Ellipsis and Syntactic Representation
Yüklə 121,54 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
Christopher Kennedy 15 According to Postal (2001), these contrasts provide evidence for a structural anal- ysis of the deleted VP as in (45b). Postal observes that subject-internal parasitic gaps such as those in the preceding examples require the presence of a local A- dependency; since no such dependency exists in the (a) sentences, the subject- internal gap is not licensed. The gap may be licensed by another parasitic gap chain, however: (48)
a. Otis is a person who £ I admire
¥¦£ because close friends of PG £
to respect PG £ . b. Which film £ did you see ¥¦£ because a critic of PG £ had recommended PG £ ? The fact that (46b) and (47b) are grammatical, then, means that the deleted VPs must contain parasitic gaps. That is, they must have the structure in (45b), as illus- trated in (49). (49)
a. Otis is a person who £ I admire
¥¦£ because close friends of PG £
to [ VP admire PG £ ] b. Which film £ did you see ¥¦£ because a critic of PG £
[ VP see PG £ ] Postal’s observation holds of other “dependent” parasitic gaps as well. In the following examples, the dependent parasitic gap appears a clause that is adjoined to another adjunct clause. As shown by (50b), a parasitic gap in the second adjunct requires the presence of a parasitic gap (or some other A-dependency) in the first adjunct — it cannot be directly licensed by the wh-chain in the main clause, as this would violate the Adjunct Island Constraint. (50) a.
£ did you call ¥¦£ [before learning that I already had gotten in touch with PG £ [after seeing PG £ in the street]]? b.
Who £ did you call ¥¦£ [before learning that I already had gotten in touch with him £ [after seeing PG £ in the street]]? The fact that an example like (51a) is well-formed, then, means that the elided VP in the first adjunct must have an analysis in which it contains a parasitic gap, as in (45b). (51)
a. Who
£ did you call ¥¦£ [before learning that I already had [after seeing PG £ in the street]]? 16 Ellipsis and Syntactic Representation b. Who £ did you call ¥¦£ before learning that I already had [ VP called
PG £ ] after seeing PG £ in the street? Postal (2001) strengthens the conclusion that both (45a) and (45b) are pos- sible structures for elided VPs by showing that examples involving dependent par- asitic gaps, unlike the “non-parasitic” gap structures discussed in section 3.1, are sensitive to islands. This is illustrated by the following examples, which are par- allel to the examples in (30)-(33) except that VP-deletion does not save the island violations. (52)
Wh-islands a.
Which band £ did you hire ¥¦£ only after people told you why you should book PG £ while insisting they adored PG £ ? b.
Which band £ did you hire ¥¦£ only after people told you why you should while insisting they adored PG £ ? (53)
Adjuncts a.
Which film £ did you refuse to see ¥¦£ because Roger was so revolted while he watched PG £ after renting PG £ ? b.
Which film £ did you refuse to see ¥¦£ because Roger was so revolted when he did after renting PG £ ? (54)
Complex NPs a.
Mayor Daley, whom £ everyone met ¥¦£ after grabbing the person who had arranged the opportunity to see PG £ while pointing at PG £ , dis- cussed Chicago politics. b.
£ everyone met ¥¦£ after grabbing the person who had arranged the opportunity to while pointing at PG £ , discussed Chicago politics. As Postal points out, the unacceptability of the (b) sentences is due to the fact that both of the possible syntactic representations of the elided VP — the one corre- sponding to (45a) and the one corresponding to (45b) — result in ill-formed struc- tures: the missing parasitic gap analysis (45b) triggers an island violation in the first adjunct, and the non-parasitic gap analysis (45a) fails to license the dependent par- asitic gap in the second adjunct. This is illustrated by the examples in (55), which show the two possible syntactic representations of (52)-(54).
Yüklə 121,54 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|