The complement of reduced parentheticals

Fortmann, Christian

doi:10.1075/la.106.07for

Cited by 25 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For reasons of space, we cannot go into detail, here. 14 In Fortmann's (2007) own proposal, there is an empty pro-form in the parenthetical object position, which stays in situ. He argues rightly against base-generation of the eventual main clause as the parenthetical internal argument and subsequent deletion or movement (see also footnote 2 for discussion).…”

Section: Word Order and The Optional Presence Of Zo/somentioning

confidence: 98%

“…What is relevant for now is that both analyses require topicalization of OP/zo, which should be detectable by standard movement diagnostics. 11 Chomsky (1977) 13 Notice also that these facts are highly problematic for alternative approaches that make reference to an implicit, syntactically suppressed argument variable that is non-canonically licensed in semantics (Reis 1995, Steinbach 2007, which would lead to 'genuine V1'; see also Fortmann (2007) for critical discussion.…”

Section: Word Order and The Optional Presence Of Zo/somentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, the question arises how German wie-clauses fit into the picture. It is tempting to postulate an analysis parallel to Dutch, which would require that wie is a complementizer in this construction (hence not a question word in SpecCP; pace Fortmann 2007). The fact that so can precede wie could be taken as an argument for that.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On V2, gaps, and operators in comment and reporting parentheticals

Kluck¹,

Vries²

2015

Parenthetical Verbs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Parenthetical comment and reporting clauses exhibit various interesting properties, which are shown to be related. Three different word order patterns are attested in Dutch and German: apparent V1, V2 and V-final; the internal argument of the parenthetical verb is usually missing; there is an optional so/zo element; the construction is island-sensitive. These patterns are explained by means of an operator that is A´-moved inside the parenthetical, and which can optionally be lexicalized in the first position. The V-final pattern arises when a complementizer is present, which is the case in propositional as-parentheticals.Keywords: comment clause, reporting clause, as-parenthetical, operator, anaphoric so, word order, verb second (V2) Introduction and brief overviewWe investigate the internal syntax of parenthetical comment and reporting clauses, and potential generalizations over various subtypes.* A classic puzzle concerns the position of the finite verb in intercalated or utterance-final comment clauses. Three variants are attested: apparent V1, V2, and V-final (modulo extraposed elements). This is illustrated in Dutch in (1a-c), where the relevant verb is underlined. Similar word order patterns are used in German.Thereby, we discuss word order patterns, the nature of possible argument gaps, and the interpretation and position of elements such as zo/so and zoals/wie/as primarily in Dutch, while pointing out striking parallels with German and English, as well as some differences between the three languages.(1) a.Bob is, vermoed ik, een echte charmeur. Bob is suspect I a true charmer 'Bob is, I suspect, a true charmer.' b.Bob is, zo vermoed ik, een echte charmeur. Bob is so suspect I a true charmer 'Bob is, so I suspect, a true charmer.' c.Bob is, zoals ik al vermoedde, een echte charmeur. Bob is as I already suspected a true charmer 'Bob is, as I already suspected, a true charmer.' Such comment clauses, and reporting clauses likewise, have a parenthetical status. The zero hypothesis, then, is that they are main clauses, which trigger verb second in Dutch, unless there is an internal complementizer that gives rise to a subordinate clause pattern with a final verb. Indeed, examples (1a/b) clearly show an interrupting main clause with an optional first element zo, which we analyze as a kind of operator. Section 2 works out these claims. Section 3 highlights the problem of the base position of the zo-operator, and discusses its interpretation and status in more detail. Section 4 concerns the parenthetical type in (1c), which is somewhat different. Here, the word order is that of a subordinate clause. This is due to the fact that the complementizer position is occupied by the comparative als. We * Thanks to the organizers and the audience of Parenthétiques 2012 (Paris Nanterre), and in particular Stefan Schneider. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for useful comments and questions.

show abstract

Section: Word Order and The Optional Presence Of Zo/somentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Word Order and The Optional Presence Of Zo/somentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On V2, gaps, and operators in comment and reporting parentheticals

Kluck¹,

Vries²

2015

Parenthetical Verbs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This operator is co‐referential with the host clause and may be null or spelled out as zo / so in Dutch and German, respectively (e.g. (7), Dutch example from Kluck & de Vries ); see also the discussions in Reis (, ), Fortmann () and Steinbach () for German. Following this analysis, it is impossible for non‐initial CCs to be the result of a movement operation taking sentences such as (4) as input.…”

Section: Background and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prosodic phrasing of parenthetical comment clauses in spontaneous spoken language: evidence from icelandic held ég

Dehé

2016

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the analysis of corpus data, this paper investigates the prosodic phrasing of the Icelandic parenthetical comment clause (CC) held ég (‘believe/think I’; I think, I believe) and relates the results to current prosodic theory. The main findings are as follows. (i) A variety of intonational phrasing patterns is possible with CCheld ég, allowing both for prosodic separation such that the CC is phrased in its own Intonational Phrase (IP), and prosodic integration, such that the CC is phrased in one IP with surrounding material. (ii) Prosodic integration is by far the more common pattern. (iii) The prosodic phrasing of CCs is related to their meaning via prominence. In particular, CCs which can be argued to have conventional implicatures (CI) semantics are prosodically prominent and phrased separately; CCs whose primary function is one of mitigation are unstressed and integrated. (iv) The observed intonational phrasing patterns can be accounted for in terms of the interaction of the syntax‐prosody interface constraint Match clause with prosodic markedness constraints.

show abstract

“…As far as we know, some studies have pointed out to the existence of examples like the one in (2b), but they have never been analysed (cf. Cornulier 1978, Schneider 2007, Kluck y De Vries 2015, Fortmann 2007, contrary to RPCs, which probably are one the most studied types of parenthetical clauses. For this reason, in this paper we focus all our attention in CPCs, while RPCs only serve as a term of comparison.…”

Section: Reporting Clausementioning

confidence: 99%

Cyclic transfer in the derivation of Complete Parenthetical Clauses

Aguilar

2016

Borealis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this paper is to show that some parentheticals are indeed syntactic orphans (cf. Haegeman 1988) and that this intuition can be formalized using tools independently motivated in linguistic theory. We concentrate on new data regarding clitic realization in what are commonly called Reduced Parenthetical Clauses (RPCs). We show that these constructions with clitic differ of their reduced counterpart in many aspects; crucially, they behave as root domains. Thus, we argue that they are derived independently from the host clause (in a parallel workspace) and their linear interpolation occurs during the Spell-Out process, assuming a dynamic version of cyclic Transfer (cf. Chomsky 2001, Uriagereka 1999).

show abstract

The complement of reduced parentheticals

Cited by 25 publications

References 0 publications

On V2, gaps, and operators in comment and reporting parentheticals

On V2, gaps, and operators in comment and reporting parentheticals

The prosodic phrasing of parenthetical comment clauses in spontaneous spoken language: evidence from icelandic held ég

Cyclic transfer in the derivation of Complete Parenthetical Clauses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About