Three Types of Fragment
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study reviews the three types of approaches toward ellipsis thatStainton(2006) categorized based on the view of up to which level afragment is supposed to have elided elements, that is, ellipsissyntactic,ellipsissemantic, and ellipsispragmatic. First, it is argued that a fragmentoccurring without the linguistic antecedent should be regarded as aninstance of ellipsissemantic as Merchant (2007) claimed rather thanellipsispragmatic as Stainton claimed. It is shown that Merchant's view thatseemingly non-propositional fragmentary expressions are actuallypropositions containing hidden free variables fits the perspective of astandard semantic theory such as Montagovian semantics. Second, aftertwo types of fragments occurring as answers to questions in Korean, thatis, case-marked fragments (CMF) and caseless fragments (CLF), areexamined, it is argued that while case-marked fragments can be viewedas syntactic ellipsis, caseless fragmentary answers are not ellipsis, butterm answers in the sense of Stechow & Zimmermann (1984). Specifically, it is claimed that a CLF serves as an argument to thefunction for the preceding wh-question, based on a Functional approachto semantics of questions (Krifka 2001 among others), whereby iteventually forms a semantic proposition which in turn conveys thedeclarative force. It is concluded that there are three types of fragmentsafter all in English and Korean with respect to whether or not thefragments have unpronounced syntactic or semantic structures, which donot coincide with Stainton's three-way distinction.
Abstract
This study reviews the three types of approaches toward ellipsis thatStainton(2006) categorized based on the view of up to which level afragment is supposed to have elided elements, that is, ellipsissyntactic,ellipsissemantic, and ellipsispragmatic. First, it is argued that a fragmentoccurring without the linguistic antecedent should be regarded as aninstance of ellipsissemantic as Merchant (2007) claimed rather thanellipsispragmatic as Stainton claimed. It is shown that Merchant's view thatseemingly non-propositional fragmentary expressions are actuallypropositions containing hidden free variables fits the perspective of astandard semantic theory such as Montagovian semantics. Second, aftertwo types of fragments occurring as answers to questions in Korean, thatis, case-marked fragments (CMF) and caseless fragments (CLF), areexamined, it is argued that while case-marked fragments can be viewedas syntactic ellipsis, caseless fragmentary answers are not ellipsis, butterm answers in the sense of Stechow & Zimmermann (1984). Specifically, it is claimed that a CLF serves as an argument to thefunction for the preceding wh-question, based on a Functional approachto semantics of questions (Krifka 2001 among others), whereby iteventually forms a semantic proposition which in turn conveys thedeclarative force. It is concluded that there are three types of fragmentsafter all in English and Korean with respect to whether or not thefragments have unpronounced syntactic or semantic structures, which donot coincide with Stainton's three-way distinction.
참고문헌 (25)
- Ahn H., "Various issues of Korean linguistics and Generative grammar:Fragments and interface of syntax and pragmatics", presented at KGGC 2010 Spring conference (2010)
- Ahn H., "Chokakmun yeonku" (2012), Hankook Munhwasa
- Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz, "Logizne Podstawy Nauczania" (1928), The Logical Foundation of Teaching
- Büring Daniel, "On D-trees, beans, and B-accents", Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, pp.511~545 (2003)
- Culicover, P. W., "Simpler Syntax" (2005), Oxford University Press
- Dummett, Michael, "Frege: Philosophy of Language" (1973), Harvard University Press
- Fukuya Teruhiko, "Stripping and sluicing in Japanese and some Implications", Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp.145~158 (1999)
- Groenendijk, Jeroen, "Handbook of Logic and Language", pp.1055~1124 (1997), Elsevier
- Gussenhoven, Carlos, "Testing the reality of focus domains", Language and Speech, 26, pp.61~80 (1983)
- Hamblin, C. L, "Questions", The Australian Journal of Philosophy, 36, pp.159~168 (1958)
- Hamblin, C. L, "Questions in Montague Grammar", Foundations of Language, 10, pp.41~53 (1973)
- Hausser, Roland, "Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages", pp.339~358 (1979), Reidel
- Hull, Robert D, "Formal Semantics of Natural Language" (1975), Cambridge University Press
- Hiz, Henry, "Questions" (1978), Reidel
- Johnson, Kyle, "The Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory", pp.439~479 (2001), Blackwell
- Karttunen, Lauri, "Syntax and semantics of questions", Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, pp.3~44 (1977)
- Krifka, Manfred, "A Festschrift for Achim von Stechow", pp.287~319 (2001), Akademie-Verlag
- Merchant, Jason, "Fragments and ellipsis", Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, pp.661~738 (2004)
- Merchant, Jason, "Three kinds of ellipsis: Syntactic, semantic, pragmatic?", presented at the Semantics workshop (2007)
- Rooth, Mats, "A Theory of focus interpretation", Natural Language Semantics, 1, pp.75~116 (1992)
- Ross, John R, "You Take the High Node and I’'ll Take the Low Node", pp.397~422 (1973), Chicago Linguistic Society
- Schwartzchild, Roger, "GIVENness, AvoideF and other constraints on the placement of accent", Natural Language Semantics, 7, pp.141~177 (1999)
- Stainton, Robert J, "Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy of language" (2006), Oxford University Press
- Stechow, Arnim von, "Term answers and contextual change", Linguistics, 22(3), pp.40~ (1984)
- Tichy, Pavel, "Questions, answers, and logic", American Philosophical Quarterly, 15, pp.275~284 (1978)