✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
English coordination frequently allows the omission of verbs through syntactic ellipsis
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
4 sources for · 0 against
Is it true that English coordination frequently allows the omission of verbs through syntactic ellipsis?
Yes. Linguistic research and corpus studies extensively document that English coordination frequently involves syntactic ellipsis mechanisms such as gapping and conjunction reduction.
Verdict: SUPPORTED · 4 sources for, 0 against · Last checked
The analysis
The retrieved literature extensively discusses clausal coordinate ellipsis, conjunction reduction, and gapping in English and related Germanic languages. Papers [3], [5], [9], and [10] all support the proposition that English coordination frequently features verb or clausal omission through syntactic ellipsis. There are no refuting papers.
Evidence for · 4
Discusses clausal coordinate ellipsis phenomena such as gapping and conjunction reduction in English and other languages.
Get citation
Harbusch, K. & Kempen, G. (2009). Generating Clausal Coordinate Ellipsis Multilingually: A Uniform Approach Based on Postediting. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.3115/1610195.1610219
See more details
More for · 3
Examines coordination and types of ellipsis known as conjunction reduction and gapping found in coordinate structures.
Get citation
Broekhuis, H. & Corver, N. (2015). Syntax of Dutch. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789463720502
Reviews conjunction reduction phenomena including forward and backward coordination reduction with English data.
Get citation
Wilder, C. (2019). Conjunction Reduction and Right-Node Raising. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.29
Notes that clausal coordinate ellipsis (CCE) occurs frequently in English coordination structures based on corpus studies.
Get citation
Harbusch, K. (2011). Incremental sentence production inhibits clausal coordinate ellipsis: A treebank study into Dutch and German. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2011.112
Receipt History
first checked06 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 8306 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any
personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check
or guarantee a response time.
Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work