Ellipsis in Conjunction 2000
DOI: 10.1515/9783110952155-012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Silent Copy and Polarity Focus in VP Ellipsis

Abstract: This paper investigates the issue of symmetric and nonsymmetric focus and deaccentuation in VP Ellipsis (VPE). In contrast to most previous approaches to the information structure of VPE (Rooth 1992b, Tomioka 1995, Fox 1998, which claim under a symmetry assumption that the function of VPE is to contrastively focus the remaining subject in relation to the subject in the antecedent clause, I show that in the unmarked case, focus and deaccentuation in the antecedent and the elliptical clause need not be symmetric… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In fact, some prior accounts have appealed to question-structure as the primary determinant of well-formedness in VPE. For instance, Hendriks (2004)'s analysis requires an elliptical sentence to be in the set of possible answers to an implicit question, where the structure and scope of the question is determined either by contrast or particular discourse relations between the antecedent and ellipsis clauses (see also Winkler 2000, and more recent work by Kehler 2015). However, as we will show, comparison of discourses with and without ellipsis reveal that structural and QUD effects differ in generality: only structural mismatch selectively degrades VPE.…”
Section: Experiments 4: Question Under Discussion and Discourse Well-fmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In fact, some prior accounts have appealed to question-structure as the primary determinant of well-formedness in VPE. For instance, Hendriks (2004)'s analysis requires an elliptical sentence to be in the set of possible answers to an implicit question, where the structure and scope of the question is determined either by contrast or particular discourse relations between the antecedent and ellipsis clauses (see also Winkler 2000, and more recent work by Kehler 2015). However, as we will show, comparison of discourses with and without ellipsis reveal that structural and QUD effects differ in generality: only structural mismatch selectively degrades VPE.…”
Section: Experiments 4: Question Under Discussion and Discourse Well-fmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Relatedly, the combined empirical evidence to date does not clearly distinguish effects of structural match from contrast alignment effects (Winkler 2000;Hendriks 2004;Kertz 2013) (see also Ginzburg and Sag 2000). While we dispute the claim that such information structural effects are able to account for VPE without any ellipsis-specific constraints, it may be that the ellipsis-specific structural constraint we propose is actually an ellipsis-specific constraint enforcing focus structure alignment.…”
Section: The Right Level Of Structural Representationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Drübig (1994Drübig ( , 2000 postulates two types of polarity Phrases: contrastive focus and presentational focus (Kiss 1998). López and Winkler (1999), using data from English and Spanish, propose that vpe is an empty pro-form laking internal structure, and Winkler (2000) Winkler (2000), and López and Winkler (2000), assume that focus is a functional category, and that it attracts a constituent with contrastive focus forming a syntactic chain at lf, in the following manner: A second type of Polarity Phrase is illustrated in (42b), where focus is licensed in situ by the head of Pol 1 which functions as a scope marker at ss, and is always [+F].…”
Section: Syntactic Representationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this representation, the head of Pol 1 P (sentential polarity element, with particles like only, even, ...) licenses a maximal projection of focus. In the same line or argumentation, López (1994López ( , 1999, Winkler (2000), and López and Winkler (2000), assume that focus is a functional category, and that it attracts a constituent with contrastive focus forming a syntactic chain at lf, in the following manner: Let's turn to negative-contrasting constructions in Catalan. As we have already said, they show two contrastively focused expressions.…”
Section: Syntactic Representationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The pro-form view of vpe in English has been defended, on the grounds of semantic conditions, in Hardt (1993Hardt ( , 1997Hardt ( , 1999. López and Winkler (1999), using data from English and Spanish, propose that vpe is an empty pro-form laking internal structure, and Winkler (2000) that vpe falls under an Economy Condition-Silent Copy, operating over pf representations.…”
Section: Syntactic Representationmentioning
confidence: 99%