Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:18:34.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fragments and structural identity on a direct interpretation approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2021

JOANNA NYKIEL  and
JONG-BOK KIM
JOANNA NYKIEL
Affiliation:
Dept. of English Linguistics and Literature, Kyung Hee University, 26, Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, [email protected]
JONG-BOK KIM*
Affiliation:
Dept. of English Linguistics and Literature, Kyung Hee University, 26, Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Korea
*
[email protected] (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between merger and sprouting fragments, which are typically taken to involve clausal ellipsis. We argue that structural identity constraints on fragments and their correlates should, where appropriate, make reference to the argument structure of lexical heads in the antecedent clauses. Our proposal is spelled out as part of a direct interpretation approach to clausal ellipsis, but, in addition, it incorporates processing-based preferences as a means to motivate the contrast between merger and sprouting fragments. We propose specifically that phrases which are available to serve as correlates for fragments are maximal categories derived from the argument structure of lexical heads in the antecedents. This proposal successfully predicts form-matching effects that surface under clausal ellipsis, as well as well-known limits on clausal ellipsis regarding the morphosyntactic form of fragments. We take advantage of the fact that fragments are not embedded in unpronounced structures, which allows us to articulate a proposal that avoids the difficulty of having to simultaneously relate a fragment to the structure of the antecedent and to its own unpronounced structure, a difficulty that current PF-deletion accounts face.

Keywords

clausal ellipsisconstruction-based HPSGdirect interpretationform minimizationfragmentsmergersprouting
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 73 - 109
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by 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.)

References

REFERENCES

Abeillé, Anne & Hassamal, Shrita. 2019. Sluicing in Mauritian: A fragment-based approach. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 12.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2017. On the interaction of P-stranding and sluicing in Bulgarian. In Mueller-Reichau, Olav & Guhl, Marcel (eds.), Aspects of Slavic linguistics: Formal grammar, lexicon and communication (Language, Context and Cognition 16), 1–28. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2019. On ‘sluicing’ with apparent massive pied-piping. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37, 1205–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, Hee-Don & Cho, Sungeun. 2012. Fragments vs. null arguments in Korean. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), 369–387. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav. 2019. Identity and mismatch: The view from sluicing. Presented at Experimental and Corpus-based Approaches to Ellipsis 2. Davis, CA.Google Scholar
Barros, Matthew. 2014. Sluicing and identity in ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Barton, Ellen. 1991. Nonsentential constituents and theories of phrase structure. In Leffel, Katherine & Bouchard, Denis (eds.), Views on phrase structure, 193–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, Ellen. 2006. Toward a nonsentential analysis in generative grammar. In Progovac, Ljiljana, Paesani, Kate, Casielles, Eugenia & Barton, Ellen (eds.), The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives, 11–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechhofer, Robin. 1976. Reduced wh-questions. In Hankamer, Jorge & Aissen, Judith (eds.), Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, vol. 2, 31–67. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Bouma, Gosse, Malouf, Robert & Sag, Ivan A.. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2011. Case in adpositional phrases. Ms., lingbuzz/001325, CASTL, Tromsø.Google Scholar
Callahan, Sarah M., Shapiro, Lewis P. & Love, Tracy. 2010. Parallelism effects and verb activation: The sustained reactivation hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caplan, David & Waters, Gloria. 2013. Memory mechanisms supporting syntactic comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20, 243–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, Katy. 2002. Parallelism and prosody in the processing of ellipsis sentences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2006. Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. In Cover, Rebecca T. & Kim, Yuni (eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 31, 73–91. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2013. Syntactic identity in sluicing: How much and why. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William A. & McCloskey, James. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 239–282.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William A. & McCloskey, James. 2011. Sluicing(:) between structure and inference. In Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo, Mikkelsen, Line & Potsdam, Eric (eds.), Representing language: Essays in honor of Judith Aissen Representing language: Essays in honor of Judith Aissen, 31–50. Santa Cruz: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
Craik, Fergus I. M. & Tulving, Endel. 1975. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104, 268–294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Jackendoff, Ray. 2012. Same-except: A domain-general cognitive relation and how language expresses it. Language 88, 305–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, Michael Walsh & Bunger, Ann C.. 2011. Comprehension of elided structure: Evidence from sluicing. Language and Cognitive Processes 26.1, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubey, Amit, Sturt, Patrick & Keller, Frank. 2005. Parallelism in coordination as an instance of syntactic priming: Evidence from corpus-based modeling. Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 827–834.Google Scholar
Ellory, Roger J. 2010. City of lies. Orion.Google Scholar
Fisher, Ronald P. & Craik, Fergus I. M.. 1980. The effects of elaboration on recognition memory. Memory & Cognition 8, 400–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, Lyn & Clifton, Charles Jr. 1998. Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 13.4, 499–520.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Taft, Lori, Roeper, Tom, Clifton, Charles Jr. & Ehrlich, Kate. 1984. Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition 12, 421–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallo, David A., Meadow, Nathaniel G., Johnson, Elizabeth L. & Foster, Katherine T.. 2008. Deep levels of processing elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection task. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 1095–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. Interrogatives: Questions, facts, and dialogue. In Lappin, Shalom (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 385–422. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2012. The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Fernandez, Raquel. 2010. Computational models of dialogue. In Clark, Alexander, Fox, Chris & Lappin, Shalom (eds.), Handbook of computational linguistics and natural language processing, 429–481. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Miller, Philip. 2018. Ellipsis in head-driven phrase structure grammar. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis, 75–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Vilbazo, Kay E. & Ramos, Sergio E.. 2014. A morphosyntactic condition on sluicing: Evidence from Spanish/German code-switching. Ms., lingbuzz/003411, University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
Griffiths, James & Lipták, Anikó. 2014. Contrast and island sensitivity in clausal ellipsis. Syntax 17, 189–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel, Anand, Pranav & McCloskey, James. 2020. Sluicing: Antecedence and the landscape of mismatch. Paper presented at the Experimental and Corpus-based Approaches to Ellipsis 3.Google Scholar
Harris, Jesse A. 2015. Structure modulates similarity-based interference: An eye tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology 6, art. 1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John. A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John. A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. 2011. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 26, 376–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmeister, Philip, Jaeger, T. Florian, Sag, Ivan A., Arnon, Inbal & Snider, Neal. 2007. Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Featherston, Sam & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base, 185–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Jaeger, T. Florian, Arnon, Inbal, Sag, Ivan A. & Snider, Neal. 2013. The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes 28, 48–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobson, Pauline. 2016. The short answer: Implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa). Language 92, 331–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, Hossein, Fukumura, Kumiko, Ferreira, Fernanda & Pickering, Martin J.. 2014. The effect of noun phrase length on the form of referring expressions. Memory & Cognition 42, 993–1009 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2015a. Syntactic and semantic identity in Korean sluicing: A direct interpretation approach. Lingua 166, 260–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2015b. Fragments in Korean: A direct interpretation approach. Studies in Generative Grammar 25, 703–733.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2016. The syntactic structures of Korean: A construction-based perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Abeillé, Anne. 2019. Why-stripping in English. Linguistic Research 36, 365–387.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Nykiel, Joanna. 2020. The syntax and semantics of elliptical constructions: A direct interpretation perspective. Linguistic Research 37.2, 327–358.Google Scholar
Kim, Jungsoo. 2017. Sluicing and stripping in Korean: A non-ellipsis, anaphoric analysis . Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Kobele, Gregory M. 2015. LF-copying without LF. Lingua 166, 236–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Utpal. 2002. Questions and answers in embedded contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2016. Usage probability and subject–object asymmetries in Korean case ellipsis: Experiments with subject case ellipsis. Journal of Linguistics 52, 70–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemke, Robin. 2016. Sentential or not? An experimental investigation on the syntax of fragments. Saarland University. https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/77657.Google Scholar
Leung, Tommy. 2014. The preposition stranding generalization and conditions on sluicing: Evidence from Emirati Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 45, 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem & Kelter, Stephanie. 1982. Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology 14, 78–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Lori. 1982. Sluicing: A lexical interpretation procedure. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 590–654. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Richard L. & Vasishth, Shravan. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29, 375–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, Richard L., Vasishth, Shravan & Van Dyke, Julie A.. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 10, 447–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, W. 1987. Retrieval constraints on associative elaborations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 13.2, 301–309.Google ScholarPubMed
Martin, Andrea E. & McElree, Brian. 2011. Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from sluicing. Journal of Memory and Language 64, 327–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElree, Brian. 2000. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29, 111–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElree, Brian, Foraker, Stephani & Dyer, Lisbeth. 2003. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 48, 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2005. Revisiting syntactic identity conditions. Workshop on ellipsis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 77–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason, Frazier, Lynn, Clifton, Charles Jr. & Weskott, Thomas. 2013. Fragment answers to questions: A case of inaudible syntax. In Goldstein, Laurence (ed.), Brevity, 21–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Molimpakis, Emilia. 2018. P-stranding under sluicing: Acceptability and processing. Workshop Relating Elliptical Utterances to Information in Context. Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1989. Sentence fragments revisited. In Music, Bradley, Graczyk, Randolph & Wiltshire, Caroline (eds.), Papers from the 25th annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS25), 228–241. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna. 2013. Clefts and preposition omission in sluicing. Lingua 123, 74–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna. 2015. Constraints on ellipsis alternation: A view from the history of English. Language Variation and Change 27, 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna. 2017. Preposition stranding and ellipsis alternation. English Language & Linguistics 21, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna & Hawkins, John A.. 2020. English fragments, minimize domains, and minimize forms. Language and Cognition 12.3, 411–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna & Kim, Jong-Bok. Ellipsis. In Müller, Stefan, Abeillé, Anne, Borsley, Robert & Koenig, Jean-Pierre (eds.), Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook. Pre-published online October 6, 2020, by Language Sciences Press. https://hpsg.hu-berlin.de/Projects/HPSG-handbook.Google Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna, Kim, Jong-Bok, Sim, Rok & Kim, Okgi. 2018. Morphosyntactic form of fragments is relevant to their resolution. In Farrell, P. (ed.), Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 27, 1–14.Google Scholar
Parker, Dan. 2018. A memory-based explanation of antecedent-ellipsis mismatches: New insights from computational modeling. Glossa 3.1, art. 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippova, Tatiana. 2014. P-omission under sluicing, [P clitic] and the nature of P-stranding. In Kohlberger, Martin, Bellamy, Kate & Dutton, Eleanor (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (ConSOLE XXII), 133–155. Leiden: Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Cillene, Nevins, Andrew & Vicente, Luis. 2009. Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and P-stranding. In Torck, Danièle & Wetzels, Leo (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2006, 175–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? In Binnick, Robert, Davison, Alice, Green, Georgia & Morgan, Jerry (eds.), Papers from the 5th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef & Michaelis, Laura A.. 2014. Frames and the interpretation of omitted arguments in English. In Bourns, Stacey Katz & Myers, Lindsy L. (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic structure and context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht. 57–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Language 86.3, 486–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, Hans & Sag, Ivan A. (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 69–202. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. & Nykiel, Joanna. 2011. Remarks on sluicing. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 188–208. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stjepanović, Sandra. 2008. P-stranding under sluicing in a non-P-stranding language? Linguistic Inquiry 39, 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stjepanović, Sandra. 2012. Two cases of violation repair under sluicing. In Merchant, Jason & Simpson, Andrew (eds.), Sluicing: Cross-linguistic perspectives, 68–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szczegielniak, Adam. 2008. Islands in sluicing in Polish. In Abner, Natasha & Bishop, Jason (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 404–412. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Theiler, Nadine, Roelofsen, Floris & Aloni, Maria. 2019. Picky predicates: Why believe doesn’t like interrogative complements, and other puzzles. Natural Language Semantics 27, 95–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoms, Gary. 2015. Syntactic identity, parallelism and accommodated antecedents. Lingua 166, 172–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbull-Sailor, Craig. 2007. Syntactic patterns of embedded wh-clauses. Master’s dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Uegaki, Wataru. 2015. Content nouns and the semantics of question-embedding. Journal of Semantics 33.4, 623–660.Google Scholar
Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. Invisible last resort: A note on clefts as the underlying source for sluicing. Lingua 120, 1714–1726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyke, Julie A. & McElree, Brain. 2011. Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 65, 247–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Dyke, Julie A. & Johns, Clinton L.. 2012. Memory interference as a determinant of language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 6, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weir, Andrew. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar