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...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
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 |