This paper argues that verb phrase ellipsis requires contrast. The central observation is that ellipsis is ungrammatical in tautologous conditionals; e.g., *If John wins, then he does. Ellipsis is correctly ruled out by a focus-based theory of ellipsis (Rooth 1992a,b), but one that crucially imports focus’s requirement for contrast: an elliptical constituent must have an antecedent that is not merely an alternative to it, but a ‘proper’ alternative. An explanation in terms of contrast failure proves superior to alternative explanations in terms of triviality and matching form. Showing as much catalogues what counts for contrast in ellipsis, encompassing negation, questions, and intensionality. Subjecting ellipsis to a contrast requirement is in direct conflict with the traditional analysis of MaxElide effects (Takahashi and Fox 2005), favouring alternative explanations (e.g., Jacobson 2019a,b), perhaps in terms of contrast itself (Griffiths 2019). Overall, this paper establishes that contrast has explanatory power in ellipsis licensing.

本文认为动词短语省略需要对比。中心观察是省略在同语条件句中是不合语法的；例如，*如果约翰赢了，那么他赢了. 基于焦点的省略理论正确地排除了省略（Rooth 1992a,b），但它关键地引入了焦点对对比的要求：一个椭圆成分必须有一个前件，它不仅是它的替代品，而且是“适当的”。 ' 选择。对比失败的解释证明优于琐碎性和匹配形式的替代解释。在省略号中显示尽可能多的目录，包括否定、问题和内涵。对省略号进行对比要求与 MaxElide 效应的传统分析直接冲突（Takahashi 和 Fox 2005），有利于替代解释（例如，Jacobson 2019a,b），也许就对比本身而言（Griffiths 2019）。全面的，