The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23
[Paper List] [Goto Volume List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23, No. 0, pp. 1060-1076
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Received 18 Aug 2023 Revised 31 Aug 2023 Accepted 04 Nov 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202311.1060

On Repair of the Subject Condition Violations by Parasitic Gaps
Sun-woong Kim ; Gui-Sun Moon ; Seunghan Shin ; Inam Ullah
(First Author) Professor, Department of English and Industry Kwangwoon University (swkim@kw.ac.kr)
(Corresponding Author) Professor Emeritus, School of Creative Humanities, English Language Studies Hansung University (sunmoon@hansung.ac.kr)
(Co-author) Professor, Department of English and Industry Kwangwoon University (sshan@kw.ac.kr)
(Co-author) Doctoral Student, Department of English and Industry Kwangwoon University (mhnomi77@gmail.com)


© 2023 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.
Funding Information ▼
Abstract

This paper discusses the claim that parasitic gaps can repair otherwise ungrammatical strings to make them better. Culicover and Winkler (2022) argue that the so-called repair by parasitic gaps (RPG) effect is nothing but a syntactic illusion; rather, it should be perceived as a mechanism aimed at diminishing the burden of more resource-intensive processing. They demonstrate that grammaticality is enhanced by replacing the real gap in the subject with a parasitic gap and placing the real gap in a position previously occupied by the "uninvited guest" in the matrix clause. This paper shows that their uninvited guest hypothesis has both over and undergeneration problems. To overcome the difficulties, this paper argues that syntactic analysis is more plausible from derivational perspectives. In particular, this paper proposes that the derivationally dynamic phasehood can provide a better solution to the effect that can further cover the examples with strong island constraints like the LBC and the Adjunct Condition. In the end, if the findings of this paper prove to be accurate, it contributes to the ongoing endeavor of integrating discourse-pragmatic factors into syntax. This integration leads to what can be seen as syntacticization, representing an advanced stage of autonomous syntax.

Keywords: repair by parasitic gaps, subject, processing cost, uninvited guest, dynamic phasehood, discourse-pragmatic factors, syntacticization
Acknowledgments

The earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2023 Summer Conference of KASELL at Korea University. The authors owe much to the audience for their questions and comments. Special thanks go to two anonymous reviewers of Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2022S1A5A2A01038247) to the first author

References
1. Arregi, K. and A. Murphy. 2022. Argument-internal parasitic gaps. Ms. The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, U.S.A.
2. Bach E. and G. M. Horn. 1976. Remarks on “conditions on transformations.” Linguistic Inquiry 7(2), 265-299.
3. Bošković , Ž. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? Proceedings of NELS 37, 1-14.
4. Bošković, Ž. 2012a. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, U.S.A.
5. Bošković, Ž. 2012b. On NPs and clauses. In G. Grewendorf and T. E. Zimmermann, eds., Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories, 179-242. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
6. Bošković, Ž. 2023. On wh and subject positions, the EPP, and contextuality of syntax. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, U.S.A.
7. Browning M. 1987. Null operator constructions. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. U.S.A.
8. Chaves, R. P. and J. E. Dery. 2018. Frequency effects in subject islands. Journal of Linguistics 55(3), 475-521.
9. Chaves, R. 2012. On the grammar extraction and coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Philosophy 30(2), 465-512.
10. Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
11. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
12. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
13. Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, 136-166. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
14. Cinque, G, ed., 2002. Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Culicover, P. W. and S. Winkler. 2022. Parasitic gaps aren’t parasitic, or, the case of the uninvited guest. The Linguistic Review 39(11), 1-35.
16. Deane, P. D. 1992. Grammar in Mind and Brain: Explorations in Cognitive Syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter.
17. den Dikken, M. 2006. Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
18. den Dikken, M. 2007. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1), 1-41.
19. den Dikken, M. 2017. Predication in the syntax of hyperraising and copy raising. Acta Linguistica Academia 64(1), 3-43.
20. Engdahl, E. 1983. Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6(1), 3-34.
21. Erteschik-Shir, N. 1981. More on extractability from quasi-NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 665-670.
22. Grohmann, K. 2003. Prolific Domains: On the Anti-locality of Movement Dependencies. New York: John Benjamins.
23. Haegeman, L. and V. Hill. 2013. The syntacticization of discourse. In A. Folli, C. Sevdali and R. Truswell, eds., Syntax and Its Limits, 370-390. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Kehler, A. 2001. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
25. Kuno, S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
26. Lakoff, G. and Chicago Linguistic Society. 1986. Frame Semantic Control of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Berkeley: UC Berkeley.
27. Miyagawa, S. and V. Hill. To appear. Commitment phrase: Linking proposition to illocutionary force. Linguistic Inquiry.
28. Overfelt, J. 2015. Unbounded successive-cyclic rightward DP-movement. Lingua 162, 1-31.
29. Rizzi, L. ed. 2004. The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, New York: Oxford University Press.
30. Ross, J. R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In R. A. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar 222-227. Waltham, MA: Ginn.
31. Speas, P. and C. Tenny, 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In A. M. Disciullo, ed., Linguistics Today Asymmetry in Grammar, 315-344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32. Tanaka, H. 2011. Voice mismatch and syntactic identity. Linguistic Inquiry 42(3), 470-490.
33. Wei, T.-C. 2011. Island repair effects of the Left Branch Condition in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 20(3), 255-289.
34. Wiltschko, M. 2021. The Grammar of Interactional Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Wiltschko, M. 2022. Language is for thought and communication. Glossa 7(1).