Parasitic Gaps licensed by elided syntactic structure

Yoshida, Minoru; Hunter, Tim B.; Frazier, Michael

doi:10.1007/s11049-014-9275-3

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Which report did John file [without reading e]? Yoshida et al (2015) show that parasitic gaps can be licensed by the material that is assumed to be in the elided constituent:…”

Section: Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ellipsis in Spanish

Fábregas

2023

Borealis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a descriptive and analytical overview of potential ellipsis cases in Spanish. After highlighting the main complications that the notion of ellipsis brings up, this work presents a detailed summary of the main empirical properties of ellipsis in nominal, verbal and clausal contexts. Then, the main theories about ellipsis and the analytical alternatives to standard deletion at PF are presented. The article concludes with a discussion of what type of properties ellipsis may have in Spanish.

show abstract

“…Which report did John file [without reading e]? Yoshida et al (2015) show that parasitic gaps can be licensed by the material that is assumed to be in the elided constituent:…”

Section: Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ellipsis in Spanish

Fábregas

2023

Borealis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as pointed out to us by a reviewer, there are also island repair phenomena where the short sluice analysis is ruled out. These are cases like (i), in which the sluice contains a parasitic gap (PG), discussed in Yoshida et al (2015), who argue that (i) cannot have a cleft or copular structure as the source because such a source would not contain the "real gap" (RG) that would license the parasitic gap in the remnant. The same point is made in Vicente (2018).…”

Section: Coordinated Clefts As Possible Source For Coordinated Sluicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(i) Yoshida et al (2015Yoshida et al ( : 1453 The editor told me which book I must review __RG soon after receiving __PG, but I don't remember exactly how soon after receiving __PG.…”

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

“…In a number of articles, Masaya Yoshida and colleagues have introduced new data on fragments that they present as evidence for the idea that clausal ellipsis 'repairs' syntactic islands(Rottman & Yoshida 2013, Yoshida et al 2015, Potter 2017, Yoshida et al 2018. In this context, island repair refers to the theory that a node N that functions as an island boundary in a nonelliptical configuration will cease to function as an island boundary in the same configurations if N is contained in an elliptic clause.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reprise fragments in English and Hungarian: Further support for an in-situ Q-equivalence approach to clausal ellipsis

Güneş¹,

Lipták²

2023

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a comparative analysis of English and Hungarian reprise fragments. We argue that reprise fragments should be afforded the same theoretical treatment as standard (i.e. nonreprise) fragments. Assuming that standard fragmentary answers and questions are remnants of an ellipsis operation that applies to a clause, this entails that reprise fragments are also remnants of clausal ellipsis. We show that the prevailing approach to standard fragments, which assumes that the remnant of ellipsis always undergoes movement (Merchant 2001(Merchant , 2004, cannot be plausibly extended to explain the crosslinguistic reprise-fragment data. We argue that a theory is required that restricts antecedents to interrogatives and that allows-but crucially does not requiremovement of the remnant. Under this account, the differences observed between English and Hungarian reprise and standard fragments follow from independent syntactic differences in how standard and reprise questions are formed in these languages. We therefore provide new evidence to support theories of ellipsis identity that state that only questions make for suitable antecedents for clausal ellipsis (so-called Q-equivalence approaches) and to support sententialist analyses of clausal ellipsis that permit ellipsis to occur around designated constituents (so-called in-situ approaches).

show abstract

Parasitic Gaps licensed by elided syntactic structure

Cited by 6 publications

References 46 publications

Ellipsis in Spanish

Ellipsis in Spanish

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

Reprise fragments in English and Hungarian: Further support for an in-situ Q-equivalence approach to clausal ellipsis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About