One of the benefits of incremental sentence production is reduction of the working memory capacity needed for advance planning: The planning units can be considerably smaller (measured in terms of word length) than in case of non-incremental production. The same advantage has been claimed for the various forms of ellipsis, which preempt the need to plan the detailed shape of one or more constituents and thereby reduce the size of planning units. Because working memory load tends to be higher in spoken than in written language, one expects that speakers, in comparison with writers, will more frequently resort to the use of elliptical constructions. However, in two corpus studies into the incidence of Clausal Coordinate Ellipsis (CCE) in spoken and written English, Meyer (1995) and Greenbaum & Nelson (1999) obtained a data pattern opposite to this prediction: In written clausal coordinations, the proportion of CCE versions was about twice as high as in spoken coordinations. The pattern was explained in terms of audience design: Non-elliptical (unreduced) clauses include more repetition and thereby facilitate comprehension. Recent treebanks with large numbers of hand-parsed spoken (CGN2.0) and written (ALPINO) Dutch sentences, enabled us to verify the data pattern for another language: In written Dutch, the percentage of elliptical versions within the set of all clausal coordinations was even three times higher than in spoken Dutch: 34 % versus 11 % (Table 1).