Case mismatching in Icelandic clausal ellipsis

Wood, Jim; Barros, Matthew; Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr

doi:10.1017/s0022226719000161

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reverse is also possible: the fragment may be accusative-marked and the correlate caseless (due to the possibility of case drop from non-nominative-marked NPs in Korean nonelliptical clauses) 3 . Combinations with matching case features are available, as well.

We are the first to provide experimental support for a robust preference for case match (noted informally in Abels 2017 for Bulgarian and in Wood et al 2020 for Icelandic) in the event that the morphological marking on the fragment and its correlate can vary. This preference corresponds to the requirement of case match in Hungarian, as in (4), but neither of these is predicted on the assumption alone that a fragment’s morphosyntactic features are licensed by the same lexical head that licenses the features of its correlate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…But the Hungarian facts given in (4) remain somewhat problematic. Wood et al’s (2020) proposal leads them to suggest that no variation would be permitted for fragments if sublative and allative case markers were associated with either different syntax or argument structure. This suggestion has not been followed up on, to the best of our knowledge 4…”

Section: Accounts Of Case Matchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We would predict in addition that whenever a lexical head can assign more than one case to a fragment's correlate, the same lexical head assigns these cases to the fragment, and hence the Bulgarian, Icelandic, and Korean possibilities of case mismatch (see Section 1) are captured correctly. This is the line of analysis that Wood et al (2020) pursue for Icelandic. But the Hungarian facts given in ( 4) remain somewhat problematic.…”

Section: Movement-and-deletion Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relevant examples come from Bulgarian (Abels 2017), Korean (Kim 2015), and Icelandic (Wood, Barros & Sigurðsson 2020). 2 To illustrate, consider the Bulgarian examples in (5)–(6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… [4] Wood et al (2020: 433) offer an English example to illustrate how different syntax may enforce identity of fragments with their correlates. In (i), the prepositions to and with are associated with different syntax and, according to Wood et al, mismatch should be impossible.

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis and the cue-based theory of sentence processing

Nykiel¹,

Kim²,

Sim³

2022

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is concerned with case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis. We begin by considering available crosslinguistic data that indicate that variation in case marking on a fragment is delimited by the argument structure of the lexical head that assigns case to the fragment’s correlate in the antecedent clause. We then offer experimental evidence for a case-matching preference in Korean when a fragment and its correlate may differ in case marking. This case-matching preference corresponds to a known case of mandatory case-matching in Hungarian, but their relationship is not predicted by any of the existing syntactic accounts of case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis. We propose a novel perspective on fragments that derives case-matching effects, including optional and mandatory case matching, from the predictions of cue-based retrieval. Two further acceptability judgment studies are offered in support of our proposal.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Accounts Of Case Matchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Movement-and-deletion Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relevant examples come from Bulgarian (Abels 2017), Korean (Kim 2015), and Icelandic (Wood, Barros & Sigurðsson 2020). 2 To illustrate, consider the Bulgarian examples in (5)–(6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis and the cue-based theory of sentence processing

Nykiel¹,

Kim²,

Sim³

2022

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

On the grammaticality of morphosyntactically reduced remnants in Polish sluicing

Nykiel

Kim

2021

Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the grammaticality status of reduced sluicing remnants (i.e., remnants realized as NPs due to preposition drop) in Polish. We provide experimental evidence that reduced remnants are variously acceptable in a specific environment (where there is a prior explicit correspondent in the antecedent clause) and are as unacceptable as ungrammatical structures elsewhere. We interpret this pattern as reflecting elaboration effects (i.e., effects that the degree of elaboration of explicit correspondents has on the acceptability of reduced remnants) that follow from the cue-based retrieval theory of sentence processing. Our data support the option of treating reduced remnants as ungrammatical but sometimes acceptable and the option of treating them as grammatical but sometimes degraded, and we discuss how they fit into the current theories of clausal ellipsis.

show abstract

Acoustic correlates of GIVENness in Icelandic: Revisiting the Radical Deaccentuation hypothesis

Güneş,

Dehé

2024

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses whether there is a direct link between GIVENness-related deaccentuation and ellipsis. The idea that ellipsis can only target already-deaccented material with “distinguished low-flat intonation” (Chomsky & Lasnik 1993: 564) is known as the Radical Deaccentuation (RD) account (see e.g. Tancredi 1992). Icelandic represents a challenge for RD, as it permits (clausal) ellipsis (Wood et al. 2016, 2020) yet does not seem to display deaccentuation (Nolan & Jónsdóttir 2001, Dehé 2009). We conducted a prosodic production experiment to investigate the acoustic correlates of post-focal GIVENness in pre-elliptic clauses in Icelandic to determine if Icelandic undermines the RD theory. We found that Icelandic exhibits prosodic attenuation in pre-elliptic clauses, such that pitch accents of given items are realized, yet they exhibit lower overall F0, and shorter duration. We also found a difference in prosodic constituency between all-new and pre-elliptic clauses, such that the given part in only the pre-elliptic condition is structur-ally integrated to the prosodic domain of the focused item. Our empirical findings are compatible with a weaker version of RD, namely one which treats ‘deaccentuation’ as a cover term for any acoustic effect related to the prosodic marking of GIVENness.

show abstract

Case mismatching in Icelandic clausal ellipsis

Cited by 4 publications

References 68 publications

Case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis and the cue-based theory of sentence processing

Case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis and the cue-based theory of sentence processing

On the grammaticality of morphosyntactically reduced remnants in Polish sluicing

Acoustic correlates of GIVENness in Icelandic: Revisiting the Radical Deaccentuation hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About