Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T06:43:33.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wh-movement and the syntax of sluicing1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2008

MAZIAR TOOSARVANDANI
MAZIAR TOOSARVANDANI*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
*
Author's address: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, 1203 Dwinelle Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A.[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sluicing – the elliptical construction in which all of a constituent question goes missing except for the interrogative phrase – is commonly analyzed as involving movement of the interrogative phrase to Spec-CP followed by deletion of TP (Ross 1969, Merchant 2001). In this paper, I examine how well the movement-plus-deletion analysis extends to Farsi, a wh-in situ language that, surprisingly, has a sluicing construction nearly identical to its English counterpart. I argue that the interrogative phrase in Farsi sluicing escapes deletion not by wh-movement as in English but by a type of focus movement. This operation, which normally applies very generally and is optional, is restricted in sluicing contexts in two ways: (i) it is obligatory, and (ii) it only applies to interrogative phrases. I propose a formal implementation that integrates these two properties into the licensing requirement on deletion, advancing the current understanding of the syntax of sluicing.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , November 2008 , pp. 677 - 722
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

I thank Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, Annahita Farudi, Michael Houser, Sharon Inkelas, Kyle Johnson, Jason Merchant, Line Mikkelsen, Chris Potts, and audiences at the Berkeley Syntax and Semantics Circle, NELS 38, the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) Syntax Reading Group, and the 2008 Annual Meeting of the LSA in Chicago for their helpful comments and criticisms. Two anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees provided valuable suggestions for improving this paper. I am also grateful to Mahin Azimian, Maryam Azimian, Massy Azimian, and Abbas Toosarvandani for their native speaker judgments.

References

REFERENCES

Adams, Pern Wang. 2004. The structure of sluicing in Mandarin Chinese. In Arunachalam, Sudha & Scheffler, Tatjana (eds.) Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 1–16. Philadelphia, PA: Penn Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Almeida, Diogo A. de A. & Yoshida, Masaya. 2007. A problem for the Preposition Stranding Generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Christine. 2004. Acoustic correlates of ‘second occurrence focus’: Towards an experimental investigation. In Kamp, Hans & Partee, Barbara H. (eds.) Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning, 354–361. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Beaver, David, Clark, Brady Zack, Flemming, Edward, Jaeger, T. Florian & Wolters, Maria. 2007. When semantics meets phonetics: Acoustical studies of second-occurrence focus. Language 83, 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Implict arguments. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk C. (eds.) The syntax companion, vol. 2, 554–583. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan Wanda. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1990. Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 201–225.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2006. Been there, marked that – a tentative theory of second occurrence focus. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jJlMThlZ/.Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2007. The grammar of Q: Q-particles and the nature of wh-fronting. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Chao, Wynn. 1987. On ellipsis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.) Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2006. Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. In Cover, Rebecca T. & Kim, Yuni (eds.) The 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession, 73–91. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William A. & McCloskey, James. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3, 239–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van & Lipták, Anikó. 2008. On the interaction between verb movement and ellipsis: New evidence from Hungarian. In Chang, Charles B. & Haynie, Hannah J. (eds.) The 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 26), 138–146. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1992. On the (in)dependence of syntax and pragmatics: Evidence from the postposition rā in Persian. In Stein, Dieter (ed.) Cooperating with written texts: The pragmatics and comprehension of written texts, 549–573. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2005. Topicality and nonsubject marking: Agreement, casemarking, and grammatical function. Ms., University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Darzi, Ali. 2008. On the vP analysis of Persian finite control constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katalin, É. Kiss. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74, 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farudi, Annahita. 2005. Complex verbs in Persian: Towards a nonderivational approach. M.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997a. Non-projecting nouns and the ezafe construction in Persian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15, 729–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997b. Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua 102, 133–167.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 2001. Control and thematic agreement. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46, 9–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Lotus. 2005. Verb-stranding VP ellipsis: A cross-linguistic study. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Hajičová, Eva, Partee, Barbara H. & Sgall, Petr (eds.). 1998. Topic–focus articulation, tripartite structure, and semantic content. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Sag, Ivan A.. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391–426.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1986. FOCUS in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2006. Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2001. On wh-questions in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46, 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1990. Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse function: Râ in Persian. Linguistic Analysis 20, 139–191.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1999. Is scrambling as strange as we think it is? In Arregi, Karlos, Bruening, Benjamin, Krause, Cornelia & Lin, Vivia (eds.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33, 159–190.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2003. Focus movement and uninterpretable features. In Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi & Willie, MaryAnn (eds.) Formal approaches to function in grammar: In honor of Eloise Jelinek, 297–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2005. A Minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, Simin & Taleghani, Azita. 2007. Wh-movement, interpretation, and optionality in Persian. In Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida & Wilkins, Wendy K. (eds.) Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 167–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Indefinites and the operators they depend on: From Japanese to Salish. In Carlson, Gregory N. & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (eds.) Reference and quantification: The Partee effect, 113–142. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Shimoyama, Junko. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Otsu, Yukio (ed.) The Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2006. Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Syntax 9, 32–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López, Luis & Winkler, Susanne. 2000. Focus and topic in VP-anaphora. Linguistics 38, 623–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manetta, Emily. 2006. Peripheries in Kashmiri and Hindi-Urdu. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 1998. ‘Pseudosluicing’: Elliptical clefts in Japanese and English. In Alexiadou, Artemis, Fuhrhop, Nanna, Law, Paul & Kleinhenz, Ursula (eds.) ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 88–112. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Johnson, Kyle (ed.) Topics in ellipsis, 132–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2007. On so-called truncated clefts. In Geist, Ljudmila & Rothstein, Björn (eds.) Kopulaverben und Kopulasätze: Intersprachliche und intrasprachliche Aspekte, 47–68. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishiyama, Kunio, Whitman, John & Yi, Eun-Young. 1996. Syntactic movement of overt wh-phrases in Japanese and Korean. In Akatsuka, Noriko, Iwasaki, Shoichi & Strauss, Susan (eds.) Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 5, 337–351. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina. 2006. Persian preposition classes. In Svenonius, Peter & Pantcheva, Marina (eds.) Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 33, 1–25. Tromsø: CASTL.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1991. Topic, focus, and quantification. In Moore, Steve & Wyner, Adam (eds.) Semantics and linguistic theory I, 159–187. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1999. Focus, quantification, and semantics–pragmatics issues. In Bosch, Peter & Sandt, Rob van der (eds.) Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 213–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk C. van. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.) Elements of grammar, 281–337. Amsterdam: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1996. On the interface properties for intonational focus. In Galloway, Teresa & Spence, Justin (eds.) Semantics and linguistic theory VI, 202–226. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter Steven. 1965. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1969. Guess who? The Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 5), 252–286. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Samiian, Vida. 1983. Origins of phrasal categories in Persian: An X-bar analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Samiian, Vida. 1994. The ezafe construction: Some implications for the theory of X-bar syntax. In Marashi, Mehdi (ed.) Persian studies in North America: Studies in honor of Mohammad Ali Jazayery, 17–42. Bethesda, MD: Iranbooks.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7, 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taleghani, Azita. 2006. The interaction of modality, aspect, and negation in Persian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Toosarvandani, Maziar. To appear. Ellipsis in Farsi complex predicates. Syntax 12.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar