The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 20

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.475-495
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Mar 2020
Received 02 Jun 2020 Revised 23 Aug 2020 Accepted 23 Sep 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.20..202009.475

Mismatches in Ellipsis: Category Mismatch Asymmetry in English VP-ellipsis
Sun-Woong Kim
Kwangwoon University


Copyright 2020 KASELL
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Funding Information ▼

Abstract

This paper is purposed to explain the asymmetry of category mismatch in English VP-ellipsis and to argue that the simple set-theoretic comparison of inclusion (or containment) between the antecedent phrase and the elided phrase is neither sufficient nor necessary. The reason is explored for why the antecedent noun triggers VP-ellipsis in the subsequent clause, while the antecedent verb rarely triggers NP-ellipsis in the subsequent clause (Sato 2018). This paper looks for a syntactic answer to the question in the dynamicity of phase theory (Bošković 2014, den Dikken 2006, 2007, 2017). For a proper morphological derivation, the notation ([CAPITAL]) is adopted to denote the lexeme/root status of a lexical category. On top of it, to take care of the idea that only nouns of concealed polar interrogation can trigger VP-ellipsis (Miller and Hemforth 2014), PolP is located above VP in the second conjunct to carry polar properties (Culicover 1992, Laka 1990). If polarity is not involved, PolP is not needed because Pol is for a (concealed) yes/no question. Under the dynamic definition of phases, a phase and the complement of its head, but not the complement of a complement, are eligible for ellipsis (Bošković 2014). VP in the second clause can be elided if the clause has PolP because the VP counts as the complement of a phase PolP. In contrast, VP in the second clause cannot be elided without PolP, since it is not a complement but the complement of a complement of a phase. This explains why VP-ellipsis is not possible when the non-polar concealed questions of nominals are an antecedent. Regarding the opposite direction, differently from Sato’s analysis, this paper assumes that one is n, which is the head of nP. Above RP, NP, nP and DP are capped in a row to host lexical items. Here DP is a phase and NP is the complement of a complement, hence it is not elidable according to Bošković (2014). It will also be shown that the proposed analysis has a desirable consequence in that the syntactic behavior of other types of mismatch in ellipsis like voice mismatch, polarity mismatch, and type mismatch can be predicted.


Keywords: mismatch, category, VP-ellipsis, phase, dynamic phasehood

Acknowledgments

This paper has been greatly benefited by the discussion in the meetings of Dongguk Roundtable on Linguistics during 2018-20. An earlier version was presented in the Spring Joint Conference of Linguistics held in Chonbuk National University, May 16, 2020. The author appreciates their interest and comment on earlier versions of this paper. Three Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics reviewers thankfully provided valuable comments for improvement as well. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2019S1A5A2A01036282).


References
1. Abels, Klaus. 2003. Phase, cyclicity, and stranding. Handout given at the EPP Workshop, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
2. Aelbrecht, Lobke and William Harwood. 2015. To be or not to be elided: VP-ellipsis revisited. Lingua 153, 66-97.
3. Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, verb-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 491-539.
4. Baker, Carl L. 1968. Indirect Questions in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.
5. Bošković, Željiko. 2003. On PF merger: Stylistic fronting and object shift in Scandinavian. Gengo Kenkyu 123, 5-45.
6. Bošković, Željko. 2012. On NPs and clauses. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs.
7. Bošković, Željko. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45, 27-89.
8. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
9. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A life in language, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
10. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, ed., Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean Roger Vergnaud, 133-166. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.
11. Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 33–49.
12. Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa Di Omenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona Matteini, eds., Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honor of Adriana Belletti, 3–16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
13. Craenenbroeck, Jereon van, and Jason Merchant. 2013. Ellipsis Phenomena. In Marcel den Dikken, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, 701–745. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Culicover, Peter W. 1992. Polarity, inversion and focus in English. In Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 46-68. The Ohio State University.
15. den Dikken, M. 2006. Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
16. den Dikken, Marcel. 2007. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33, 1-41.
17. den Dikken, Marcel. 2017. Predication in the syntax of hyperraising and copy raising. Acta Linguistica Academica 64(1), 3–43.
18. Fiengo, Robert and Robert May. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
19. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific Domains: On the Anti-locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
20. Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning and Processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
21. Harwood, William. 2015. Being progressive is just a phase: Celebrating the uniqueness of progressive aspect under a phase-based analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33, 523-573.
22. Kehler, A. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
23. Kertz, L. 2012. Verb phrase ellipsis: The view from information structure. Language, 89, 390-428.
24. Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
25. Merchant, Jason. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Kyle Johnson, ed., Topics in ellipsis, 132–153. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
26. Miller, Philip and Barbara Hemforth. 2014. Verb phrase ellipsis with nominal antecedents. Ms., University of Paris Diderot.
27. Park, Myung-Kwan and Sunju Choi. 2019. Not voice but case match matters in VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping of English. Korean Journal of Linguistics 40(2), 169-189.
28. Potsdam, Eric. 1997. English verbal morphology and VP-ellipsis. NELS 27, 353-368.
29. Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou. 2001. The extended projection principle as a condition on the Tense-dependency. Ms., University of Stuttgart.
30. Roussou, Anna. 2002. C, T, and the subject: That-t phenomena revisited. Lingua 112, 13-52.
31. Sailor, Craig. 2014. The Variables of VP-ellipsis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UCLA.
32. Sato, Yusuke. 2018. Category mismatch under VP-ellipsis: Implications for the morphosyntax and directionality of conversion. Ms., Seisen University.
33. Tanaka, H. 2011. Voice mismatch and syntactic identity. Linguistic Inquiry 42, 470-490.
34. Thoms, Gary and George Walkden. 2019. VP-fronting with and without remnant movement. Journal of Linguistics 55, 161-214.
35. Warner, Anthony. 1985. The Structure of English Auxiliaries: A Phrase Structure Grammar. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.
36. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2017. Stripping and topless complements. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2), 341–366.

Sun-Woong Kim, ProfessorKwangwoon UniversityDepartment of English20 Kwangwoon-ro, Nowon-guSeoul, KoreaE-mail: swkim@kw.ac.kr