DOCSLIB.ORG

Not Voice but Case Identity in VP Ellipsis of English

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Not Voice but Case Identity in VP Ellipsis of English PACLIC 29 Not Voice but Case Identity in VP Ellipsis of English Myung-Kwan Park Sunjoo Choi Department of English Department of English College of Humanities College of Humanities Dongguk University Dongguk University Seoul, Korea Seoul, Korea [email protected] [email protected] holds for either direction of voice alternation Abstract between an elided constituent and its antecedent. This is illustrated in (1) through (3) ((1) and (3), This paper develops a Case/case-theoretic acco unt for what Merchant (2008) calls voice mism taken from Merchant (2008: 169-170); (2), taken atch in ellipsis constructions of English. Merch from Merchant (2013: 81)). ant (ibid.) reports that VP ellipsis as an elision o f smaller size VP allows voice mismatch, but Ps (1) Active antecedent, passive ellipsis (VPE) eudogapping and Sluicing as an elision of bigge r size vP/TP do not. However, Tanaka (2011) ar a. The janitor must <remove the trash1> whenever gues against Merchant's dichotomy in voice mis it is apparent that [it]1 should be [VP removed t1]. match between VP ellipsis and Pseudogapping, reporting that voice mismatch in both types of e Passive antecedent, active ellipsis (VPE) llipsis is permissible or not while interacting wi b. [The system] can be <used t > by anyone who th what Kehler (2000) calls discourse coherence 1 1 relations between ellipsis and antecedent clause wants to [VP use it1]. s. Departing from Kehler's (2000) insight, we s uggest that vP undergoes ellipsis in a resemblan (2) Sluicing (TPE) ce discourse relation, but VP does so in a cause/ *<Joe was murdered t>, but we don’t know effect discourse relation. Given the asymmetry i [who] 1 [TP t1 murdered Joe]. n the size of ellipsis in tandem with discourse re lations, we argue that since Accusative as well (3) Pseudogapping as Nominative Case is checked outside VP, the *Roses were brought by some, and others did VP to be elided can meet the identity condition bring lilies. on ellipsis with its antecedent VP as the object element in the former and the subject one in the latter or vice versus have not been Case-checke This paper examines the very issue of voice d yet, thus being identical in terms of Case-feat mismatch in the above three types of ellipsis in ure at the point of derivation building a VP. English. The next section reviews Merchant's (2007, 2008) analysis of voice mismatch in ellipsis by postulating the functional category of Voice in 1 Introduction the syntactic structure of a clause, and the subsequent rebuttal of Merchant's analysis by According to Merchant (2008), VP ellipsis (VPE) Tanaka (2011). Departing from the empirical in English allows mismatch between the voice of generalization made by Tanaka, section 3 proposes an elided constituent and that of its antecedent, a not Voice- but Case/case-theoretic account for whereas Sluicing and Pseudogapping do not. This apparent voice mismatch in VP ellipsis and 413 29th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation pages 413 - 421 Shanghai, China, October 30 - November 1, 2015 Copyright 2015 by Myungkwan Park and Sunjoo Choi PACLIC 29 Pseudogapping. Section 4 investigates argument does not matter for VP ellipsis, not being able to structure mismatch and its interaction with exert its effects on identity in ellipsis. Pseudogapping. Section 5 explores a Case/case- Though Merchant (2008) provides an effective theoretic account for voice mismatch in Sluicing. account for the distributional generalization in Section 6 wraps up with a conclusion. voice mismatch between VP ellipsis and Pseudogapping, his account confronts several 2 No asymmetry in voice match between problems. The first problem concerns the size of VP ellipsis and Pseudogapping ellipsis for Pseudogapping. The previous works on Pseudogapping such as Jayaseelan (1990), Lansnik Consider the examples in (4) and (5). It seems (1999: chap 3), Levin (1978), and Takahashi clear that voice mismatch is disallowed only in (2004) argue that Pseudogapping is an operation of some of elliptical structures like VP ellipsis, VP ellipsis rather than vP ellipsis, as typical Pseudogapping and Sluicing. Unlike in the ellipsis examples of Pseudogapping in (9) and (10) show. structure of (4), voice mismatch is permissible in the non-elliptical structure of (5). (9) *Roses were brought by some, and others did bring lilies. (4) *Roses were brought by some, and others did (10) *Some brought roses, and lilies were brought bring roses, too. by others. (5) Roses were brought by some, and others brought roses, too. Merchant (2008) in fact brings forth the examples in (11) and (12) to support his thesis that Merchant’s (2008) explanation for the contrast Pseudogapping applies to a larger category than in voice mismatch between VP ellipsis and VP ellipsis. The judgements reported in (11) and Pseudogapping in (1) and (2) hinges on the (12) are Merchant's. following assumptions: (6) Syntactic isomorphism is required for ellipsis. (11) Many of them have turned in their assignment (7) The v head hosts the feature [voi(ce)] already, but they haven’t yet all. responsible for active versus passive voice. (12) Many of them have turned in their assignment (8) VP ellipsis deletes a VP, but Pseudogapping already, but they haven’t yet (*all) their paper deletes a vP. (*all). Like most previous studies on ellipsis, Merchant assumes with Sportiche (1988) that a Merchant first takes ellipsis to be subject to a floating quantifier like all can be dropped off in the syntactic identity condition demanding that an specifier position of any functional category it has elided constituent be identical syntactically to its moved through. All in (11) presumably moves antecedent. Given syntactic isomorphism for through [spec, vP]. Since the constituent elided in ellipsis, the uneven distribution in voice mismatch VP ellipsis, by assumption, is smaller than vP and between VP ellipsis and Pseudogapping in (1) and all is external to ellipsis site, the sentence in (11) is (2) follows from the two specific components in received as acceptable. By contrast, the sentence in (7) and (8). Merchant (2008) argues that (12) involving Pseudogapping, according to Pseudogapping elides a vP rather than a VP. The Merchant, is ruled out because Pseudogapping elided constituent in Pseudogapping then includes elides a vP that includes the position all moves the little v that has the value of the feature [voi] through; thus, the floating quantifier all should determined either as active or passive. When the have been included in the portion elided by ellipsis and the antecedent clauses are not identical Pseudogapping. in voice, Pseudogapping won't meet identity in Tanaka (2011), however, consulted three native ellipsis, hence being ruled out. In VPE, however, speakers to verify the acceptability of (13) and the little v hosting the feature [voi] is not included (14), which are identical to (11) and (12), but in the VPE site. In other words, the head v is except for one modification by placing the external to the VPE site. Thus, voice mismatch aspectual adverb yet not before but after the 414 PACLIC 29 floating quantifier all: problem. (20) ?My problem will be looked into by Tom, but (13) Many of them have turned in their assignment he won’t look into yours. already, but they haven’t all yet. (14) ?Many of them have turned in their The additional pairs in (21)-(22), which are assignment already, but they haven’t all yet taken from Tanaka (2011: 476), do not display their paper asymmetry in voice mismatch between Pseudogapping and VP ellipsis: None of the native speakers that Tanaka consulted ruled out these two sentences. Tanaka (21) Actually, I have implemented a computer (2011) takes the acceptability of these examples to system with a manager, but it doesn’t have to indicate that both VP ellipsis and Pseudogapping be implemented with a manager. may delete a VP. It may also be the case that all in (22) ?Actually, I have implemented a computer (13) and (14) occupies a position outside a vP, in system with a manager, but it should have which case the entire vP can be deleted (See been implemented by a computer technician. Tanaka (2011: 473)). Second, Merchant (2008: 170) notes that such Third, the additional rebuttal of Merchant's Pseudogapping examples with voice mismatch as (2008) analysis comes from the experimental work (15)-(16) are unacceptable. by SanPietro et al. (2012: 309), who uses the following set of examples: (15) *Roses were brought by some, and others did bring lilies. (23) Jean was trying to sell her car. I know that (16) *Some brought roses, and lilies were brought someone bought it, by others. a. and Lisa knows who. (big, resemblance, matched) Importantly, however, Tanaka (2011: 475) b. and Lisa knows by who. reports that their VP ellipsis counterparts in (17)- (big, resemblance, mismatched) (18) are also unacceptable: c. because she told me who. (big, cause/effect, matched) (17) *Roses were brought by some boys, and some d. because she told me by who. girls did bring roses, too. (big, cause/effect, mismatched) (18) *Some brought roses, and lilies were brought e. and Lisa also knows that someone did. by some, too. (small, resemblance, matched) f. and Lisa also knows that it was. Since ungrammatical Pseudogapping examples (small, resemblance, mismatched) remain to be ungrammatical even under VP g. because she told me that someone did. ellipsis, it may safely be concluded that there is no (small, cause/effect, matched) asymmetry between the two constructions in terms h. because she told me that it was. of the size of ellipsis. (small, cause/effect, mismatched) Tanaka (2011: 476) also notes that the opposite situation also holds: If voice mismatch in VP The results of the experiment (cited from ellipsis is acceptable in a certain structure, that in SanPietro et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gapping: in Defense of Deletion
    Gapping: In Defense of Deletion Elizabeth Coppock Northwestern University 1 Introduction Gapping refers to the following type of construction: (1) [α John likes caviar] and [γ Mary beans]. Typically, Gapping involves two such conjoined clauses, where the second clause contains no pronounced verbal material, as in (1). Following usual terminology, I call the missing material the Gap, the first clause (e.g. α) the antecedent clause, the second clause (e.g. γ) the gapped clause, and the pronounced elements of the gapped clause remnants. Assuming that the Gap is present somehow in the syntax, we have three potential analyses, depending on the nature of the Gap. We may interpret it as (i) a null pro-form, (ii) a deleted element, or (iii) a trace of movement. I immediately rule out possibility (i), following Hankamer and Sag (1976), who argue that Gaps are Surface Anaphors as opposed to Deep Anaphors (i.e. null pro-forms), based on their Island sensitivity and the fact that they require a linguistic antecedent. The second idea (deletion) is as old as the term Gapping. The first detailed investigation of the phenomenon was in Rosss 1967 dissertation, where he coined its name, and gave a deletion analysis. In 1976, Sag suggested that the remnants A'-move out of the gapped clause before deletion, preserving the hypothesis that operations (such as deletion) affect entire constituents. My proposal is essentially Sags, differing significantly only in the assumption that remnants adjoin to VP, rather than at the sentence level, as in (2).1 (2) John likes caviar, and [VP Mary1 [VP beans2 [VP t1 likes t2 ] ] ]].
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment of Multiword Expressions and Compounds in Bulgarian
    Treatment of Multiword Expressions and Compounds in Bulgarian Petya Osenova and Kiril Simov Linguistic Modelling Deparment, IICT-BAS Acad. G. Bonchev 25A, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria [email protected] and [email protected] Abstract 2012)), we will adopt the Multiword Expressions The paper shows that catena represen- classification, presented in (Sag et al., 2001). They tation together with valence information divide them into two groups: lexicalized phrases can provide a good way of encoding and institutionalized phrases. The former are fur- Multiword Expressions (beyond idioms). ther subdivided into fixed-expressions, semi-fixed It also discusses a strategy for mapping expressions and syntactically-flexible expressions. noun/verb compounds with their counter- Fixed expressions are said to be fully lexicalized part syntactic phrases. The data on Mul- and undergoing neither morphosyntactic variation tiword Expression comes from BulTree- nor internal modification. Semi-fixed expressions Bank, while the data on compounds comes have a fixed word order, but “undergo some degree from a morphological dictionary of Bul- of lexical variation, e.g. in the form of inflection, garian. variation in reflexive form, and determiner selec- tion” (non-decomposable idioms, proper names). 1 Introduction Syntactically-flexible expressions show more vari- Our work is based on the annotation of Multi- ation in their word order (light verb constructions, word Expressions (MWE) in the Bulgarian tree- decomposable idioms). We follow the understand- bank — BulTreeBank (Simov et al., 2004). We ing of (O’Grady, 1998) that MWEs have their in- use this representation for parsing and analysis of ternal syntactic structure which needs to be rep- compounds. BulTreeBank exists in two formats: resented in the lexicon as well as in the sentence HPSG-based (original - constituent-based with analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • An Asymmetry in Voice Mismatches in VP-Ellipsis and Pseudogapping
    An asymmetry in voice mismatches in VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping Jason Merchant University of Chicago [email protected] Final revision for Linguistic Inquiry, March 29, 2007 VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping in English show a previously unnoticed asymmetry in their tolerance for voice mismatch: while VP-ellipsis allows mismatches in voice between the elided VP and its antecedent, pseudogap- ping does not. This difference is unexpected under current analyses of pseu- dogapping, which posit that pseudogapping is a kind of VP-ellipsis. I show that this difference falls out naturally if the target of deletion in the two cases differs slightly: in VP-ellipsis, a node lower than Voice is deleted, while in pseudogapping a node containing Voice is deleted. This analysis further- more accounts for a new observation concerning the distribution of floated quantifiers in these two constructions as well.1 1Thanks to Kirsten Gengel, Kyle Johnson, and the two LI reviewers for very helpful comments. 1 1 Voice mismatches It is well known that VP-ellipsis in English tolerates mismatches between the voice of the elided constituent and that of its antecedent, in both directions. Typical examples are those in (1) and (2) (the (a) examples from Kehler 2002:53; see also Sag 1976:17, 75, Dalrymple et al. 1991, Hardt 1993, Johnson 2001, and Arregui et al. to appear for further examples, discussion, and qualifications). (1) Passive antecedent, active ellipsis a. This problem was to have been looked into, but obviously nobody did. <look into this problem> b. The system can be used by anyone who wants to.
    [Show full text]
  • On Pseudogapping in HPSG*
    On Pseudogapping in HPSG* Dong-woo Park Department of Laguage and Literature, Seoul National University 599 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-742, Korea [email protected] Abstract. This study investigates the constraints imposed on the pseudogapping in the framework of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). Based on the existing schema to account for coordination and gapping, a new pseudogapping schema in coordination structures is proposed in this paper. In the process of capturing the constraints, new DOM lists are added and an existing DOM list is divided into two DOM lists depending on the feature of elements in each domain. Furthermore, new features SEP and INC are introduced. SEP is used for distinguishing prepositions which should be located in the same domain with the following NPs from those which can be separated from the following NPs. INC feature determines whether overlapping adverbs are in non-empty lists or not. Pseudogapping occurs not only in coordination structures, but in comparative or subordination structures. Thus, this paper introduces a pseudogapping schema that can be applied to all structures mentioned above. Keywords: DOM lists, SEP feature, INC feature, pseudogapping schema. 1 Introduction English has ellipsis like these examples. (1) a. Sluicing: She read something, but she won’t say what [vP ]. b. Verb Phrase Ellipsis: She read something and he did [vP ] too. c. Pseudogapping: She’ll read something to Sam, but she won’t [vP ] to Billy. d. Gapping: Some read something to Sam and others [vP ] to Billy. e. Right Node Raising: She deliberately [vP ], and he accidentally, read something.
    [Show full text]
  • By Nayoun Kim 2019
    NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Hold, Release, and Retrieve: The Study of Wh-Filler-Gap Dependencies and Ellipsis A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Field of Linguistics By Nayoun Kim EVANSTON, ILLINOIS September 2019 2 © Copyright by Nayoun Kim 2019 All Rights Reserved 3 Abstract This dissertation is concerned with how components in memory structures and online structure building processes interact by investigating the online processing of Wh-Filler-Gap Dependencies (WhFGD) and ellipsis constructions. Resolving long-distance dependencies involves linking the dependent element to the controlling element. In the case of Wh-gap dependency formation, the wh-element is linked to the gap. In the case of ellipsis resolution, the ellipsis site is linked to the antecedent. In the processing of long-distance dependency resolution, I point out that two component processes are involved: the storage/maintenance component and the retrieval component. A series of studies on WhFGD formation reveal that the sentence processing mechanism involves the maintenance component on top of the retrieval component. Studies on ellipsis constructions further reveal that when the antecedent is retrieved, detailed grammatical structural information should be retrieved, thus grammatical and structural information must be encoded in memory. Based on the results of these studies, I specifically argue for the following points: (i) the filler is released from memory, depending on the grammatical requirement of the filler; (ii) given that information associated with the filler being retrieved reflects the extent to which the filler is maintained, the parser retrieves grammatical information associated with the wh- filler; and (iii) the parser is sensitive to grammatical distinctions at the ellipsis site in contrast to the processing of Anaphoric one and Pronoun it.
    [Show full text]
  • What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What It Can't, but Not Why*
    What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What it Can’t, * but not Why Kyle Johnson University of Massachusetts Amherst VP Ellipsis is the name given to instances of anaphora in which a missing predicate, like that marked by “)” in (2), is able to find an antecedent in the surrounding discourse, as (2) does in the bracketed material of (1). (1) Holly Golightly won’t [eat rutabagas]. (2) I don’t think Fred will ), either. We can identify three sub-problems which a complete account of this phenomenon must solve. (3) a. In which syntactic environments is VP Ellipsis licensed? b. What structural relation may an elided VP and its antecedent have? c. How is the meaning of the ellipsis recovered from its antecedent? These tasks tend to run together, as we shall see; but there is no immediate harm in treating them separately. 1. LICENSING THE ELLIPSIS The first of the problems presents itself with pairs such as (4). (4) I can’t believe Holly Golightly won’t eat rutabagas. a. I can’t believe Fred won’t ), either. b. *I can’t believe Fred ), either. These contrasts are typically thought to involve licensing conditions that the environment to the left of the ellipsis invoke. The contrast between (4a) and (4b), for instance, indicates that the ellipsis site must be in construction with, or perhaps governed by, a member of “Aux,” where these can be understood to be just those terms that are able occupy the highest of the functional projections which clauses are made up of. The modal, won’t, is an Aux, as is the infinitival to and the auxiliaries have, be and do in (5).
    [Show full text]
  • Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Syntax of Quantification Author(S): Christopher Kennedy Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol
    Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Syntax of Quantification Author(s): Christopher Kennedy Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 662-688 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178999 Accessed: 29/05/2009 10:51 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry. http://www.jstor.org 662 REMARKS AND REPLIES Antecedent-Contained
    [Show full text]
  • Pseudo-Gapping: Evidence for Overt Quantifier Raising
    University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 23 Issue 1 Proceedings of the 40th Annual Penn Article 30 Linguistics Conference 2017 Pseudo-gapping: Evidence for Overt Quantifier Raising Hideharu Tanaka Mie University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation Tanaka, Hideharu (2017) "Pseudo-gapping: Evidence for Overt Quantifier Raising," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 23 : Iss. 1 , Article 30. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol23/iss1/30 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol23/iss1/30 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pseudo-gapping: Evidence for Overt Quantifier Raising Abstract This paper explores the grammatical process of pseudo-gapping. In the literature, pseudo-gapping has been analyzed as a series of two operations: the syntactic movement of a remnant out of a VP (Move-R) and the phonological deletion of the VP (VP-deletion). Given this movement + deletion theory, I address what type of movement Move-R is. This paper makes a new argument against Takahashi’s (2004) approach, and for Johnson’s (2008) approach; the former identifies Move-R with the combination of Heavy NP Shift and Object Shift, while the latter identifies it with Quantifier Raising (QR), whose output is covert in general cases. Specifically, it is shown that the latter, but not the former, can predict two facts: that the object of a preposition in an NP-PP argument construction can be a remnant and that no predicate NP can be a remnant. The QR approach is then extended by adopting the single output model of syntax (e.g., Bobaljik 1995).
    [Show full text]
  • Fox 2002 ACD.Pdf
    Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the CopyTheory of Movement Danny Fox Antecedent-containeddeletion poses a problemfor theories of ellipsis, aproblemthat, according to much literature, is solved by Quantifier Raising.The solution, however, conflicts with the copy theory of movement.This article resolves this new conflict with the aid of a theoryof extraposition and covert movement proposed by Fox and Nissenbaum(1999), together with certain assumptions about the struc- tureof relativeclauses and the way chains are interpreted. The resolu- tionmakes various new predictions and accounts for a rangeof other- wisepuzzling facts. Keywords: antecedent-containeddeletion,copy theory, extraposition, heavyNP shift,adjunction, late merger, covert movement, Quantifier Raising,Trace Conversion, conservativity Structureswith antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) havefigured prominently in attempts to understandthe mechanisms that account for theinterpretation of quantifiers in natural language. Theinterest in thesestructures stems from thefact that they provide one ofthe strongest arguments thatcovert movement is anecessarypiece of theaccount (Sag 1976, Larson and May 1990, and manyothers). However, the argument turns out to conflict with a fairlywell motivated idea regardingthe nature of movementrules, namely, that movement is acopyingoperation that does noteliminate an element from itsbase position (the copy theory of movement). Inthis article I arguein favorof aspecificresolution for theconflict. I beginby introducing someassumptions about the interpretation
    [Show full text]
  • A Shell Structure Account of Pseudogapping in Standard Arabic and Moroccan Amazigh Construct States1 ﻣﻠﺨﺺ
    A Shell Structure Account of Pseudogapping in Standard Arabic and Moroccan Amazigh Construct States 1 Yahya Dkhissi Amina Boutabia Chouaib Doukkali University [email protected] [email protected] ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﻧﻘﺪم ﻓﻲ ھﺬه اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻼ ﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿﺐ اﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺣﯿﻦ ﺗﺮد ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺑﻨﯿﺔ ﻣﺘﻘﻮﻗﻌﺔ ، أي ﺑﻨﯿﺔ داﺧﻞ ﺑﻨﯿﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﻨﻮع، ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﯿﺎرﯾﺔ و ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ھﺬا اﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿﺐ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻷﻣﺎزﯾﻐﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﻐﺮﺑﯿﺔ . اﻟﮭﺪف اﻟﺮﺋﯿﺴﻲ ھﻮ اﻋﺘﻤﺎد ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻷدﻧﻮﯾﺔ إطﺎرا ﻧﻈﺮﯾﺎ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎ ﻟﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﺗﺮﻛﯿﺐ اﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺣﯿﺚ ﯾﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﯿﺎت اﻟﺪﻣﺞ، اﻟﺤﺮﻛﺔ و اﻟﻤﻄﺎﺑﻘﺔ أن ﺗﺮﺧﺺ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﯿﺔ ﺣﺬف داﺧﻞ اﻟﺒﻨﯿﺎت اﻟﻤﻌﻄﻮﻓﺔ وذﻟﻚ ﺑﺈﺳﻘﺎط ﻋﺒﺎرة ﺣﺪﯾﺔ ﺛﻢ ﻋﺒﺎرة ﻋﻄﻔﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﺘﺮﺗﯿﺐ . ﻟﮭﺬا، ﯾﻌﺘﻤﺪ ھﺬا اﻟﻤﻘﺎل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺎرﺑﺔ أد ﻧﻮﯾﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺘﯿﻦ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﯿﺎرﯾﺔ و اﻷﻣﺎزﯾﻐﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﻐﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﻓﯿﻤﺎ ﯾﺨﺺ اﻟﺒﻨﯿﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﻘﻮﻗﻌﺔ و ﻋﻤﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﺤﺬف، ﺣﯿﺚ ﻧﻘﺘﺮح ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻠﻨﺎ إﺳﻘﺎطﺎ وظﯿﻔﯿﺎ رأﺳﮫ اﻟﺤﺪ اﻟﺬي ﯾﻤﺜﻞ ﻣﺴﺒﺎرا ﻟﺘﺄﺳﯿﺲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻣﻊ ھﺪف ھﻮ اﻟﻤﺘﻤﻢ اﻹﺳﻤﻲ ﻟﮭﺬا اﻟﺤﺪ،وﯾﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ اﻟﻤﻄﺎﺑﻘﺔ ھﺎﺗﮫ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب اﻟﻤﺘﻤﻢ ﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺠﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺟﮭﺔ، و اﻛﺘﺴﺎب اﻟﺤﺪ ﻟﺴﻤﺎت اﻟﺸﺨﺺ، اﻟﻌﺪد، و اﻟﻨﻮع ﻣﻦ ﺟﮭﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﯿﺔ . أﻓﻀﺖ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ إﻟﻰ أن اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﺒﺎر واﻟﮭﺪف ﺗﺤﺘﺮم ﻋﻼﻗﺔ اﻟﻤﻄﺎﺑﻘﺔ واﻟﺒﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻘﻮﻗﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ أﻧﻮاع ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﺜﻼ اﻟ ﻌﺒﺎرة اﻟ ﻌﻄﻔﯿﺔ، اﻟﻘﯿﺎس اﻟﻜﻤﻲ واﻟ ﺒﻨﺎء ﻟﻠﻤﻔﻌﻮل وﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ اﻟﻘﯿﻮد ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺒﻨﯿ ﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻘﻮﻗﻌﺔ . اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﻤﻔﺎﺗﯿﺢ : اﻟﺒﻨﯿﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﻘﻮﻗﻌﺔ، اﻷدﻧﻮﯾﺔ، ﺗﺮﻛﯿﺐ اﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ، اﻟﺤﺬف، اﻟﻌﻄﻒ . Abstract This paper presents a shell structure account of pseudogapping in Standard Arabic (SA) and Moroccan Amazigh (MAmaz) Construct States (CSs). The main objective is to adopt a minimal account to analyse the Arabic CS (ACS) as well as the MAmaz CS DPs involving pseudogapping. The proposed account posits a functional projection DP headed by D which serves as a Probe that attracts genitive nominal Goal complements.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformational Grammarians and Other Paradoxes Abstract Keywords
    Barcelona, 8-9 September 2011 Transformational Grammarians and other Paradoxes Thomas Groß Aichi University 1 Machihata-cho 1-1, Toyohashi-shi, Aichi-ken, Japan [email protected] Abstract This paper argues that morphs can/should be granted node status in tree structures. Most theories of morphology do not do this. For instance, word-based morphologies (Anderson 1992 and others) see inflectional affixes appearing post-syntactically, producing a specific word form based on paradigmatic rules. On the other hand, derivational affixes attach prior to syntax. So-called “bracketing paradoxes” (Williams 1981, Pesetsky 1985, Spencer 1988, Sproat 1988, Beard 1991, Stump 1991) such as transformational grammarian concern primarily derivational affixes (here: -ian). If a theory can avoid bracketing (or structural) paradoxes by maintaining an entirely surface-based account, then this theory should be preferred over competing theories that posit different levels or strata in order to explain the same phenomenon. This contribution demonstrates that such a surface-based account is possible if the catena is acknowledged. The catena is a novel unit of syntax and morphosyntax that exists solely in the vertical dominance dimension. Keywords Bracketing paradox, catena, morph catena 1 Introduction (Williams 1981:219f) is credited with introducing “bracketing paradoxes” to theoretical linguistics. He puts forth examples such as the following: (1) a. hydroelectricity (2) a. Gödel numbering (3) a. atomic scientist For example (1a) Williams posits the next structure: (1) b. [hydro-[electric-ity]] The problem with (1b), Williams realizes, is that the structure cannot provide the adjective hydroelectric because the prefix and the root do not appear within a bracket that excludes the suffix.
    [Show full text]
  • Gapping Is VP-Ellipsis: a Reply to Johnson∗
    Gapping is VP-ellipsis: A reply to Johnson∗ Maziar Toosarvandani Massachusetts Institute of Technology October 8, 2012 Abstract Johnson (2009) argues that the gapping — e.g. Some had ordered mussels, and others swordfish— does not arise through VP-ellipsis because gapping has properties that VP-ellipsis does not. He proposes instead that the gap in gapping arises through ‘low coordination’ and across-the-board movement. I first show that Johnson’s across-the-board movement ac- count fails to generate gapping in coordination structures with corrective but (Vicente 2010, Toosarvandani, to appear-b). I then revive a version of the ellipsis account in which VP-ellipsis applies to low-coordination structures. This correctly generates gapping in corrective but sen- tences. Once the information-structural properties of low coordinations are taken into con- sideration— low coordinates must have parallel focus structures— it also derives the unique properties of gapping. 1 Introduction Gapping is the elliptical construction where the locus of finiteness in the clause (T and its host)goes missing—possibly, along with more—in the second and subsequent coordinates of a coordination. This leaves behind one or more remnants:1 (1) Some had ordered mussels, and others swordfish. In (1), T is realized on the perfect aspect auxiliary, which disappears in the second coordinate, along with everything else but the two DP remnants others and swordfish. Gapping bears a striking resemblance to pseudogapping, the elliptical construction in (2), which also strands one or more remnants, though it does not remove T. (2) Some had ordered mussels, and others had swordfish.
    [Show full text]