A Q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: Deriving the preposition stranding and island sensitivity generalisations without movement

This paper argues that the meaning of a clausal ellipsis site can only be recovered from a 'syntactically derived question', regardless of whether this question is explicitly uttered or is merely pragmatically inferred. This entails that the meaning of a clausal ellipsis site cannot be rec...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: James Griffiths
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Open Library of Humanities 2019-01-01
Series:Glossa
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/653
id doaj-dfc457aa4e5c42a681f21fa4be5a93e0
record_format Article
spelling doaj-dfc457aa4e5c42a681f21fa4be5a93e02021-09-02T08:09:55ZengOpen Library of HumanitiesGlossa2397-18352019-01-014110.5334/gjgl.653317A Q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: Deriving the preposition stranding and island sensitivity generalisations without movementJames Griffiths0University of Konstanz, Universitätsstraße 10, 78464, KonstanzThis paper argues that the meaning of a clausal ellipsis site can only be recovered from a 'syntactically derived question', regardless of whether this question is explicitly uttered or is merely pragmatically inferred. This entails that the meaning of a clausal ellipsis site cannot be recovered from an inferred question 'q' in a language L if 'q' is syntactically ill-formed in L. I demonstrate that this restriction on recoverability can account for Merchant’s (2001; 2004) 'Preposition-Stranding Generalisation' and for the observation that fragments appear to be sensitive to syntactic islands (Merchant 2004; Abels 2011; Barros et al. 2014; 2015) without any mention of whether remnants of clausal ellipsis themselves undergo movement. Because there is no need to stipulate that remnants themselves undergo (often exceptional) movement under this approach, a theory of clausal ellipsis modelled on Cable’s (2010) Q-based analysis of 'wh'-questions is developed that permits non-pronunciation “around” designated phrases. This approach is shown to be preferred on many occasions to the predominant movement-based analysis (Merchant 2004), which is too restrictive and must frequently resort to the notion of 'ellipsis' repair.https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/653clausal ellipsisellipsis repairisland evasionpreposition stranding generalizationquestions under discussionrecoverabilitystructured meanings
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author James Griffiths
spellingShingle James Griffiths
A Q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: Deriving the preposition stranding and island sensitivity generalisations without movement
Glossa
clausal ellipsis
ellipsis repair
island evasion
preposition stranding generalization
questions under discussion
recoverability
structured meanings
author_facet James Griffiths
author_sort James Griffiths
title A Q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: Deriving the preposition stranding and island sensitivity generalisations without movement
title_short A Q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: Deriving the preposition stranding and island sensitivity generalisations without movement
title_full A Q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: Deriving the preposition stranding and island sensitivity generalisations without movement
title_fullStr A Q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: Deriving the preposition stranding and island sensitivity generalisations without movement
title_full_unstemmed A Q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: Deriving the preposition stranding and island sensitivity generalisations without movement
title_sort q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: deriving the preposition stranding and island sensitivity generalisations without movement
publisher Open Library of Humanities
series Glossa
issn 2397-1835
publishDate 2019-01-01
description This paper argues that the meaning of a clausal ellipsis site can only be recovered from a 'syntactically derived question', regardless of whether this question is explicitly uttered or is merely pragmatically inferred. This entails that the meaning of a clausal ellipsis site cannot be recovered from an inferred question 'q' in a language L if 'q' is syntactically ill-formed in L. I demonstrate that this restriction on recoverability can account for Merchant’s (2001; 2004) 'Preposition-Stranding Generalisation' and for the observation that fragments appear to be sensitive to syntactic islands (Merchant 2004; Abels 2011; Barros et al. 2014; 2015) without any mention of whether remnants of clausal ellipsis themselves undergo movement. Because there is no need to stipulate that remnants themselves undergo (often exceptional) movement under this approach, a theory of clausal ellipsis modelled on Cable’s (2010) Q-based analysis of 'wh'-questions is developed that permits non-pronunciation “around” designated phrases. This approach is shown to be preferred on many occasions to the predominant movement-based analysis (Merchant 2004), which is too restrictive and must frequently resort to the notion of 'ellipsis' repair.
topic clausal ellipsis
ellipsis repair
island evasion
preposition stranding generalization
questions under discussion
recoverability
structured meanings
url https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/653
work_keys_str_mv AT jamesgriffiths aqbasedapproachtoclausalellipsisderivingtheprepositionstrandingandislandsensitivitygeneralisationswithoutmovement
AT jamesgriffiths qbasedapproachtoclausalellipsisderivingtheprepositionstrandingandislandsensitivitygeneralisationswithoutmovement
_version_ 1721178025593143296