Swiping in a variety of Ontario French

Ott, Dennis; Therrien, Raymond

doi:10.1017/cnj.2019.25

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, there are many challenges for the move-and-delete approach to ellipsis remnants (see, e.g. Ott & Struckmeier 2018, Broekhuis & Bayer 2020, Ott & Therrien 2020, Griffiths et al 2023. Additionally, the necessary distinction between argument and adjunct PPs with respect to pseudogapping is not obvious, as reflected in Levin's (1979) explicit choice to exclude PP-remnants from the pseudogapping construction and as reflected in the similar status of (58)-(59).…”

Section: Vp-ellipsis and Pseudogappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separability of dependents from VP in English: Beyond the argument/adjunct distinction

McInnerney

2024

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers the traditional idea about English that syntactic operations targeting Verb Phrase (VP), including do so-anaphora, do what-pseudoclefting and VP-fronting, can separate adjuncts but not arguments from the VP. I argue that, in each case, the argument/adjunct distinction (A/AD) makes incorrect predictions and that the behavior of verbal dependents is more accurately explained without reference to the A/AD. With do so-anaphora and do what-pseudoclefting, I show that the behavior of a variety of Prepositional Phrase (PP) dependents is better explained by the lexical properties of the verb do: a PP’s ability to occur with do so-anaphora/do what-pseudoclefting depends on the PP’s independent compatibility with the lexical verb do. On VP-fronting, I show that apparent stranding of arguments and adjuncts poses major problems for A/AD-based analyses and suggest apparent stranding is better analyzed as extraposition. These results weaken an important motivation for the idea that adjuncts attach to a higher projection in the VP than arguments do.

show abstract

Section: Vp-ellipsis and Pseudogappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separability of dependents from VP in English: Beyond the argument/adjunct distinction

McInnerney

2024

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While quoi is the only form that surfaces in wh-in situ questions-potentially giving the impression that it is only an "in situ form" (Dagnac 2019;Ott & Therrien 2020)-its distribution is not as constrained as that of the clitic form, and it is certainly not "rigidly immobile" like German MPs. While quoi alone cannot surface in the matrix position of a finite question (see 23b), it obligatorily surfaces it is part of a larger phrase, such as inside a PP (26-27), or with a phrasal modifier, e.g.…”

Section: Considering the French Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If there is no movement, then this could be another instance of non-constituent ellipsis. This would amount to saying that the wh-remnant never moves from its base position, but manages to survive deletion of the rest of the TP (47), as suggested by Ott & Therrien (2020).…”

Section: Quoi-sluicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quoi-sluices in French

Gotowski

2022

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sluicing has traditionally been analyzed as an operation involving wh-movement and deletion (Merchant 2001). French is a language that has both fronted and wh-in situ strategies; on the surface, however, it seems that French sluices do not involve (overt) movement, in spite of this being an available option. For nearly all wh-words, the in situ and moved forms are the same; the exception is que/quoi ‘what’— que is found in fronted wh-questions alone, while quoi is found in situ. In sluicing, only quoi surfaces, suggesting that French may be a challenge for the movement-and-deletion approach (Dagnac 2019). By formalizing an analysis within a late insertion approach to the syntax-morphology interface, I argue that not only do sluices in French involve full structure, but that they involve movement as well. I assume that the wh-word is initially represented in the syntactic derivation as an abstract feature bundle. The morphological form is determined in the mapping of syntax to morphology by locality-dependent Vocabulary Insertion (VI) rules that are sensitive to C. These rules apply only after ellipsis occurs. Following Thoms (2010), I argue that C is targeted in sluicing, and as a result destroys the context that would trigger que. This analysis is able to capture sluicing in French, while explaining the behavior of quoi more generally.

show abstract

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Swiping in a variety of Ontario French

Cited by 4 publications

References 30 publications

Separability of dependents from VP in English: Beyond the argument/adjunct distinction

Separability of dependents from VP in English: Beyond the argument/adjunct distinction

Quoi-sluices in French

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About