Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.194-210
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2019
Received 10 May 2019 Revised 09 Jun 2019 Accepted 16 Jun 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.19.2.201906.194

Ellipsis and Replacement in Categorial Mismatch

Park, Myung-Kwan ; Choi, Sunjoo**
Professor, Department of English Dongguk University 30, 1-gil, Phil-dong-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul 04620, Korea parkmk@dgu.edu
**Ph.D. Candidate, Department of English Dongguk University 30, 1-gil, Phil-dong-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul 04620, Korea sunjoo@dgu.edu

** Park, Myung-Kwan is the first author, and Choi, Sunjoo is a Ph.D. candidate in English Linguistics.

Abstract

Park, Myung-Kwan and Sunjoo Choi. 2019. Ellipsis and replacement in categorial mismatch. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 19-2, 194-210. This paper investigates VP/NP Ellipsis/Replacement, concentrating on causative-inchoative alternation and categorial conversion contexts in English. In the former context, VP Ellipsis/Replacement can successfully apply to the VP headed by an inchoative in relation with a causative antecedent, and in fact it can only when the internal argument of the causative verb is identical in reference to that of the inchoative verb. It will be shown that the causativizing morpheme CAUSE as part of the decomposed structure of the causative verb blocks a bundling of the extended verbal projections, which invites a violation of identity in ellipsis and replacement. In the latter context, VP Ellipsis/Replacement and NP Ellipsis are allowed, but NP Replacement is not. The anaphoric one/ones is not permitted when it prevents a bundling of the extended nominal projections, thus failing to secure a right category for identity in replacement.

Keywords:

ellipsis, replacement, causative-inchoative alternation, categorial conversion, bundling, CAUSE, anaphoric one

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments and suggestions. All the remaining errors are, of course, ours.

References

  • Bouton, L. 1969. Identity constraints on the do so rule. Research on Language and Social Interaction 1, 231-247. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08351816909389118]
  • Hallman, P. 2013. Predication and movement in passive. Lingua 125, 76-94. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.002]
  • Houser, M., L. Mikkelsen and M. Toosarvandani. 2007. Verb phrase pronominalization in Danish: Deep or surface anaphor? Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Western Conference on Linguistics, 183-195.
  • Houser, M. 2010. The Syntax and Semantics of Anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
  • Kehler, A. and G. Ward. 1999. On the semantics and pragmatics of identifier so. In K. Turner, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, 233-256. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Kiparsky, P. 1982a. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, eds., The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part 1(linguistic models), 131-175. Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Kiparsky, P. 1982b. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, Vol. 1, 3-91. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
  • Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Merchant, J. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 77-108. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00120]
  • Pylkkänen, L. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
  • Sag, I. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
  • Sato, Y. 2018. Category mismatch under ellipsis: Implications for the morphosyntax and directionality of conversion. Paper presented at Sogang University Workshop.
  • Stroik, T. 2001. On the light verb hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 362-369. [https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2001.32.2.362]
  • Sugimoto, K. 2018. An argument structure alternation of change-of-state verbs under VP deletion. JELS 35, 145-151.
  • Tan, H. 2018. Category mismatch in VP-ellipsis. Ms. National University of Singapore.
  • Ward, G. and A. Kehler. 2005. Syntactic form and discourse accessibility. In A. Branco et al., eds., Anaphora Processing: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Modelling, 365-384. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.263.21war]