On V-stranding Negative Replies with an Implicit Conjunction in English
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper investigates the scopal interaction of V-stranding negation and conjunction in English. We first show that V-stranding negative replies are different from VP/TP/NP ellipsis negative replies, in that the former give raise to a strong/‘neither’ reading, apparently taking narrow scope below a phonologically suppressed conjunction, but the latter allow for a weak/‘not both’ reading in compliance with one component of De Morgan’s laws (i.e., NOT (X ∩/AND Y) <==> NOT X ∪/OR NOT Y). We propose that the contrast between V-stranding and other types of ellipsis in negation-conjunction interaction stems from the difference in the availability of an ellipsis-licensing functional head. When this head is available to a VP/TP/NP ellipsis negative reply, it serves as a proxy for the antecedent of an elided phrase, thereby being in the scope of the negation. By contrast, since such a head is not available to a V-stranding negative reply, the negation on it is scopally restricted to the main verb, precluding its interaction with the following phonologically suppressed conjunction. This accounts for a strong/ ‘neither’ reading where the implicit conjunction is kept intact by the negation.
Abstract
This paper investigates the scopal interaction of V-stranding negation and conjunction in English. We first show that V-stranding negative replies are different from VP/TP/NP ellipsis negative replies, in that the former give raise to a strong/‘neither’ reading, apparently taking narrow scope below a phonologically suppressed conjunction, but the latter allow for a weak/‘not both’ reading in compliance with one component of De Morgan’s laws (i.e., NOT (X ∩/AND Y) <==> NOT X ∪/OR NOT Y). We propose that the contrast between V-stranding and other types of ellipsis in negation-conjunction interaction stems from the difference in the availability of an ellipsis-licensing functional head. When this head is available to a VP/TP/NP ellipsis negative reply, it serves as a proxy for the antecedent of an elided phrase, thereby being in the scope of the negation. By contrast, since such a head is not available to a V-stranding negative reply, the negation on it is scopally restricted to the main verb, precluding its interaction with the following phonologically suppressed conjunction. This accounts for a strong/ ‘neither’ reading where the implicit conjunction is kept intact by the negation.
참고문헌 (8)
- Fillmore, Charles, "Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora", Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 12, pp.95~107 (1986)
- Landau, Idan, "Ellipsis with a coordinated antecedent: An alternative to V-stranding VP-ellipsis", Studia Linguistica, 75(1), pp.1~23 (2021)
- 이우승, "Argument ellipsis vs. V-stranding VP ellipsis in Korean: Evidence from disjunction", 언어연구, 33(1), pp.1~20 (2016), 언어정보연구소[DOI]
- Lobeck, Anne, "Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification" (1995), Oxford University Press
- López, Luis, "Ellipsis and discourse-linking", Lingua, 110, pp.183~213 (2000)
- Müller, Geron, "Structure removal: A new approach to conflicting representations (Lecture notes)", ~ (2015)
- Pesetksy, David, "Exfoliation: Towards a derivational theory of clause size", Workshop on Shrinking Trees (2016), Universitat Leipzig
- Sakamoto, Yuta, "Disjunction as a new diagnostic for (argument) ellipsis", Proceedings of NELS, 45, pp.15~28 (2015), GLSA