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. 1294-1312
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Received 15 Nov 2021 Revised 20 Dec 2021 Accepted 27 Dec 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202112.1294

Fragment Answers with Correction: A Direct Interpretation Approach
Jong-Bok Kim
Professor, Dept. of English Linguistics and English Literature, Kyung Hee University, Tel: 02) 961-0892 (jongbok@khu.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

Fragment answers have received much attention as a type of elliptical constructions and often been taken as involving move-cum-deletion processes from a sentential source. This sentential approach is challenged by the fragment answer followed by correction (e.g., A: Where are you running to? B: To school, but I am not running) since its putative sentential source would contradict with the statement of correction following the source. This paper reviews three possible directions to account for such a form-function mismatch phenomenon and suggests that a direction interpretation approach referring to a structured discourse can offer a more viable analysis than a quotation-based sentential analysis.

Keywords: fragment answer, correction, Pom Pom dialogue, direct interpretation, question-under-discussion, mixed quotation
Acknowledgments

I thank helpful comments from the anonymous reviewers of this journal.

References
1. Barros, Matthew. 2014. Sluicing and Identity in Ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.
2. Barton, Ellen. 1990. Nonsentential Constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3. Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1), 511-545.
4. Craenenbroeck, Jeroen Van. 2010. Invisible last resort: a note on clefts as the underlying source for sluicing. Lingua 120, 1714-1726.
5. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray S. Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Davidson, Donald. 1979. Quotation. Theory and Decision 11, 27-40.
7. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2012. The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Ginzburg, Jonathan and Ivan A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives (CSLI Lecture Notes 123). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
9. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
10. Hamblin, Charles. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1), 41-53.
11. Hankamer, Jorge. 1979. Deletion in Coordinate Structures. New York: Garland.
12. Jacobson, Pauline. 2016. The short answer: implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa). Language 92(2), 331-375.
13. Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3-44.
14. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2015a. Fragments in Korean: A direct interpretation approach. Studies in Generative Grammar 25(3), 703-733.
15. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2015b. Syntactic and semantic identity in Korean sluicing: A direct interpretation approach. Lingua 166(B), 260-293.
16. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2016a. Copular constructions and asymmetries in the specificational pseudocleft constructions in Korean. Language and Linguistics 17(1), 89-112.
17. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2016b. The Syntactic Structures of Korean: A Construction-based Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Kim, Jong-Bok and Anne Abeillé. 2019. Why-stripping in English. Linguistic Research 36(3), 365-387.
19. Krifka, Menfred. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In C. Féry and W. Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
20. Larsson, Staffan, Robin Cooper, Robin Cooper, Elisabet Engdahl and Elisabet Engdahl. 2000. Question accommodation and information states in dialogue. In In Third Workshop in Human-Computer Conversation, Bellagio.
21. Leusen, Noor van. 1994. The interpretation of corrections. In Focus and Natural Language Processing. IBM.
22. Lipták, Anikó. 2020. Fragments with correction. Linguistic Inquiry 51(1), 154-167.
23. Maier, Emar. 2014. Mixed quotation: the grammar of apparently transparent opacity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(7), 1-67.
24. Merchant, Jason. 2005. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(6), 661-738.
25. Morgan, Jerry. 1989. Sentence fragments revisited. In Bradley Music, Randolph Graczyk and Caroline Wiltshire (Eds.), Cls 25: Papers from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 228-241. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
26. Sag, Ivan A. and Joanna Nykiel. 2011. Remarks on sluicing. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 188-298. Stanford CSLI Publications.
27. Thoms, Gary. 2015. Syntactic identity, parallelism and accommodated antecedents. Lingua 166, 172-198.
28. Weir, Andrew. 2014. Fragments and Clausal Ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.