On Headless XP-Movement/Ellipsis

Funakoshi, Kenshi

doi:10.1162/ling_a_00105

Cited by 51 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I propose that the absence of subject ellipsis in CSE falls squarely within the recent generalization established by Saito (2015) that AE, technically implemented through LF-Copy (Oku 1998), cannot apply to a phrase that forms an operatorvariable configuration. Saito reaches this generalization by closely reexamining a number of cases presented by Hoji (1998) and Funakoshi (2012Funakoshi ( , 2013 as problematic for the AE theory of null objects in Japanese. Because of limitations of space, I will mention only two such cases to illustrate Saito's generalization and analysis.…”

Section: Saito's (2015) Generalization On Japanese Aementioning

confidence: 98%

Remarks on the Parameters of Argument Ellipsis: A New Perspective from Colloquial Singapore English

Sato

2016

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I investigate the nature of parameters responsible for the distribution of argument ellipsis (AE) from the perspective of Colloquial Singapore English (CSE). One recent theory by Saito (2007) suggests that this process, technically analyzed through LF‐Copy, is blocked by ϕ‐feature agreements of T with subject DPs and v with object DPs, respectively. I provide evidence from Case marking, VP‐ and CP‐ellipsis, and Exceptional Case‐Marking constructions that in CSE both functional heads possess abstract ϕ‐feature agreement, as in Standard English. The agreement theory predicts that neither the null subject nor null object position should permit AE in CSE. The fact, however, is that AE is blocked in subject positions but permitted in object positions. I propose that AE in CSE is controlled, instead, by the presence of an operator–variable topic chain, formed to reflect the language's topic‐prominent profile, as manifested in its definite subject preference. This analysis is supported by the observation that the null subject position allows AE in CSE as long as it is not linked to the topic position, as in the case of the hanging topic construction. The alternative analysis suggests that the cross‐linguistic distribution of AE is conditioned by (at least) two parameters: agreement and topichood.

show abstract

Section: Saito's (2015) Generalization On Japanese Aementioning

confidence: 98%

Remarks on the Parameters of Argument Ellipsis: A New Perspective from Colloquial Singapore English

Sato

2016

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been noted in the literature that some focus elements in Japanese, such as disjunctive elements and the additive particle ‐ mo ‘also’, obligatorily take wide scope with respect to negation or (r)are ‘can’ (Shoji , Hasegawa , Futagi , Funakoshi , , , Nomura , Shibata , among others). For instance, the disjunctive example in (1a) allows the interpretation ‘(John doesn't speak Spanish) or (John doesn't speak French)’, but it cannot have the interpretation ‘(John doesn't speak Spanish) and (John doesn't speak French)’.…”

Section: Scope and Argument Ellipsismentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument Ellipsis and Scope Economy in Japanese

Maeda

2019

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I show that in Japanese, while some focus elements obligatorily take wide scope with respect to scope-bearing predicative heads, argument ellipsis reverses this scope possibility, so that narrow-scope interpretation of the focus element is obligatory. I further show that Scope Parallelism (Fox 2000) overrides this narrow-scope requirement for elided arguments; when the antecedent clause exhibits scope interaction, the elided clause shows the parallel wide-scope option.

show abstract

“…We will not elaborate on their proposals here and refer the reader to their paper for discussion. Funakoshi (2012) implements one of their suggestions in his own account, according to which VPE may be derived by VPT to a Belletti-style vP peripheral TopP (Belletti 2001(Belletti , 2004; see also Butler 2004, Jayaseelan 2000, and Kayne 2006). We will not discuss this alternative here either but will instead reconsider the ellipsis as Topicalization + PF deletion accounts of Johnson (2001) and Authier (2011).…”

Section: An Alternative Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

French adverbial clauses, rescue by ellipsis and the truncation versus intervention debate

Authier

Haegeman

2015

Probus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the restrictions on movement to the left periphery found in non-root environments such as French central adverbial clauses and argues that an analysis of main clause phenomena based on intervention/Relativized Minimality is to be preferred to one based on structural truncation. The empirical basis for this claim consists of an examination of some asymmetries between French infinitival TP ellipsis and infinitival TP Topicalization. Adopting Authier"s (2011) approach to TP ellipsis whereby the to-be-elided TP undergoes fronting in the computational component but fails to be spelled out at PF, we argue that these asymmetries follow from the fact that in French, while a spelled out fronted TP is an intervener for wh-movement in adverbial clauses, leading to a PF crash, the ellipsis of this fronted TP leads to a convergent derivation via Bošković"s (2011) mechanism of "rescue by PF deletion." This account entails that adverbial clauses involve wh-1 We gratefully acknowledge the comments and suggestions made by two anonymous Probus reviewers and Jairo Nunes on a previous draft of this article. We also wish to

show abstract

On Headless XP-Movement/Ellipsis

Cited by 51 publications

References 50 publications

Remarks on the Parameters of Argument Ellipsis: A New Perspective from Colloquial Singapore English

Remarks on the Parameters of Argument Ellipsis: A New Perspective from Colloquial Singapore English

Argument Ellipsis and Scope Economy in Japanese

French adverbial clauses, rescue by ellipsis and the truncation versus intervention debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About