Strict Identity, Coherence, and Parallelism in VP Ellipsis

The exact nature of the similarity that must obtain between antecedent and ellipsis site has been under debate. Intuitively, it is a condition associated with recoverability: when a VP-gap is encountered, a VP representation from the preceding context must be interpreted in the empty VP position1. Syntactic identity has been argued for based on sentences where syntactic non-identity results in illformedness (Sag 1976, Williams 1977). For example, in sentences like (2a) (Kehler 2000), the antecedent and elided VP differ in Voice, violating syntactic identity. On the assumption that syntactic identity requires identity of binding relations, the identity preserving interpretation of (2b) is the so-called sloppy reading, where John blamed John, and Bill blamed Bill. The indexation in (2b) (Kitagawa 1991), which reflects the strict reading (where both John and Bill blamed John), is ruled out, presumably by Condition A.