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.1353-1371
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24..202412.1353

Remarks on the Corrective But Construction

Bum-Sik Park ; Sei-Rang Oh ; Philip Yoongoo Jung
(First author) Professor, Dongguk University bumsikpark@dongguk.edu
(Corresponding author) Professor, Gyeongsang National University seirangoh@gnu.ac.kr
Ph.D. Candidate, Dongguk University yoongoo.jung@gmail.com


© 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 paper discusses the two types of corrective but construction in English: the anchored form and the basic form (McCawley 1991, 1998). Toosarvandani (2013) claims that the anchored form (e.g., John didn’t drink coffee, but tea) invariably involves vP-coordination and vP-ellipsis. However, challenging this claim, we argue that the derivational possibilities of the anchored form are contingent on the types of negation. In particular, we show that while the anchored form with constituent negation can involve vP-coordination in certain contexts, the one with sentential negation cannot. In line with previous analyses (McCawley 1998, Park et al. 2021a, Vicente 2010), we further demonstrate that the anchored form can involve coordination of larger constituents such as TP and T’, to which certain ellipsis processes apply (such as clausal ellipsis and Left-Edge Ellipsis). Regarding the basic form (e.g., John drank not coffee but tea), we argue that it can also involve TP and T’-coordination and can be derived in the same way as the anchored form. However, irrespective of the type of negation, it cannot involve vP-coordination, unlike the anchored form. Our discussion of the two types of the corrective but construction has certain implications for identity/recoverability on ellipsis. Observing that negation can be disregarded for the purpose of identity/recoverability, we suggest that this effect arises from a unique restriction in the corrective but construction, one that requires both conjuncts to bear opposite polarity.

Keywords:

corrective but, anchored form, basic form, coordination, negation, ellipsis, identity

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the two anonymous reviewers of Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

  • Bay, L. 2018. The Ruthless Gentleman. https://bookreadfree.com/162356/4013635
  • Beavers, J. and I. Sag. 2004. Ellipsis and apparent non-constituent coordination. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI. [https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2004.3]
  • Beck, S. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics 4, 1-56. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00263536]
  • Beck, S. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14, 1-56. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y]
  • Bianchi, V. and R. Zamparelli. 2004. Edge coordinations: focus and conjunction Reduction. In D. Adger, C. de Cat and G. Tsoulas, eds., Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and Their Effects, 313-327. Kluwer Academic. [https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-1910-6_13]
  • Bruening, B. 2014. Precede-and-command revisited. Language 90(2), 342-388. [https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0037]
  • Cable, S. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-particles, Wh-movement, and Pied-piping. Oxford University Press.
  • Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann, eds., Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 506-569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110095869.1.9.506]
  • Gengel, K. 2007. Focus and Ellipsis: A Generative Analysis of Pseudogapping and Other Elliptical Structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
  • Gutzmann, D., H. Harmann and L. Mattewson. 2020. Verum focus is verum, not focus: Cross-linguistic evidence. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1), 1-48. [https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.347]
  • Hofmeister, P. 2010. A linearization account of either ... or constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28, 275-314. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9090-4]
  • Höhle, T. N. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In J. Jacobs, ed., Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, 112-141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_5]
  • Holmberg, A. 2016. The Syntax of Yes and No. Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701859.001.0001]
  • Fox, D. 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. MIT Press.
  • Kennedy, C. 1997. Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 662-688.
  • Kotek, H. 2019. Composing Questions. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs series. MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10774.001.0001]
  • Laka, I. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
  • Lasnik, H. 1995. A note on Pseudogapping. In R. Pensalfini and H. Ura, eds., MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27, 143-163. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
  • Levine, R. D. 2011. Linearization and its discontents. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2011), 126-146. [https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2011.8]
  • May, R. 1985. Logical From: Its Structure and Derivation. MIT Press.
  • Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001]
  • Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661-738. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3]
  • McCawley, J. D. 1991. Contrastive negation and metalinguistic negation. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 27, 189-206. Chicago Linguistic Society.
  • McCawley, J. D. 1998. The Syntactic Phenomena of English (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
  • Park, B.-S., P. Y. Jung and S.-R. Oh. 2021a. Ways of deriving the anchored form of the corrective but construction in English. The Journal of Linguistic Science 98, 101-126. [https://doi.org/10.21296/jls.2021.9.98.101]
  • Park, B.-S., P. Y. Jung and S.-R. Oh. 2021b. Contrastive negation, emphatic do and left-edge ellipsis. Studies in Generative Grammar 31(3), 451-467.
  • Park, B.-S., P. Y. Jung and S.-R. Oh. 2024. Intervention effects in the corrective but construction. Language and Linguistics 106, 27-49. [https://doi.org/10.20865/202410602]
  • Park, B.-S. and H. Yang. 2022. On negative answers to polar questions in English. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 47(4), 705-725.
  • Park, B.-S., H. Yang and R. Ma. 2023. Negative answers to negative polar questions in Chinese. ms. Dongguk University.
  • Pesetsky, D. 2000. Phrasal Movement and its Kin. MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5365.001.0001]
  • Prudente, V. 2024. The Essence and Duke Elligton. Austin Macauley Publishers.
  • Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
  • Sailor, C. and G. Thoms. 2013. On the non-existence of non-constituent coordination and non-constituent ellipsis. In Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 361-370.
  • Sag, I. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
  • Toosarvandani, M. 2013. Corrective but coordinates clauses not always but sometimes. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31, 827-863.
  • van Oirsouw, R. R. 1987. The Syntax of Coordination. Croom Helm.
  • Vicente, L. 2010. On the syntax of adversative coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28, 381-415.
  • Weir, A. 2020. Negative fragment answers. In V. Déprez and M. T. Espinal, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Negation. Oxford University Press.
  • Wexler, K. and P. Culicover. 1980. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. MIT Press.
  • Wilder, C. 1997a. English finite auxiliaries in syntax and phonology. In J. Black, ed., Clitics, Pronouns, and Movement, 321-362. Virginia Motapanyane and John Benjamins.
  • Wilder, C. 1997b. Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. In A. Artemis and T. A. Hall, eds., Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation, 59-107. John Benjamins.
  • Wilder, C. 2013. English ‘emphatic do’. Lingua 128, 142-171.
  • Wu, D. 2022. Syntax of negation in corrective but sentences. In Ö. Bakay, B. Pratley, E. Neu and P. Deal, eds., Proceeding of the Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 52, 241-253.