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. 25, No. 0, pp.804-818
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2025
Received 08 Mar 2025 Revised 13 May 2025 Accepted 19 May 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.25..202506.804

Rethinking Locative Inversion and Pseudo-locative Inversion: EPP Satisfaction as the Key to Polarity Focus and VP Ellipsis

Suyoung Bae ; Myung-Kwan Park
(First author) Assistant Professor, Department of English Language & Literature Cheonju University sybae@cju.ac.kr
(Co-author) Professor, Department of English Dongguk university. parkmk@dongguk.edu


© 2025 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 investigates a fundamental asymmetry between Locative Inversion (LI) and Pseudo-locative Inversion (PI) constructions in English: only PI constructions are compatible with VP ellipsis, despite their structural similarities. Previous accounts have struggled to explain why PI allows polarity focus and VP ellipsis, whereas LI does not. This study offers a novel explanation by demonstrating that the key distinction lies in how the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) is satisfied, which shapes both the syntactic structure and information structure of these constructions. Specifically, it argues that while PI constructions fulfill the EPP through the insertion of the expletive there in Spec-TP, allowing TP to function as a complete predicative domain and enabling polarity focus, LI constructions rely on Edge Feature (EF)-driven movement. In LI, the locative phrase temporarily occupies Spec-TP before moving to the left periphery, leaving the predicative domain incomplete and blocking polarity focus. Empirical evidence from various inversion constructions, including Negative Inversion, So-Inversion, and Comparative Inversion, supports this analysis by demonstrating that filling Spec-TP is essential for establishing a subject-predicate relation, enabling polarity focus, and licensing VP ellipsis. The findings contribute to the broader theoretical understanding of how syntactic derivations influence information structure, challenging discourse-driven explanations. This research underscores the syntactic basis of polarity focus licensing and offers a unified account of LI and PI constructions within the Minimalist framework.

Keywords:

locative inversion, pseudo-locative inversion, extended projection pinciple, polarity focus, VP ellipsis

References

  • Birner, B. J. and G. Ward. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English, John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.40]
  • Bresnan, J. 1994. Locative inversion and the architecture of universal grammar. Language 70, 72-131. [https://doi.org/10.2307/416741]
  • Bresnan, J. 1995. Category mismatches. In A. Akinlabi, ed., Theoretical Approaches to African Linguistics, 19-46. African World Press.
  • Bruening, B. 2010. Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English locative inversion and ‘do’-support. Language 86(1), 43-84. [https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0201]
  • Choi, S. and M-K. Park. 2021. When VP ellipsis is bled: Locative inversion and specificational copulars. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 21, 472-486.
  • Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. 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, 89-156. MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1-22. [https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655]
  • Culicover, P. and R D. Levine. 2001. Stylistic inversion in English: A reconsideration. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 283-310. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010646417840]
  • Culicover, P. W. and S. Winkler. 2008. English focus inversion. Journal of Linguistics 44, 625-658. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226708005343]
  • Erteschik-Shir, N. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface 3. Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199262588.001.0001]
  • Griffiths, J. and M. den Dikken. 2020. English VP ellipsis in unusual subject configurations: Reviving the Spec-Head Agreement approach. Ms., Universität Tübingen and SEAS/ELTE & RIL Budapest.
  • Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19, 377-417. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007799]
  • Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2007. Types of Focus in English. In C. Lee, M. Gordon and D. Büring, eds., Topic and Focus: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation, 83-100. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4796-1_5]
  • Höhle, T. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In J. Jacobs, ed., Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, 112-141. Westdeutscher Verlag. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_5]
  • Krifka, M, 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55, 243-276. [https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2]
  • Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational Phonology. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808814]
  • Lai, Catherine. 2012. Rises All the Way Up: The Interpretation of Prosody, Discourse Attitudes and Dialogue Structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
  • Lawler, J M. 1977. A agrees with b in Achenese: A problem for relational grammar. In P. Cole and J. M. Sadock, eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations, 219-248. Academic Press. [https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368866_010]
  • Leonetti, M. and V. Escandell-Vidal. 2009. Fronting and verum focus in Spanish. In A. Dufter and D. Jacob, eds., Focus and Background in Romance Languages, 155-204. John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.112.07leo]
  • López, L., 1995. Polarity and Predicate Anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
  • 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. 2003. Subject-auxiliary inversion in comparatives and PF output constraints. In The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures, 55-77. [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.61.04mer]
  • Merchant, J. 2005. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and philosophy 27, 661-738. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3]
  • Postal, P. 1977. About a ‘nonargument’ for raising. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 141-154.
  • Postal, P. 2004. A paradox in English syntax. Skeptical Linguistic Essays, 15-82. Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195166712.003.0002]
  • Potsdam, E. 1998. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. Garland.
  • Rizzi, L. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In L. Haegeman, ed., Elements of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7]
  • Rizzi, L. 2004. Locality and left periphery. Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, 223-251. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0008]
  • Romero, M and Han, C. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 609-658. [https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94]
  • Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  • Sailor, Craig. 2015. Polarity-driven inversion in British English and beyond. Ms.
  • Samko, Bern. 2015. The emphatic interpretation of English VP preposing. Paper presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the LSA. [https://doi.org/10.3765/exabs.v0i0.2991]
  • Samko, Bern. 2016. Verum focus in alternative semantics. Paper presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the LSA.
  • Wilder, Chris. 2013. English emphatic do. Lingua 128, 142-171. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.005]
  • Wood, J. 2008. So-inversion as polarity focus. In Proceedings of the 38th Western Conference on Linguistics 19, 304-317. California State University.