Ellipsis and Syntactic Representation
Yüklə 121,54 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 4 Ellipsis and Left Branch Extractions
Christopher Kennedy 17 (55) a.
Which band £ did you hire ¥¦£ [only after people told you why you should [ VP hire them £ / PG £ ] [while insisting they adored PG £
b.
Which film £ did you refuse to see ¥¦£ [because Roger was so revolted when he did [ VP see it £ / PG £ ] [after renting PG £
c.
Mayor Daley, whom £ everyone met ¥¦£ [after grabbing the person who had arranged the opportunity to [ VP meet him £ / PG £ ] [while pointing at PG £
Finally, Postal shows that missing parasitic gaps also show strong crossover effects:
(56) a.
Which candidate £ did the linguists support ¥¦£ because close friends of PG £
£ could also get the philosophers to back PG £
b.
Which candidate £ did the linguists support ¥¦£ because close friends of PG £ claimed he £ could also get the philosophers to? c. Which candidate £ did the linguists support ¥¦£ because Maureen claimed he £ could also get the philosophers to? (57) a.
Who £ did you call after learning that he £ was expecting grey aliens to abduct PG
after locating PG £ ? b.
Who £ did you call after learning that he £ was expecting grey aliens to after locating PG £ ? c. Who £ did you call after learning that he £ was expecting grey aliens to? Only the missing parasitic gap analysis of the elided VP licenses the dependent gap, therefore the LFs of (56b) and (57b) must be as in (58), triggering a SCO effect. (58)
a.
Which candidate £ did the linguists support ¥¦£ because close friends of PG £ claimed he £ could also get the philosophers to [ VP support
PG £ ] b.
Who £ did you call after learning that he £ expected you to [ VP call
PG £ ] after locating PG £ 3.3 Summary To summarize, the interaction of VP-deletion and parasitic gaps provides strong support for a syntactic analysis of ellipsis. First, the facts discussed here clearly demonstrate that the elided constituent is sensitive to (at least) Condition B effects, 18 Ellipsis and Syntactic Representation strong crossover (Condition C effects), and various island constraints (including wh-islands, Complex NP Islands, Adjunct Islands and the Coordinate Structures Constraint). 3 Assuming that these constraints are constraints on syntactic represen- tations, it must the be the case that elided VPs have syntactic structure. Second, the fact that an elided VP in these contexts can be shown to require a “non-parasitic” gap analysis in some contexts and a “missing” parasitic gap analysis in others — a distinction that is purely syntactic in nature — further strengthens the conclusion that ellipsis involves syntactic representation. In the next section, I will examine a phenomenon that at first glance appears to challenge this conclusion, since it seems to indicate that elided constituents are insensitive to the Left Branch Constraint. As we will see, however, the facts actually substantiate the second part of the predictions of a syntactic analysis outlined in (29): ellipsis constructions are insensitive to syntactic constraints that derive from the morphophonological properties of lexical items.
As shown by the sentences in (59), comparative deletion constructions that target just an attributive adjective (henceforth “attributive CD” constructions) are ungram- matical (Pilch 1965; Pinkham 1982; Kennedy and Merchant 2000). (59) a.
The Cubs start a more talented infield than the Sox start an outfield. b.
Jones produced as successful a film as Smith produced a play. This fact is unsurprising given Ross’ (1967) observation that comparative deletion is subject to the full range of syntactic island constraints. Assuming for concreteness that comparatives involve null or deleted wh-phrases which originate in the position of the gap (as in e.g. Chomsky 1977), the examples in (59) have the structures in (60a) and (60b). These are completely parallel to the questions in (61), which violate the Left Branch Constraint (LBC). (60)
a.
The Cubs start a more talented infield than [wh £ the Sox start [ DP an
outfield]] b.
Jones produced as successful a film as [wh £ Smith produced [ DP a ¥¦£ play]] 3 It should also be noted that many of the examples discussed above involve CAUSE - EFFECT coherence relations (e.g. the because-adjuncts), and are therefore contexts in which Kehler (1995, 2000) predicts syntactic effects to disappear. Yüklə 121,54 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|