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. 24, No. 0, pp.1148-1163
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2024
Received 04 Jul 2024 Revised 02 Sep 2024 Accepted 23 Sep 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24..202410.1148

(Non-)Identity Reading Factors of an English Canonical ATB Construction under the Box System

Ick-Hee Ihm ; Ji-Yeoun Lee ; Haewon Jeon
(First author) Academic research professor, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies 2008764@hufs.ac.kr
(Co-author) Lecturer, Department of Enlgish Language and Literature Gyeongsang National University think2ce@naver.com
(Co-author) Academic research professor, Korea Maritime and Ocean University hwJeon@kmou.ac.kr


© 2024 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

This study examines the formation processes and readings of lexically singular wh-arguments and argumental wh-adjuncts in a canonical Across-The-Board (ATB) wh-question construction. The central argument of this research is threefold: (i) Chomsky’s (2023) Box System can offer a unified explanation for the formation processes of the construction; (ii) an identical reading arises from an internal merge of a wh-phrase within TP of each conjunct and c-command of a matrix C[Q]; and (iii) a non-identical reading arises from the position of & operator preceding or between two CPs.

Keywords:

across-the-board (ATB) construction, box system, internal merge, c-command configuration, & operator, (non-)identity reading

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2023 S1A5B5A16079970).

We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

  • Blümel, A. 2017. Symmetry, Shared Labels and Movement in Syntax. Berlin: de Gruyter. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110522518]
  • Bobaljik, J. D. and S. Brown. 1997. Head movement and the extension requirement. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 345-356.
  • Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of Projection: Extensions. In E. Domenico, H. Cornelia and S. Matteini, eds., Structures, Srategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of A. Belletti, 3-16. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.01cho]
  • Chomsky, N. 2021. Minimalism: Where are we now, and where can we hope to go. Gengo Kenkyu 160, 1-41.
  • Chomsky, N. 2022. Genuine Explanation and the Strong Minimalist Thesis. Cognitive Semantics 8(3), 347-365. [https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10040]
  • Chomsky, N. 2023a. The Miracle Creed and SMT. [Manuscript]. Available online at http://www.icl.keio.ac.jp/news/2023/Miracle%20Creed-SMT%20FINAL%20%2831%29%201-23.pdf, .
  • Chomsky, N., T. D. Seely, R. C. Berwick, S. Fong, M. A. C. Huijbregts, H. Kitahara, A. McInnerney and Y. Sugimoto. 2023. Merge and the Strong Minimalist Thesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009343244]
  • Citko, B. 2005. On the nature of merge: External merge, internal merge, and parallel merge. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4), 475-496. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464331]
  • Citko, B. 2011. Symmetry in Syntax: Merge, Move and Labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511794278]
  • Citko, B. and G.Y. Martina. 2016. Multiple (coordinated) (free) relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34, 393-427. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9306-8]
  • De Vries, M. 2017. Across‐the‐Board Phenomena. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 1-31. Oxford: Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom094]
  • Kiss, K. E. 1993. Wh-Movement and Specificity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 85-120. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993022]
  • Goodall, Gt. 1987. Parallel Structures in Syntax: Coordination, Causatives and Restructuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Goto, N. and I. Toru. 2022. Where Does Determinacy Apply? In Proceedings of Sophia University Linguistic Society 35, 23-41.
  • Goto, N. and I. Toru. 2023. Deriving ATB from Box System. In Proceedings of the 25th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, 1-21.
  • Grootveld, M. 1994. Parsing Coordination Generatively. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden, EZ Leiden The Netherlands.
  • Haïk, l. 1985. The Syntax of Operators. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Huang, James C. T. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Hornstein, N. and J. Nunes. 2002. On asymmetries between parasitic gap and across-the-board constructions. Syntax 5(1), 26-54. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00046]
  • Ihm, I.-H. 2023. Revision of Goto and Ishii(2022) and Its Implications. Journal of Language Sciences 30, 171-195. [https://doi.org/10.14384/kals.2023.30.4.171]
  • Kanno, S. 2008. On the Phasehood and Nonphasehood of CP. English Linguistics 25, 21-55. [https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.25.21]
  • Lee, K.-M. 2024. ATB Extraction in the Box System. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 24, 127-140. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24..202402.127]
  • Legate, J. A. 2012. The Size of Phases. In P. Gallego, ed., Phases. Berlin: de Gruyter. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110264104.233]
  • Moltmann, F. 1992. Coordination and Comparatives. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Mu’adz, H. 1991. Coordinate Structures: A Planar Representation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.
  • Munn, A. 1999. On the identity requirement of ATB movement. Natural Language Semantics 7(4), 421-425. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008377429394]
  • Park, M.-K. 2006. Midway Coordination: ATB and RNR vs. PG Constructions in English. Language Research 42(2), 299-321.
  • Park, M.-K. 2024. Providing a Box-Theoretic Account for Identity/ Non-Identity Readings in ATB/‘Respectively’ Constructions. Studies in Modern Grammar 122, 53-71. [https://doi.org/10.14342/smog.2024.122.53]
  • Postal, P. M.. 1998. Three Investigations of Extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6820.001.0001]
  • Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Salzmann, M. 2012a. A derivational ellipsis approach to ATB-movement. The linguistic Review 29(3), 397-438. [https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0015]
  • Salzmann, M. 2012b. Deriving reconstruction asymmetries in ATB-movement by means of asymmetric extraction + ellipsis. In P. Ackema, R. Alcorn, C. Heycock, D. Jaspers, J. Craenenbroek and G.V. Wyngaerd, eds., Comparative Germanic Syntax: The State of the Art, 353-385. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.191.12sal]
  • 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. [https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1987.6.3.265]
  • Winter, N. 2017. The Syntax of Coordinate Structure Complexes. Master’s thesis, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, USA.