Invisible Last Resort

Craenenbroeck, Jeroen Van

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.002

Cited by 65 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nor would there be an explanation for CASE MATCHING (even leaving aside the difficulty discussed in the main article for SLM's account of case matching). For example, as was pointed out in Merchant 2001 andvan Craenenbroeck 2010, Greek shows the usual case-matching facts in sluicing, which would be a surprise if short clefts were a possible source since the relevant portion in a short cleft is nominative. The sluicing pattern is seen in 7.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

“…(Presumably the same facts carry over to the fragment answer case, although this remains to be verified for the full range of relevant languages; it is verified for Polish in Nykiel 2016). This is hardly the end of the story, for there is also a substantial body of literature (Rodrigues et al 2009, van Craenenbroeck 2010 designed to save the P-stranding generalization by hypothesizing that the apparent counterexamples derive from ordinary clefts or 'short clefts' rather than from the full WH-source (we consider here only the proposal based on 'short clefts', which is common in the relevant literature). English words are again used to illustrate, as this can serve as a stand-in for the class of languages at issue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The short answer: Implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa): Online Appendices

Jacobson¹

2016

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These appendices address two additional arguments that have been given for the SILENT LINGUISTIC MATERIAL hypothesis (SLM; see in particular Merchant 2004). These arguments purport to show that a movement analysis of the fragment answer is necessary, and this in turn supports SLM. For if there is movement of the fragment, there must be surrounding material out of which the fragment moved. The first argument (Appendix A) concerns preposition stranding and has played a key role in much literature (especially on SLUICING, but many of the same points are relevant to fragment answers). The second concerns islands (Appendix B). I show that both cases are unconvincing, for two reasons. First, the actual facts are unclear. Second, even if the purported generalizations were correct, SLM does not actually account for the full range of facts. As to the account of the facts under Qu-Ans, here too there remain open questions, so I am not putting these domains forward as arguments for Qu-Ans either. The point is simply that both domains need to be better understood before any conclusion can be drawn from them. At this point, however, they certainly do not provide evidence for SLM. APPENDIX A: THE P-STRANDING GENERALIZATION One of the most frequently cited arguments for an SLM analysis of sluicing-and which has also been used to argue for SLM in fragment answers-is the so-called PREPOSITION STRANDING (hereafter, Pstranding) generalization (Merchant 2001, 2004). The argument is intended to support not just SLM PER SE, but also the movement-plus-deletion/silencing account of SLM. I elucidate the argument in the context of fragment answers by first considering the situation in English, a language that allows P-stranding in WHquestions and other fronting constructions. Thus both 1a and 1b are possible questions. (1) a. To whom did Carly reveal her secret? b. Who did Carly reveal her secret to? Focusing just on 1a for the moment, either of the answers in 2 is also possible. (2) a. To Mick. b. Mick. (Notice that both versions of 2 are also possible answers to 1b, a fact that I put aside for now but return to below.) The crux of the P-stranding argument is that languages that do not allow P-stranding (and hence do not allow questions analogous to the version in 1b) allow only answers with a preposition, analogous to the English case in 2a; fragment answers parallel to the English answer 2b are not allowed. The claim is that this follows if fragment answers require movement followed by deletion/silencing; 2b could not be derived since the movement required to front just a single NP (as opposed to a full PP) would be blocked. In other words, using English words for the sake of illustration, the non-P-stranding language would not allow the fragment answer in 2b because this would covertly have to be a structure like 3, which would be disallowed in that language (the notation ⊗ is used to mean that sentences corresponding to 3 are bad in the class of languages that do not allow P-stranding).

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The short answer: Implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa): Online Appendices

Jacobson¹

2016

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Van Craenenbroeck (2010) shows that the 'mention-all' diagnostic is not conclusive, given that it does not distinguish between the wh-question and the cleft source for the sluice; both are grammatical (as shown in (iia-b)), which leaves the ungrammaticality of the corresponding sluice mysterious.…”

Section: Coordinated Clefts As Possible Source For Coordinated Sluicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conjunction saves multiple sluicing: How *(and) why?

Citko

Yüksek

2020

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our goal in this paper is to analyze coordinated wh-sluicing in English and compare its properties to the properties of multiple sluicing, coordinated wh-questions and coordinated clefts. We show that none of these constructions has the properties of coordinated sluices, and conclude that coordinated sluices are not derivationally related to them. We propose, instead, that coordinated sluices underlyingly involve coordination of two interrogative CPs with a single fronted wh-phrase and an elided TP in each CP. In addition, we propose that the elided TP of the second conjunct in a coordinated sluice contains a pronominal element (an E-type pronoun) coindexed with the trace of the fronted wh-phrase in the first conjunct. We show that this analysis derives the properties of coordinated sluices and explains why they differ from multiple sluices, coordinated wh-questions and coordinated clefts.

show abstract

“…'The police interrogated one of the Cypriots first, but I don't know who (it was).' (Craenenbroeck, 2010b(Craenenbroeck, , p. 1717 As for Omani Arabic, case is not marked morphologically in the language; therefore, wh-phrases in sluicing, for example in (21), are not inflected for case, which makes the distinction between sluicing and pseudo-sluicing in some contexts rather hard. Based on the findings of the sluicing-defining tests, it is concluded that the underlying source of sluices with adjunct wh-phrases, argument PP wh-phrases in addition to contrast sluices is a regular wh-question, thus can be derived via wh-movement plus clausal ellipsis.…”

Section: Case Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Syntax of Sluicing in Omani Arabic

Algryani¹

2019

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the syntax of sluicing in Omani Arabic to uncover its morpho-syntactic properties and underlying source. It also attempts to account for the apparent preposition stranding (p-stranding) effects displayed by Omani Arabic sluicing, which indicates that the language is a counterexample to the p-stranding generalisation (Merchant, 2001). The paper concludes that sluicing exists in the language and it is derived from regular wh-questions by wh-movement and TP ellipsis at PF. Furthermore, Omani Arabic displays pseudo-sluicing (i.e., an elliptical cleft wh-question), which can also be derived via wh-movement from spec-TP to spec-CP plus TP deletion at PF. Finally, the study argues that the apparent cases of sluicing under p-stranding are actually pseudo-sluicing. The drop of copular pronouns in the sluiced clause and omission of the preposition with the relative clause lead to the illusion that sluicing in Omani Arabic exhibits p-stranding effects.

show abstract

Invisible Last Resort

Cited by 65 publications

References 6 publications

The short answer: Implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa): Online Appendices

The short answer: Implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa): Online Appendices

Conjunction saves multiple sluicing: How *(and) why?

The Syntax of Sluicing in Omani Arabic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About