@article{gipper-etal-2026-ellipsis,
title = "Why ellipsis? Interactional function predicts choice of syntactic form in conversation",
author = "Gipper, Sonja and
Ellison, T. Mark and
Herrmann, Tobias-Alexander and
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and
Schumacher, Petra B. and
Repp, Sophie",
editor = "Lison, Pierre and
Zeldes, Amir",
journal = "Dialogue {\&} Discourse",
volume = "17",
month = feb,
year = "2026",
address = "Chicago, Illinois, USA",
publisher = "University of Illinois Chicago",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.dnd-17.3/",
doi = "10.5210/dad.2026.102",
pages = "54--88",
abstract = "In this paper, we investigate the factors that influence interactants' choice of syntactic variants when using a predicative adjective construction like that is okay. In German colloquial conversation, such constructions can occur as full sentences with subject, copula and adjective (das ist gut `that is good'); with topic drop consisting of copula and adjective (ist gut); or as fragments consisting only of the adjective (gut). We present findings from a corpus of colloquial speech between fellow students showing that the interactional function of listener feedback has a higher predictive power in accounting for the use of fragments vs. fuller structures than adjective semantics (descriptive vs. evaluative), propositional structure (reference to individual or propositionally structured referent), and predictability in terms of adjective frequency. Moreover, we find that fragments consisting of evaluative adjectives show a clear tendency to be grounded in the here-and-now of the current situation, whereas fuller structures are more apt to express evaluations grounded in past experience. We argue that fragments are formally optimized to convey expressive actions such as listener feedback and other ad-hoc evaluations."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="gipper-etal-2026-ellipsis">
<titleInfo>
<title>Why ellipsis? Interactional function predicts choice of syntactic form in conversation</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sonja</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Gipper</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">T</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Mark</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ellison</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Tobias-Alexander</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Herrmann</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Nikolaus</namePart>
<namePart type="given">P</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Himmelmann</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Petra</namePart>
<namePart type="given">B</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Schumacher</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sophie</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Repp</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-02</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre authority="bibutilsgt">journal article</genre>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Dialogue & Discourse</title>
</titleInfo>
<originInfo>
<issuance>continuing</issuance>
<publisher>University of Illinois Chicago</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Chicago, Illinois, USA</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<genre authority="bibutilsgt">academic journal</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>In this paper, we investigate the factors that influence interactants’ choice of syntactic variants when using a predicative adjective construction like that is okay. In German colloquial conversation, such constructions can occur as full sentences with subject, copula and adjective (das ist gut ‘that is good’); with topic drop consisting of copula and adjective (ist gut); or as fragments consisting only of the adjective (gut). We present findings from a corpus of colloquial speech between fellow students showing that the interactional function of listener feedback has a higher predictive power in accounting for the use of fragments vs. fuller structures than adjective semantics (descriptive vs. evaluative), propositional structure (reference to individual or propositionally structured referent), and predictability in terms of adjective frequency. Moreover, we find that fragments consisting of evaluative adjectives show a clear tendency to be grounded in the here-and-now of the current situation, whereas fuller structures are more apt to express evaluations grounded in past experience. We argue that fragments are formally optimized to convey expressive actions such as listener feedback and other ad-hoc evaluations.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">gipper-etal-2026-ellipsis</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.5210/dad.2026.102</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.dnd-17.3/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-02</date>
<detail type="volume"><number>17</number></detail>
<extent unit="page">
<start>54</start>
<end>88</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Journal Article
%T Why ellipsis? Interactional function predicts choice of syntactic form in conversation
%A Gipper, Sonja
%A Ellison, T. Mark
%A Herrmann, Tobias-Alexander
%A Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
%A Schumacher, Petra B.
%A Repp, Sophie
%J Dialogue & Discourse
%D 2026
%8 February
%V 17
%I University of Illinois Chicago
%C Chicago, Illinois, USA
%F gipper-etal-2026-ellipsis
%X In this paper, we investigate the factors that influence interactants’ choice of syntactic variants when using a predicative adjective construction like that is okay. In German colloquial conversation, such constructions can occur as full sentences with subject, copula and adjective (das ist gut ‘that is good’); with topic drop consisting of copula and adjective (ist gut); or as fragments consisting only of the adjective (gut). We present findings from a corpus of colloquial speech between fellow students showing that the interactional function of listener feedback has a higher predictive power in accounting for the use of fragments vs. fuller structures than adjective semantics (descriptive vs. evaluative), propositional structure (reference to individual or propositionally structured referent), and predictability in terms of adjective frequency. Moreover, we find that fragments consisting of evaluative adjectives show a clear tendency to be grounded in the here-and-now of the current situation, whereas fuller structures are more apt to express evaluations grounded in past experience. We argue that fragments are formally optimized to convey expressive actions such as listener feedback and other ad-hoc evaluations.
%R 10.5210/dad.2026.102
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.dnd-17.3/
%U https://doi.org/10.5210/dad.2026.102
%P 54-88
Markdown (Informal)
[Why ellipsis? Interactional function predicts choice of syntactic form in conversation](https://aclanthology.org/2026.dnd-17.3/) (Gipper et al., DND 2026)
ACL