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. 23, No. 0, pp.642-657
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Jan 2023
Received 24 Jul 2023 Revised 09 Aug 2023 Accepted 14 Aug 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202308.642

Clausal Ellipsis and Non-Simultaneous Transfer

Haewon Jeon
Lecturer, Pukyong National Univ. Department of English Language and Literature hwjeon@pknu.ac.kr


© 2023 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Diverse theories have employed elliptical constructions as testing grounds to investigate the nature of the various postulated components of grammar, including interactions between syntax, phonology, and semantics. We present a unified account of clausal ellipsis for Sluicing and Fragment answers in English, as well as Fragmentary Questions in Korean and Japanese. We propose an assumption as to how it can be implemented in the current syntactic framework. In accordance with Non-Simultaneous Transfer (Felser 2004, Wurmbrand and Bobaljik 2003, Citko 2014, Marušič 2005, 2009), each element contributing to the derivation must be pronounced and interpreted during the different phases. A Non-Simultaneous Transfer system is a plausible explanation for why the locations for transferring resultant items to both interfaces (Sensorimotor system Interface and Conceptual-Intentional Interface) are distinct. This article is an attempt to bring together research on clausal ellipsis and current syntactic theory, specifically Minimalism.

Keywords:

clausal ellipsis, fragmentary answers, sluicing, fragmentary questions, non-simultaneous transfer, minimalism, interfaces

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at 2019 NGC&FLC 3rd Joint Conference and the 2023 spring Conference of KASELL.

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A5B5A17090734).

References

  • Aelbrecht, L. 2010. The syntactic licensing of ellipsis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.149]
  • Aelbrecht, L. 2016. What Ellipsis can do for phases and What it can’t, but not How. The Linguistic Review 33(4), 453-482. [https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2016-0011]
  • Baltin, M. 2010. The nonreality of doubly filled comps. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 331-335. [https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.331]
  • Boeckx, C., and K. K. Grohmann. 2007. Remark: Putting phases in perspective. Syntax 10(2), 204-222. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00098.x]
  • Constant, N. 2014. Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA.
  • Cho, S-Y. 2016. Fragment answers in Korean: A direct interpretation approach. Linguistic Research 33, 229-257 [https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.33.2.201606.003]
  • Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz and K. Hale, eds., A Life in Language, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2005. Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1), 1-22. [https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655]
  • Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of Projection: Extensions. In E. D. Domenico, C. Hamann, and S. Matteini, eds., Structures, Strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 1-16. John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.01cho]
  • Chomsky, N. 2020. Minimalism: Where we are now, and where we are going. In Lecture at 161st meeting of Linguistic Society of Japan. Available online at https://www.youtube.com/watch, (Vol. 4).
  • Chomsky, N. 2023. Genuine explanation and the strong minimalist thesis. Cognitive Semantics 8(3), 347-365. [https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10040]
  • Chomsky, N., and H, Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. syntax 1, 506-569. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110095869.1.9.506]
  • Citko, B. 2014. Phase Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139644037]
  • Culicover, P.W. and R, Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001]
  • Felser, C. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114, 543-574 [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00054-8]
  • Gengel, K. 2007. Focus and ellipsis: A generative analysis of pseudogapping and other elliptical structures. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
  • Ginzburg, J. and I. Sag. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI
  • Grebenyova, L. 2007. Sluicing in Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 15, 49-80.
  • Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundation of Language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Johnson, K. 2001. What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What it Can't, but Not Why. In M. Baltin and C. Collins, eds., The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 439-479. Blackwell, Malden, MA. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756416.ch14]
  • Jeon, H. 2019. Fragment Questions in Korean and Non-Simultaneous Transfer, Proceedings of the 3rd Joint Conference on Linguistics of Neo-Grammar Circle & Fukuoka Linguistics, 1-20.
  • Jeon, H. 2022. The Syntactic Nature of Remnants in Fragment Questions in Korean. Journal of Language Science 29(3), 111-132. [https://doi.org/10.14384/kals.2022.29.3.111]
  • Li, H. 2016. Fragment questions: Deleting question items. NELS 46, 279-292.
  • Lobeck, A. 1990. Functional Heads as Proper Governors. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 20, 348-362.
  • Lobeck, A. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Maeda, M. 2019. Fragmentary Questions and the Left Periphery in Japanese, Proceedings of the 2nd Joint Conference on Linguistics of Neo-Grammar Circle & Fukuoka Linguistics, 30-49.
  • Maeda, M. and H. Jeon. 2019. Fragmentary Questions in Japanese and Korean, Proceedings of the 12th Generative Linguistics in the Old World in Asia & the 21st Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, 173-191.
  • Marušič, F. 2005. On Non-Simultaneous Phases. Doctoral dissertation, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
  • Marušič, F. 2009. Non-simultaneous spell-out in the clausal and nominal domain. Interphases, 151-181.
  • Matushansky, O. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1), 69-109. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321184]
  • Merchant, J. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661-738. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3]
  • Merchant, J. 2005. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661-738. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3]
  • Merchant, J. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In. K. Johnson, ed., Topics in ellipsis, 132-153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487033.006]
  • Merchant, J. 2013. Diagnosing ellipsis. In L. L Cheng and C. Norbert, eds., Diagnosing syntax, 537-542. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602490.003.0026]
  • Morgan, J. 1989. Sentence fragments revisited. In M. Bradley, G. Randolph, and W. Caroline, eds., CLS 25: Parasession on language in context, 228-241. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
  • Nakamura, M. 2013. On clausal ellipsis in Japanese. The Annual Bulletin of Humanities: 141-170
  • Nissenbaum, J. 2000. Investigations of Covert Phrase Movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Ott, D. 2014. An Ellipsis Approach to Contrastive Left-Dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2), 269-303. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00155]
  • Ott, D., and V. Struckmeier, 2018. Particles and deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 49(2), 393-407. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00277]
  • Progovac, L. 2006. Small clauses and phrases at the root. In L. Progovac, K. Paesani, E. Casielles and E.Barton, eds., The Syntax of Nonsententials, 33-72. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.93]
  • Reich, I. 2007. Toward a uniform analysis of short answers and gapping. In S. Winkler and K. Schwabe, eds., Information Structure, Meaning and Form, 467–484. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.25rei]
  • Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman, ed., Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7]
  • Romero, M. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA.
  • Rooth, M. 1992. Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop 29, 1-26
  • Ross, J. R. 2012. Guess who? In J. Merchant and A. Simpson, eds., Sluicing: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, 14-39. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645763.003.0002]
  • Sauerland, U. 2005. DP is Not a Scope Island. Linguistic Inquiry 36(2), 303-314. [https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389053710657]
  • Sauerland, U. and P. Elbourne. 2002. Total Reconstruction, PF Movement, and Derivational Order. Linguistics Inquiry 33(2), 283-319. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902317406722]
  • Shim, J-Y. 2022. Transfer and dynamic Access. The Journal of Linguistic Science 101, 23-40. [https://doi.org/10.21296/jls.2022.6.101.23]
  • Takita, K., N. Goto, and Y.Shibata. 2016. Labeling through Spell-Out, The Linguistic Review 33(1), 177-198. [https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0018]
  • Uriagereka, J. 1999. Multiple Spell-Out. In S. Epstein and N. Hornstein, eds., Working Minimalism, 251-282. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Van Craenenbroeck, J. and M. den Dikken. 2006. Ellipsis and EPP repair, Linguistic Inquiry 37(4),653-664. [https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.653]
  • Van Craenenbroeck, J. 2004. Ellipsis in Dutch dialects. Utrecht: LOT.
  • Van Craenenbroeck, J. 2012. Ellipsis, identity, and accommodation. Unpublished manuscript, CRISSP/HUB/KUL/Brussels.
  • Wei, T-C. 2013. Fragment question and ellipsis in Chinese. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 34, 151-198
  • Weir, A. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
  • Winkler, S. 2013. Syntactic diagnostics for extraction of focus from ellipsis site, In L. L Cheng and C. Norbert, eds., Diagnosing syntax,463-484. Oxford: Oxford University Press [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602490.003.0023]
  • Yoo, E-j. 2013. A base-generated fragment approach to sluicing constructions. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 21(4), 27-56.