Multiple Fragments in the Bi-Clausal Structure
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Fragments in English are derived by focus fronting of the answer constituent to the left periphery of the clause followed by TP-ellipsis. Fragment answers should be in Spec-FP of the clause, which is what fragments in Korean show, except that not TP-ellipsis, but CP-ellipsis is followed. The fragment answer in the bi-clausal structure receives the same “move-and-delete” analysis as that in the simplex clause. To get a legitimate MFA, Bae & Park (2014) argue that the MFA should be derived from the same clause (i.e., the same matrix clause). In fact, however, an embedded subject disjointed with the matrix argument is a barrier only when one or more remnant(s) in the embedded clause and the other(s) in the matrix clause undergo movement to a matrix left peripheral position. Thoms (2014) argues that the second remnant cannot escape an ECM infinitive or finite clause. However, the two factors are extraneous. It has been shown that our proposal that the embedded remnant cannot escape the embedded subject disjointed with the matrix argument is more persuasive than Thoms’ (2014) one since only the embedded subject disjointed with the matrix subject is pivotal in preventing the second remnant from undergoing movement out of the embedded clause in English and Korean cross-linguistically.
Abstract
Fragments in English are derived by focus fronting of the answer constituent to the left periphery of the clause followed by TP-ellipsis. Fragment answers should be in Spec-FP of the clause, which is what fragments in Korean show, except that not TP-ellipsis, but CP-ellipsis is followed. The fragment answer in the bi-clausal structure receives the same “move-and-delete” analysis as that in the simplex clause. To get a legitimate MFA, Bae & Park (2014) argue that the MFA should be derived from the same clause (i.e., the same matrix clause). In fact, however, an embedded subject disjointed with the matrix argument is a barrier only when one or more remnant(s) in the embedded clause and the other(s) in the matrix clause undergo movement to a matrix left peripheral position. Thoms (2014) argues that the second remnant cannot escape an ECM infinitive or finite clause. However, the two factors are extraneous. It has been shown that our proposal that the embedded remnant cannot escape the embedded subject disjointed with the matrix argument is more persuasive than Thoms’ (2014) one since only the embedded subject disjointed with the matrix subject is pivotal in preventing the second remnant from undergoing movement out of the embedded clause in English and Korean cross-linguistically.
참고문헌 (22)
- Ahn, Hee-Don, "Chokakmwun yeonkwu" (2012), Hankook Mwunhwasa
- Bae Suyoung, "On the CMC Effect in Korean", Proceedings of the ELSOK-KGGC Joint Conference, pp.185~186 (2014)
- Culicover, Peter, "Going Romance and beyond", pp.1~45 (1991), University of Utrecht
- Dayal, Veneeta, "Locality in wh-quantification" (1996), Kluwer Publications
- Dayal, Venneta, "Single-pair vs. multiple-pair answers: wh and scope. Single-Pair versus Multiple-Pair Answers: Wh-in-Situ and Scope", Linguistic Inquiry, 33(3), pp.512~520 (2002)
- Frazier, Lyn, "The Sausage Machine: A New Two-stage Parsing Model", Cognition, 6, pp.163~223 (1978)
- 김랑혜윤, "On the Negativity of Negative Fragment Answers and Ellipsis Resolution", 생성문법연구, 23(3), pp.447~467 (2013), 한국생성문법학회
- Lasnik, Howard, "A family of questions" (2006), Handout for a talk at Nanzan University
- "Multiple Sluicing in English?" (2013)[URL]
- 이두원, "Island Effects and NCI Fragment Licensing", 언어학, 22(2), pp.1~26 (2014), 대한언어학회
- 이두원, "Vocative Head Attached to Fragments and Echo Wh-words", 영어영문학, 19(3), pp.367~390 (2014), 미래영어영문학회
- Merchant, Jason, "The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and identity in ellipsis" (2001), Oxford University Press
- Merchant, Jason, "Fragments and ellipsis", Linguistics and philosophy, 27(6), pp.661~738 (2004)
- Park, Bum-Sik, "Island-insensitive Fragment Answers in Korean", Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp.317~325 (2005), Cascadilla Proceedings Project
- 박범식, "Multiple fragment answers in Korean", 언어연구, 30(3), pp.453~472 (2013), 언어정보연구소
- 박범식, "Multiple Fragments Do Not Mean Multiple Clauses", 생성문법연구, 24(1), pp.307~323 (2014), 한국생성문법학회
- 박명관, "On amwuto ‘anyone’ and Its Kin in Korean: Their Status and Licensing as a Fragment Answer", 생성문법연구, 23(3), pp.585~602 (2013), 한국생성문법학회
- 박명관, "Toward a Unified Analysis of the Finiteness Restriction in Multiple Fragment Answer, Gapping, and Multiple Sluicing", 영어학, 14(3), pp.503~523 (2014), 한국영어학회
- Richard, Norvin, "What moves when in which languages?", 박사, pp.1997
- Takahashi, Daiko, "Sluicing in Japanese", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 3(3), pp.265~300 (1994)
- Thoms, Gary, "Constraints on exceptional ellipsis are only parallelism effects", Proceedings of NELS, 43 (2014), CUNY Graduate Center
- 위혜경, "Three Types of Fragment", 생성문법연구, 24(1), pp.255~280 (2014), 한국생성문법학회