Notes on Two Types of Fragments

Ahn, Hee-Don; Cho, Sungeun

doi:10.17250/khisli.28.1.201104.002

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, Wee (2014) indicates that various force/clause types evoked in (7-8) may not crucially evidence CP or clausal structures for caseless fragments. Ahn (2012) further notes that caseless fragments can occur with politeness marker-yo, as shown in (9b'), which lends another support for the existence of (null) C that projects CP in the caseless fragment. Coffee-Acc-yo b' Coffee-yo.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Roughly, we can divide the previous analyses of these two types of fragments into two groups in generative grammar (in particular, under minimalist perspectives): uniform analyses (Ahn & Cho 2006, Park 2015) and hybrid analyses (Morgan 1989, Fortin 2007, Ahn & Cho 2011, Ahn 2012). 1) The former assumes that two types of fragments are derived in a uniform way (assuming something related to ellipsis phenomena), while the latter assumes that case-marked fragments are derived in a way different from caseless fragments (usually the case-marked ones are treated as ellipsis, while the caseless as base-generated).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast to the uniform analyses, Ahn & Cho (2011 and Ahn (2012) put forward a hybrid analysis of the two types of fragments in Korean on the minimalist grounds. They claim that case-marked fragments have elided syntactic structures, while caseless fragments are base-generated XPs not involving any elided structures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(5) Case-marked fragments (6) Caseless fragments CP NP Yengswu Ahn & Cho (2011) and Ahn (2012), however, argue that not only case-marked fragments but also caseless fragments must project to CP. Two pieces of evidence are put forward there.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On Caseless Fragments and Some Implications

Ahn¹,

Cho²

2017

Lang. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A great deal of attention has been paid to two types of fragments in Korean: case-marked and caseless fragments. We suggest that case-marked and caseless fragments all involve remnant movement to a focus position prior to TP deletion. We further claim that their clausal sources are different. We propose that caseless fragments are derived from reduced copula sentences unlike case-marked fragments. Under the analysis advanced here, parallel behaviors of two types of fragments are explained as a consequence of movement and TP deletion. Non-parallel behaviors, on the other hand, are explained as a consequence of different clausal sources. In this paper, we further observe similarities and differences between the two types of fragments concerning distribution of adverbials and idiomatic interpretation. Further implications of our proposal are discussed concerning several less-noticed phenomena related to polarity and tense mismatching which are not properly analyzed in the previous literature.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On Caseless Fragments and Some Implications

Ahn¹,

Cho²

2017

Lang. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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.

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

Extra deletion in fragment answers and its implications

2016

J East Asian Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Notes on Two Types of Fragments

Cited by 13 publications

References 4 publications

On Caseless Fragments and Some Implications

On Caseless Fragments and Some Implications

Clause types, intonation and stranded embedded clauses

Extra deletion in fragment answers and its implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About