The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21
[Paper List] [Goto Volume List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp. 1259-1271
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Received 04 Nov 2021 Revised 15 Dec 2021 Accepted 27 Dec 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202112.1259

Conjunction/Disjunction-Negation Scope Interaction under VP Ellipsis/Substitution and Stripping
Myung-Kwan Park ; Wooseung Lee
(1st author) Professor, Department of English Language, Dongguk University (parkmk@dgu.edu)
(corresponding author) Professor, Department of English Education, Konkuk University (wlee6@konkuk.ac.kr)


© 2021 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 scope interaction between negative elements and syndetic coordination in both anaphoric and non-anaphoric contexts. Specifically, we will go over how negation and coordinated constituents interact and yield relevant interpretation in anaphoric contexts such as VP ellipsis, substitution and Stripping, and non-anaphoric contexts. Based on the readings obtained in a variety of contexts, we reach the following three generalizations. [1] When a coordinated phrase is included in VP ellipsis or substitution, negation in this VP ellipsis/substitution preferentially yields a ‘neither’ reading. [2] Negation in Stripping contexts directly denies the meaning of the coordinators. [3] VPs in negative anaphoric contexts preserve the identical parallel scope when the preceding clausal negation preferentially produces a ‘not both’ reading in combination with conjunction; the preceding and the following negative clauses unmarkedly give rise to a ‘neither’ reading in the presence of disjunction. These generalizations suggest that De Morgan’s laws do not account for natural languages as they do work for propositional logic (cf. Gribanova 2013, Krivochen 2019).

Keywords: negation, VP ellipsis, substitution, Stripping, conjunction, disjunction, De Morgan’s laws
Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. Special thanks go to Prof. Yoongoo Philip Jung and Prof. Michael Barrie for their judgment on the data that require a great deal of care and attention. All errors are our responsibility.

References
1. Barker, C. 2013. Scopability and sluicing. Linguistics and Philosophy 36, 187-223.
2. Fiengo, R and R. May. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Fox, D. 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Fox, D and H. Lasnik. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: The difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 143-154.
5. Fox, D. and D. Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31, 1-46.
6. Gribanova, V. 2013. A new argument for verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 145-157.
7. Griffiths, J. and A. Liptak. 2014. Contrast and island-sensitivity in clausal ellipsis. Syntax 17, 189-234.
8. Hankamer, J. and I. A. Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391-426.
9. Hartman, J. 2011. The semantic uniformity of traces: Evidence from ellipsis parallelism. Linguistic Inquiry 42, 367-388.
10. Johnson, K. 1996/2003. In search of the middle field. Manuscript, UMass Amherst.
11. Krivochen, D. G. 2019. De Morgan’s laws and NEG-raising: a syntactic view. Linguistic Frontiers, 112-121.
12. Landau, I. 2021. Ellipsis with a coordinated antecedent: An alternative to V-stranding VP-ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 75(1), 1-23.
13. Larson, R. K. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3, 217-264.
14. Martins, A. M. 2020. Metalinguistic negation. In D. Viviane, and M. T. Espinal, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Negation, 349-368. Oxford University Press.
15. McCawley, J. D. 1991. Contrastive negation and metalinguistic negation. Chicago Linguistic Society 27: The Parasession on Negation, 189-206.
16. Muromatsu, K. 2005. Disjunction and negation: Their interaction in Japanese. Takushoku Language Studies, 1-23.
17. Muromatsu, K. 2007. The interaction of conjunction and negation. The Bulletin of the Institute of Human Sciences 7, 33-46. Toyo University.
18. Rooth, M. 1992. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart ellipsis workshop, In S. Berman and A. Hestvik, eds., 1-26. Stuttgart, Germany: Sonderforschungsbereich 340 “Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik,” Universitäten Stuttgart und Tübingen.
19. Rooth, M. and B. Partee. 1982. Conjunction, type ambiguity and wide scope or. In D. Flickenger, M. Macken and N. Wiegand, eds., Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 353-362. Stanford, CA: Linguistics Dept., Stanford University.
20. Sag, I. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
21. Szabolcsi, A. 2004. Positive polarity: Negative polarity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22, 409-452.
22. Szabolcsi, A. and B. Haddican. 2004. Conjunction meets negation: A study in crosslinguistic variation. Journal of Semantics 21, 219-249.
23. Wu, D. 2021. Syntax of negation in corrective “but” sentences. An abstract at the North East Linguistics Society 52 in 2021.
24. Zamparelli, R. 2019. Coordination. In P. Portner, C. Maienborn and von K. Heusinger, eds., Semantics: Sentence and Information Structure, 135-170. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.