The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.194-218
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2018
Received 05 Nov 2017 Revised 05 May 2018 Accepted 15 Jun 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.18.2.201806.194

External Remerge and Parasitic Gap Constructions in English

Jong Un Park ; Myung-Kwan Park
Dept. of English Lang. & Lit. Dongguk University 123 Dongdae-ro, Gyeongju-si Gyeongbuk 38066, Tel: 054) 770-2126 jupark90@gmail.com
Division of English Dongguk University 30 Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-gu Seoul 04620, Tel: 02) 2260-3153

Abstract

Jong Un Park and Myung-Kwan Park. 2018. External Remerge and Parasitic Gap Constructions in English. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 18-2, 194-218. The goal of this paper is two-folded. First, it aims to provide an argument for the so-called 'non-separate chain approach' to Parasitic Gap constructions (PGCs) in English, by examining the patterns of anaphor reconstruction. Bruening and Khalaf (2017) show that an anaphor can reconstruct to both a parasitic gap (PG) and real gap (RG) position, and we take this finding as compelling evidence in favor of the 'non-separate chain' view. Secondly, this paper presents a derivational analysis of anaphor reconstruction. We argue that the 'symmetric' pattern of anaphor reconstruction can be derived by an External Remerge (ER)-based analysis of the kind suggested in Park et al. (2017). In so doing, we demonstrate that deep island effects, which are originally shown by Chung (2017) to be problematic for de Vries's (2013) ER analysis, can be successfully handled by Park et al.

Keywords:

External Remerge, parasitic gap constructions, anaphor reconstruction, deep island effects, improper movement

Acknowledgments

We’d like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on our paper. Of course, all remaining errors are ours

References

  • Barss, A. 1986. Chains and Anaphoric Dependence: On Reconstruction and its Implications (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.
  • Bruening, B. and E. A. Khalaf. 2017. Reconstruction and linear order in ATB movement and parasitic gap constructions. ms. University of Delaware and University of Jordan.
  • Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Contreras, H. 1984. A note on parasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 698-701.
  • Chung, D. 2017. Remarks on de Vries's (2013) derivation of the parasitic gap construction. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 17(1), 1-26. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.17.1.201703.1]
  • de Vries, M. 2009. On multidominance and linearization. Biolinguistics 3(4), 344-403.
  • de Vries, M. 2013. Multidominance and locality. Lingua 134, 149-169. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.005]
  • Haïk, I. 1985. The Syntax of Operators (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.
  • Hornstein, Norbert and Jairo Nunes. 2002. On asymmetries between parasitic gap and across-the-board constructions. Syntax 5, 26–54. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00046]
  • Kayne, R. 1983. Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 223-249.
  • Kearney, K. 1983. Governing categories. ms., University of Connecticut.
  • Levine, R. D., and T. E. Hukari. 2006. The Unity of Unbounded Dependency Constructions. Stanford: CSLI.
  • Levine, R. D., T. E. Hukari and M. Calcagno. 2001. Parasitic gaps in English: Some overlooked cases and their theoretical implications. In P. W. Culicover and P. M. Postal, eds., Parasitic Gaps, 181–222. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Nissenbaum, J. 2000. Investigations of covert phrase movement (Doctoral dissertation). MIT. Technology. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.
  • Nunes, J. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2), 303-344. [https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001780]
  • Nunes, J and J. Uriagereka. 2000: Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3, 20–43. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00023]
  • Park, J. U., M.-K. Park, and M. Barrie. 2017. External remerge and linearization in ATB, RNR and PG constructions. ms., Dongguk University and Sogang University.
  • Park, M.-K. 2006. Midway coordination: ATB and RNR vs. PG constructions in English. Language Research 42(2), 299-321.
  • Park, M.-K. 2010. The asymmetry in inflectional matching effects between ATB movement and RNR constructions: External Remerge and timing of Agree. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 10(3), 649-669. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.10.3.201009.649]
  • Pollard, C., and I. Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 261–303.
  • Postal, P. M. 1974. On Raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Postal, P. M. 1998. Three Investigations of Extraction: Current Studies in Linguistics Series 29. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Reinhart, T., and E. Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720.
  • Sag, I. 2007. Two kinds of ellipsis in English coordinate structures. Ms., Stanford University.
  • Williams, E. 1978. Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 31-43.
  • Williams, E. 1990. The ATB theory of parasitic gaps. The Linguistic Review 6, 265-279.