, 1985: 910) VERBLESS CLAUSES:
According to Quirk et al. (1985:996) verbless clauses take syntactic compression and they are commonly subjectless. In verbless clauses, it is often possible to postulate a missing form of the verb BE and to recover the subject, when omitted, from the context:
Whether right or wrong, he always comes off worst in arguments [whether he is right or wrong].
Although (he was) at Oxford, he was active in the dramatic society.
If (he is) rather unwell, the speaker will not take part in the seminar.
When (you are) ready, you can begin your speech.
While (he was) still at school, he wrote his first novel.
(Quirk et al, 1985: 910) Verbless clauses are usually discussed in association with nonfinite clauses because they have similar syntactic structures. They can be recognized as clauses because their internal structure can be analyzed into the same functional elements that are distinguished in finite clauses.
A non-finite clause is a clause whose verb element is non-finite such as to work, having worked, taken, etc. e.g.
Knowing my temper, I didn’t reply. (Quirk et al, 1985: 992)
25
A verbless clause is a clause that does not have a verb element, but is nevertheless capable of being analyzed into clause elements, e.g.
Although always helpful, he was not much liked. (Quirk et al, 1985: 992) Typically non-finite and verbless clauses lack both subject and operator, and their relation to their main clause can be explained if one postulates an ellipsis of these elements, the identity of the subject being recoverable from the main clause, because this implied subject is normally identical with the subject of the superordinate main clause.
Susan telephoned before coming over. [… before she came over] (non-finite clause, present participle)
Although (he was) exhausted by the climb, he continued his journey. (non- finite clause, past participle)
While (she was) at Oxford, she was active in the dramatic society. (verbless clause)
Although non-finite and verbless clauses can be preceded by some subordinate conjunctions like as, because, as long as, whether, while, since… etc.
While travelling home last night, I suddenly had a bright idea.
This is not a must, because in such clauses the mere absence of a finite verb is often quite a sufficient signal of subordination.
Travelling home last night, I suddenly had a bright idea.
Running down the road, I tripped and fell. (Chalker, 1984, 239) 2.3.2.3. Ellipsis of subordinating conjunction “that”
Conjunctions not only bind sentence components in a grammatical sense; they also indicate the semantic relationship between them.
According to Quirk et al, (1985: 900) ellipsis of subordinating conjunction is one of the case of structural ellipsis, which is a special type of ellipsis where the knowledge of grammar is required so that the full form of the sentence can be found. For instance,
I believe (that) you are mistaken. (Quirk et al, 1985: 910)
The absence of the conjunction “that” in above example quite “surface” phenomena that should be handled by syntactic rules. However, there are languages in which conjunctions can be elided outside of predictable grammatical constructions, which mean that the semantics of the missing conjunction must be recovered from the semantics of the text entities being conjoined. Furthermore, the fact that a