Missing objects in Hebrew: Argument ellipsis, not VP ellipsis

Landau, Idan

doi:10.5334/gjgl.560

Cited by 72 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers have noticed since the 1980s that VPE is not so confined to English as previously thought; while verb raising languages differ in the fact that the main verb is not included in the ellipsis process, the phenomenon itself shares several characteristics with an English-like VPE (Note 2). (Landau 2018) The main proposal is thus that the Main Verb is claimed to be extracted out of the ellipsis site, moving to INFL, before an English VPE-like non-pronunciation of the VP and its internal arguments takes place. (see Doron 1990Doron ,1999Goldberg 2005) Hebrew is a Verb-Stranding language (see Doron 1990Doron , 1999Goldberg 2005).…”

Section: Motivating Hebrew As Vsvpe Voice Mismatch Candidatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cole (1976: ex. 52a and 52c) noticed the following examples where the resumptive pronoun may be missing only when the matrix verb is identical to the embedded verb (Note 4): 15) (Cole 1976 In fact, a recent article (Landau 2018) argues against the original claims of Doron (1990Doron ( , 1999 that what is targeted for ellipsis is VP and instead argues that it is the Prepositional Phrase itself that is targeted for ellipsis. The second aim of this paper is, thus, to counter both claims and, as we will see, suggest that it is neither VP nor PP that is targeted for ellipsis, but rather a higher constituent which includes VOICE; namely, vP.…”

Section: Motivating Hebrew As Vsvpe Voice Mismatch Candidatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Doron suggests that the reason the resumptive pronoun is missing is that the whole VP is null in these constructions. Doron (1990Doron ( , 1999 and Landau (2018) in what exactly is targeted for ellipsis. Accordingly, if a Hebrew relative clause is grammatical even when a resumptive pronoun or a Preposition + resumptive pronoun construction is not present where we would expect it to be, then we have ISSN 1948-5425 2019 evidence for Ellipsis rather than Object Drop.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Voice Mismatch Tolerance in Verb Stranding Verb Phrase Ellipsis

Abusalim

2019

IJL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verb Phrase Ellipsis, in particular, is taken to be very rare in languages other than English. However, recent literature has pointed out that a Verb Phrase Ellipsis-like construction does in fact exist in other languages, but may be masked due to the fact that the main verb raises to INFL in such languages, a process known as Verb Stranding Verb Phrase Ellipsis (VSVPE). This paper addresses two main issues: 1) whether such a construction in Hebrew patterns with VPE in English or with Pseudogapping; via an examination of voice mismatch tolerance following Merchant (2013) 2) After establishing that Hebrew is a VSVPE language and controlling for external variables such as independent object drop, this paper tests which constituent in particular is targeted in the ellipsis process. It is concluded that VSVPE languages target vP for ellipsis, not VP, nor PP, as opposed to recent accounts. In other words, they pattern with Pseudogappig in including higher constituents (vP, not VP) in the ellipsis) more than they do with VPE. Other Verb-Raising to INFL languages are predicted to behave similarly with respect to which constituent is targeted for ellipsis.

show abstract

Section: Motivating Hebrew As Vsvpe Voice Mismatch Candidatementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Motivating Hebrew As Vsvpe Voice Mismatch Candidatementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Voice Mismatch Tolerance in Verb Stranding Verb Phrase Ellipsis

Abusalim

2019

IJL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The object clitic ju has sloppy readings. Landau (2018) suggests that the availability of a sloppy reading in (ia) is inexplicable if the null argument is just the unpronounced version of the accusative pronoun in (ib). Thus, it seems that Korean pronouns behave differently from Hebrew pronouns in this respect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8) Specific reading is also possible in (13). Since Landau (2018) argues that nonspecific reading is not accounted for under pro analysis, our discussion focuses on nonspecific reading. As pointed out by a reviewer, speakers' variation is observed with the well-formedness of (13C).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Pronoun Analysis of Null Arguments in Korean

Ahn¹,

Cho²

2020

Lang. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to account for null arguments in Korean under pro analysis. Korean is a radical pro-drop language; therefore pro is extremely productive. Thus, if pro analysis can capture interpretations of null arguments without postulating a separate operation such as argument ellipsis, it will be a good example of Occam's razor. We highlight the premise that pro is a silent form of an overt pronoun. This paper shows that the pronoun analysis of null arguments is both conceptually and empirically advantageous. Sloppy readings and nonspecific readings for mass nouns are regarded as data apparently supporting argument ellipsis. However, we show that the data can be reanalyzed under parallelism between null arguments and overt pronouns. We also show that only pronoun analysis can give a solid explanation to scope interaction between disjunction and negation and ellipsis-resistant constituents. We further discuss some advantages of pronoun analysis in comparison with another type of pro analysis, N(P) substitution analysis.

show abstract

Verb movement and the lack of verb-doubling VP-topicalization in Germanic

Hein

2021

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the absence of a stranded auxiliary or modal, VP-topicalization in most Germanic languages gives rise to the presence of a dummy verb meaning ‘do’. Cross-linguistically, this is a rather uncommon strategy as comparable VP-fronting constructions in other languages, e.g. Hebrew, Polish, and Portuguese, among many others, exhibit verb doubling. A comparison of several recent approaches to verb doubling in VP-fronting reveals that it is the consequence of VP-evacuating head movement of the verb to some higher functional head, which saves the (low copy of the) verb from undergoing copy deletion as part of the low VP copy in the VP-topicalization dependency. Given that almost all Germanic languages have such V-salvaging head movement, namely V-to-C movement, but do not show verb doubling, this paper suggests that V-raising is exceptionally impossible in VP-topicalization clauses and addresses the question of why it is blocked. After discussing and rejecting some conceivable explanations for the lack of verb doubling, I propose that the blocking effect arises from a bleeding interaction between V-to-C movement and VP-to-SpecCP movement. As both operations are triggered by the same head, i.e. C, the VP is always encountered first by a downward search algorithm. Movement of VP then freezes it and its lower copies for subextraction precluding subsequent V-raising. Crucially, this implies that there is no V-to-T raising in most Germanic languages. V2 languages with V-to-T raising, e.g. Yiddish, are correctly predicted to not exhibit the blocking effect.

show abstract

Missing objects in Hebrew: Argument ellipsis, not VP ellipsis

Cited by 72 publications

References 56 publications

Voice Mismatch Tolerance in Verb Stranding Verb Phrase Ellipsis

Voice Mismatch Tolerance in Verb Stranding Verb Phrase Ellipsis

A Pronoun Analysis of Null Arguments in Korean

Verb movement and the lack of verb-doubling VP-topicalization in Germanic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About