The In-Situ Approach to Sluicing

Abe, Jun

doi:10.1075/la.222

Cited by 63 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the reason for the apparent insensitivity to the pure complex‐NP island in this case should not be, given the above discussion, that (45b) can be analyzed as the base‐generated subject and predicate construction and/or involving the local resolution of the relevant reading. Rather, I claim, following Abe , that (45b) is a pure instance of Japanese sluicing—more specifically, one of what Chung, Ladusaw & McCloskey () call the merger type with a non‐ wh ‐phrase as its remnant. The merger type of sluicing is one in which the remnant phrase (typically a wh ‐phrase) has its corresponding antecedent (what Chung et al.…”

Section: Is Subject Pronominalized In Short Answers?mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…One may immediately raise the question of what makes nonconstituent deletion possible in this analysis. I follow Abe in assuming that a target of deletion is a constituent and yet an actual deletion operation applies to it in the way that a phrase carrying [Focus] evades such an operation. I further assume that the target of deletion, called E(llipsis)‐site in Abe , is subject to an identification condition applying in the semantic component that guarantees the deletion operation.…”

Section: Short Answers Derived From the No Da In Situ Focus Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As mentioned in section , I follow Abe in assuming that a target of deletion is a constituent and yet an actual deletion operation applies to it in the way that a phrase carrying [Focus] evades such an operation . I then assume that the target of deletion, called E(llipsis)‐site in Abe , is subject to the identification condition in question . To apply these assumptions to a case of short answers as in (56), I identify the CP as an E‐site, to which deletion applies except the focused phrase JOHN‐ni .…”

Section: Identification Condition On Deletionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Make Short Answers Shorter: Support for the In Situ Approach

Abe¹

2016

Syntax

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standard approach for short answers is the one, like Merchant's (2004), in which the remnant phrase undergoes focus movement to a peripheral position before deletion takes place. In this article, I argue against this approach, supporting instead what we may call the in situ approach to short answers, according to which the remnant phrase does not undergo focus movement to a peripheral position but rather simply stays in its original position. Given the inescapable problem in testing island sensitivity in a wh-movement language such as English, this article investigates short answers in Japanese, a wh-in situ language. I propose that Japanese short answers are directly derived from what Hiraiwa & Ishihara (2002) call the no da in situ focus construction. This analysis immediately explains the island insensitivity of Japanese short answers. I also argue that the identification condition operative for licensing deletion in short answers is semantic in nature, hence compatible with the in situ approach that necessarily incorporates deletion of nonconstituents. Finally, I argue that the two strategies provided by Merchant (2004) for getting over the inescapable problem in testing island sensitivity in English are ill advised.Part of the material reported here was presented at the 44th annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea in 2011 and at Kwansei Gakuin University in 2014. I am indebted to two Syntax reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version, which have led to significant improvements. 1 It does not seem to be the case that the no da construction always requires a focused phrase to appear in the nominalized CP. Kuno (1973) gives more detailed descriptions of the semantic functions of this construction. Here I am concerned only with the variety of this construction that involves focus.

show abstract

Section: Is Subject Pronominalized In Short Answers?mentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Short Answers Derived From the No Da In Situ Focus Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Identification Condition On Deletionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Make Short Answers Shorter: Support for the In Situ Approach

Abe¹

2016

Syntax

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… See Abe () for the claim that such a case as (48) cannot be analyzed as an instance of clefting when the sloppy reading is involved, hence instantiating a genuine case of sluicing. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SeeAbe (2015a) for the claim that such a case as (48) cannot be analyzed as an instance of clefting when the sloppy reading is involved, hence instantiating a genuine case of sluicing.Antecedent-contained deletion in Japanese 127 © 2018 The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Antecedent‐Contained Deletion in Japanese: Support for the VP‐Ellipsis Analysis

Abe¹

2018

Studia Linguistica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I demonstrate that antecedent‐contained deletion (ACD) exists in Japanese, thereby supporting the V‐stranding VP‐ellipsis analysis, and that the infinite regress resolution with such ACD cases must be made by overt movement. I suggest that this way of infinite regress resolution is a universal property, demonstrating that English ACD cases can be analyzed along these lines. I also argue that what seems like a case of Japanese ACD involves argument ellipsis, even though it violates the anti‐c‐command requirement, and that the apparent violation is resolved by adopting the late insertion of adjuncts and the derivational definition of c‐command.

show abstract

Wh‐in‐Situ

Bayer

Cheng

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter on wh‐ in‐situ first provides the background of the discussion as it was developed in GB‐theory, mainly starting from Huang's seminal work on Chinese. In this framework with levels of representation, the role of Logical Form was in the center of the discussion. Similarities and differences between covert wh‐ movement and QR are discussed, leading to issues of subjacency, LF pied‐piping, unselective binding, and D‐linking. Data and many theoretical concepts carry over to the third section of the chapter which introduces treatments of wh‐ in‐situ within the Minimalist Program, namely a theory which admits only two interface levels and which does not have various levels of syntactic representations (e.g., S‐structure and LF). Different stages of the theory's development, from feature movement to probe/goal agreement are shown to have had different consequences. This is followed by a discussion on the possibility of pseudo wh‐ in‐situ, that is the possibility that there is overt movement but that it is disguised in particular ways. Section 4 turns to intervention effects. Overt wh‐ movement is compared with wh‐ in‐situ under intervention environments. Syntactic as well as semantic accounts are presented as well as accounts that rely on information structure. Section 5 addresses the question of optionality of wh‐ movement as it appears in modern French as well as in other languages. Here also questions of phonological phrasing are brought into the discussion. In section 6 the issue of wh‐ in‐situ vs. wh‐ ex‐situ is briefly discussed, also with reference to acquisition data. Section 7 concludes with some questions concerning typological differences according to which wh‐ in‐situ languages seem to lack a richly structured left clausal periphery.

show abstract

The In-Situ Approach to Sluicing

Cited by 63 publications

References 48 publications

Make Short Answers Shorter: Support for the In Situ Approach

Make Short Answers Shorter: Support for the In Situ Approach

Antecedent‐Contained Deletion in Japanese: Support for the VP‐Ellipsis Analysis

Wh‐in‐Situ

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About