Another way to avoid islands

An, Duk‐Ho

doi:10.1007/s10831-018-9168-2

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the standard analysis of FAs, inspired by Merchant’s (2001, 2004) seminal work, FAs are derived from an underlying full sentence that undergoes deletion (e.g. Hankamer 1979; Merchant 2004; Park 2005, 2013; Ahn & Cho 2011, 2017; Ince 2012; Park & Oh 2014, 2015; Weir 2014; An 2016, 2018; Park 2016). More specifically, the constituent that surfaces as the FA itself, that is, the remnant, is assumed to undergo movement to FocusP located high in the traditional CP outside the deletion domain 11 .…”

Section: Derivation Of Secsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clause types, intonation and stranded embedded clauses

An¹

2022

J. Ling.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I examine the properties of a construction in Korean speech that has not received much attention in the literature. I refer to the construction in question as the ‘stranded embedded clause’ (SEC). SECs are a special type of echoed utterance, where an utterance in the form of an embedded clause is repeated for various reasons. The characteristic properties of the SEC involve the fact that there can be a mismatch between the type of the clause indicated by the clause type marker that they contain and the actual illocutionary force of the utterance that is indicated by its prosody. The complementizer is also obligatory, despite the fact that no matrix clause element shows up—hence, the name stranded embedded clause. I propose a deletion-based analysis of SECs, where they start out as a full-fledged embedded clause in a complex sentence and undergo movement, followed by deletion of the rest of the clause. It should be noted that this is essentially how fragment answers (and some other ellipsis constructions) have been analysed in the literature. Indeed, I show that there is a parallelism between SECs and fragment answers, which I argue provides support for the deletion-based approach to the former.

show abstract

Section: Derivation Of Secsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clause types, intonation and stranded embedded clauses

An¹

2022

J. Ling.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 18 It has been proposed in the literature that there are instances where deletion can actually target non-constituents (Abe 2016 ; An 2007 , 2016 , 2018 , 2019 ; Mukai 2003 , Ott and Struckmeier 2016 , 2018 , Sato and Maeda 2018 , among others). However, this does not mean that deletion is unconstrained.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduced NP comparatives in Korean and their implications

2020

J East Asian Linguist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I examine a novel type of comparative construction in Korean, namely, reduced NP comparatives (RNC), and consider its implications. On the surface, RNC may appear to be a case of the usual NP comparative construction in that two NPs are involved. But, unlike typical NP comparatives, the element bearing the marker of the standard of comparison in RNC does not directly participate in the comparison, i.e., there is a mismatch between the standard and pivot. I argue this is due to the fact that the standard is reduced to leave only the pivot on the surface, hence the name "reduced" NP comparatives. I also argue that one of the factors that determines the availability of RNC is the notion of comparability, which is based on whether or not the compared elements can be associated with the same scale, where the scale is part of the semantics of the gradable predicate (Cf. Kennedy 2009). The interesting twist is that RNC is possible only if the relevant elements are not comparable with each other, i.e., they should denote different types of objects that cannot be associated with the same scale. Adopting Merchant's (The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford University

show abstract

A Scope Argument against T‐to‐C Movement in Sluicing

Landau

2020

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most accounts of sluicing assume it is derived by TP deletion at PF; however, C 0 deletion is a viable option, which is even better equipped to explain the Sluicing-Comp Generalization. Nonetheless, this article shows that C 0 deletion must be rejected, because it predicts scope enhancement for modals that raise to C in sluicing when in fact they take scope in T or below it. An implication is that some independent principle must block T-to-C movement under sluicing. The results further confirm that head movement must be a syntactic operation insofar as it affects semantic interpretation.

show abstract

Another way to avoid islands

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

Clause types, intonation and stranded embedded clauses

Clause types, intonation and stranded embedded clauses

Reduced NP comparatives in Korean and their implications

A Scope Argument against T‐to‐C Movement in Sluicing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About