Syntactic Theory Ellipsis: VP , pseudogapping, gapping, sluicing Clayton Greenberg Department of Language Science and Technology, Saarland University 26 January 2017 C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 1 / 16
How to read these slides Green: important terms Blue: definitions Blue ≈ : approximate definitions Purple: acceptable examples Red: unacceptable examples *Starred ungrammatical examples Italic naturally unpronounced elements Strike-out elements that were deleted C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 2 / 16
Green statements (partial) Ungrammatical : blocked by specific mechanisms of the grammar Condition A : anaphors must be bound in binding domain Condition B : pronouns must NOT be bound in binding domain Condition C : R-expressions cannot be bound at all PRO : Caseless ⇒ no binding domain, unpronounced c-command : your sister(s) and their children uttered position � = interpret position Displacement : Structure-sharing : dependent on multiple heads (positions) subject gets θ -role at spec-VP VP-internal subjects : , Case at spec-TP Spell-Out : where LF and PF diverge Question at LF : quantifier, domain, predicate Subjacency : don’t cross > 1 bounding domain Obligatory control : matrix subject must = embedded subject Non-obligatory control : matrix subject may = embedded subject matrix subject must � = embedded subject Blocked control : C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 3 / 16
4 types of ellipsis 1 VP-ellipsis: a full, non-finite VP is omitted from PF (elided) She will [ VP hive-five Daniel], but I won’t [ VP high five Daniel]. 2 Pseudogapping: part of a non-finite VP is elided She will [ VP high-five Daniel], but she won’t [ VP high-five Samson]. 3 Gapping: T and V (and adjuncts) are elided from non-initial conjuncts Some [ T ′ have high-fived Daniel] and others [ T ′ have high-fived Ben]. 4 Sluicing: all but wh-word elided from consituent question She will high-five someone, but I don’t know [ CP who she will high-five]. C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 4 / 16
A theoretical motivation question Does the ellipsis site bear semantic and phonetic features at Spell-Out? • If yes, they must be deleted at PF: Deletion Hypothesis • If no, semantic features must be added at LF: Interpretation Hypothesis C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 5 / 16
VP-ellipsis with the deletion hypothesis TP TP CC TP but T ′ T ′ NP NP she I T VP T VP will V NP won’t V NP high-five Daniel high-five Daniel C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 6 / 16
VP-ellipsis with the interpretation hypothesis TP TP CC TP T ′ but T ′ NP NP T VP I she T VP i won’t e i will V NP high-five Daniel C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 7 / 16
The big problem with VP-ellipsis TP T ′ NP Ryan T VP i -past V NP kissed N CP everyone C TP T ′ that NP T VP Steven did e i C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 8 / 16
What are our options? Does the ellipsis site bear semantic and phonetic features at Spell-Out? • If yes, the string to delete contains the antecedent ⇒ Antecedent Contained Deletion or ACD = • If no, the interpretation function creates a new gap ⇒ infinite regress = C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 9 / 16
Some solutions • Prepose the quantified NP (May 1985) Jorge thought he kissed everyone that Kevin did [ VP e ]. Everyone that Kevin did, Jorge thought he kissed For every person x such that Kevin thought he kissed x, Jorge thought he kissed x. • Extrapose the relative clause (Baltin 1987) Jorge j [thought he [[everyone that Kevin did [e]] i [ VP t j [ VP kissed t i ]]] The man [ CP who/that/ / 0 [ TP Mary asked about]] [ VP finally showed up] The man [ VP finally showed up [ CP who/that/ / 0 [ TP Mary asked about]] I visited everyone [ CP who/that/ / 0 [ TP you did]]] • Invent / repurpose a spec position (Hornstein 1994) C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 10 / 16
Strict and sloppy interpretation Charles scratched his arm and Devin did too. Sloppy: Charles i scratched his i arm and Devin j scratched his j arm, too. Strict: Charles i scratched his i arm and Devin j scratched his i arm, too. C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 11 / 16
Sluicing and ACD TP T ′ NP John T VP was V ′ PP V NP P CP kissing someone without C TP 0 / T ′ NP PRO T VP -pres V NP knowing N CP who C ′ NP who C TP 0 / T ′ NP John T VP V NP was kissing who C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 12 / 16
VP-ellipsis and island constraints • The man who didn’t leave knows the man who did. • John didn’t immediately open the door– first he shut the window, then he did. • We left before they started playing party games. *What did you leave before they started playing? *What did you leave before they did? • *Devin suspected everyone that Casey believed the claim that Eric did. C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 13 / 16
VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping are in complementary distribution. • She will [ VP high-five Daniel], but I won’t [ VP high five Daniel]. • *She will [ VP high-five Daniel], but I won’t [ VP high-five Daniel]. • She will [ VP high-five Daniel], but she won’t [ VP high-five Samson]. C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 14 / 16
VP-ellipsis and gapping VP-ellipsis and gapping block each other? = ⇒ they are not-related. • Ben [ T ′ might shower], but Jack [ T ′ can’t shower], and Austin [ T ′ can’t get dressed]. • Ben [ T ′ might shower], but Jack [ T ′ can’t [ VP e ], and Austin [ T ′ can’t get dressed]. • Ben [ T ′ might shower], but Jack [ T ′ can’t shower] or Austin e get dressed]. • Ben [ T ′ might shower], but Jack [ T ′ can’t [ VP e ] or Austin e get dressed]. C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 15 / 16
Utterance boundaries • Sluicing: Someone is at the door. Guess who is at the door. • VP-ellipsis / pseudogapping: A: Who can go to the store? B: John can go to the store. • Gapping: A: Did Kevin go to the store? B: *No, Owen to the supermarket. • Comparative deletion: A: Did Matt see cows? B: Yes, but Jack saw more horses than Eric saw. C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Ellipsis 26 January 2017 16 / 16
Recommend
More recommend
