Elide me bare

Koulidobrova, Elena

doi:10.1007/s11049-016-9349-5

Cited by 35 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our hypothesis is that argument omission in embedded clauses is regulated by some mechanisms at least partially independent of agreement, e.g. as argued for by Koulidobrova (2017) for ASL, and thus we do not at present have explicit predictions about subject-drop patterns in these constructions for RSL and DGS. Further research is necessary.…”

Section: Agreeing Verbsmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…5 In other words, plain verbs are said to express agreement exclusively with non-manual means. Koulidobrova (2017), providing some novel data, shows that both pro and topic-bound variable analyses fail to account for all the morphosyntactic facts, and proposes instead that null subjects represent cases of ellipsis of a bare NP. Each of the studies mentioned above are based on elicited or informant data.…”

Section: Pro-drop In Sign Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many sign languages allow for null arguments. Over the years, varying descriptions and analyses of this phenomenon in different sign languages have appeared (see Lillo-Martin 1986;1991;Bahan et al 2000;Wulf et al 2002;Koulidobrova 2017 for American Sign Language (ASL); McKee et al 2011 for Australian Sign Language (Auslan) and New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL); Glück & Pfau 1998 for DGS;Bos 1993 andOomen 2017 for NGT, among others). Here, we provide a brief overview of this body of work.…”

Section: Pro-drop In Sign Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, while Lillo-Martin argues that agreement can license argument omission in ASL, we argue that agreement constrains which subjects can be dropped. Furthermore, the connection between agreement and pro-drop as argued by Lillo-Martin's model has recently been questioned for ASL (Koulidobrova 2017), while Kimmelman (2018b) has shown that agreeing verbs in RSL do not license pro-drop in embedded clauses. Our hypothesis is that argument omission in embedded clauses is regulated by some mechanisms at least partially independent of agreement, e.g.…”

Section: Agreeing Verbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Body-anchored verbs and argument omission in two sign languages

Oomen

Kimmelman

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using quantitative methods, we analyze naturalistic corpus data in two sign languages, German Sign Language and Russian Sign Language, to study subject-omission patterns. We find that, in both languages, the interpretation of null subjects depends on the type of the verb. With verbs signed on the signer's body (body-anchored verbs), null subjects are interpreted only as first person. With verbs signed in neutral space in front of the signer (neutral verbs), this restriction does not apply. We argue that this is an effect of iconicity: for body-anchored verbs, the signer's body is a part of the iconic representation of the verbal event, and by default the body is interpreted as referring to the signer, that is, as first person. We develop a formal analysis using a mechanism of mixed agreement, taking inspiration from Matushansky's (2013) account of mixed gender agreement in Russian. Specifically, we argue that body-anchored verbs bear an inherent feature that gives a first-person interpretation to null subjects. When a body-anchored verb is combined with an overt third-person subject, a feature mismatch occurs which is resolved in favor of the third person. Neutral verbs do not come with inherent feature-value specifications, thus allowing all person interpretations. We also explain how our analysis predicts the interpretation of null subjects in the context of role shift. With our account, we demonstrate that iconicity plays an active role in the grammar of sign languages, and we pin down the locus of the iconicity effect. While no iconic or modality-specific syntactic mechanisms are needed to account for the data, iconicity is argued to determine feature specification on a subset of sign language verbs.

show abstract

Section: Agreeing Verbsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Pro-drop In Sign Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pro-drop In Sign Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Agreeing Verbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Body-anchored verbs and argument omission in two sign languages

Oomen

Kimmelman

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…OG sentences whose antecedents contain a duration adjunct nonetheless select the negative marker that occurs without it, indicating that the adjunct cannot be copied in the ellipsis site. That adjuncts are excluded from ellipsis has been shown for Turkish (Şener and Takahashi 2010), Singapore English (Sato 2014), Persian (Sato and Karimi 2016), and American Sign Language (Koulidobrova 2017) as well, favoring the AE over the VSVPE analysis in these languages.…”

Section: Adjunct Exclusionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Missing objects in Hebrew: Argument ellipsis, not VP ellipsis

Landau

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hebrew is standardly cited as a language exhibiting Verb-stranding VP-ellipsis (VSVPE). Systematic reassessment of the data demonstrates that all the alleged evidence for VSVPE is consistent with Argument Ellipsis (AE); furthermore, there are ample data that are only consistent with AE, and more revealingly, data that can only be explained if VSVPE is unavailable. Finally, the verb preceding the missing object need not match the antecedent verb, falsifying the "Verb Identity Requirement". The conclusion that Hebrew employs AE (similarly to East Asian languages) but not VSVPE focuses attention both on the typology of AE and on the so-far hidden constraints against VSVPE derivations.

show abstract

Non-local attachment of clauses

Schlenker

2020

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that some parenthetical-like clauses in ASL can take both intermediate and maximally wide scope outside of if-clauses and attitude verbs. Specifically, we investigate embedded coordinations, of the form … SAY [IF Clause-1 Clause-2 PLUS Clause-3, …], and argue that Clause-2 may in some cases be interpreted with wide and intermediate scope (above SAY, or between SAY and IF). The key to our paradigm is that we mark the scope of IF and SAY with non-manual markers (Brow Raise and/or Role Shift). By exempting Clause-2 from these non-manuals, we force it to outscope the relevant operator, including when it might be expected to create a syntactic island. Wide scope replicates the behavior of parentheticals and appositives in other languages. Intermediate scope is particularly interesting because it mirrors with full clauses the behavior predicted by some theories for some English appositives (Schlenker 2010, to appear a). The ASL data might thus lend support to the existence of a mechanism of high attachment in situ (McCawley 1981(McCawley , 1998. Alternatives in terms of islandescaping covert movement or in situ indexing face significant challenges.

show abstract

Elide me bare

Cited by 35 publications

References 48 publications

Body-anchored verbs and argument omission in two sign languages

Body-anchored verbs and argument omission in two sign languages

Missing objects in Hebrew: Argument ellipsis, not VP ellipsis

Non-local attachment of clauses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About