Idiomatic Fragment Answers in Negation
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Clause ellipsis can be defined as a subspecies of ellipsis whereby an entire clause is missing. One of such typical examples is a fragment answer. The idiomatic fragment may be derived from a fully clausal source via ellipsis. The repair-by-ellipsis for island effects is not involved in the head blocking (i.e., Neg blocking, here) within the idiomatic domain. The idiomatic fragment answer undergoes focus movement to [Spec, FP] (i.e., [Spec, CP]) at PF. This is in accordance with the fact that the idiomatic themes may undergo focus movement when they are contrasted to be focused. While the fragment answer to the plain echo question is ambiguous between literal and idiomatic meanings, the fragment answer to the negative echo question has only a literal meaning. This is because the idiomatic domain of the fragment answer cannot be extended to FP (i.e., CP, here) beyond the NegP between VP (or vP) and TP since the head [Neg] blocks the head C through T from merging with the head [V] (i.e., verb root) at PF. Hence, the fragment answer to the negative echo question cannot have an idiomatic meaning. In addition, while the plain fragments may be extracted out of the embedded clause, the idiomatic fragments aren’t. That is, the idiomatic fragment answers are only derived from a simplex clausal source via ellipsis.
Abstract
Clause ellipsis can be defined as a subspecies of ellipsis whereby an entire clause is missing. One of such typical examples is a fragment answer. The idiomatic fragment may be derived from a fully clausal source via ellipsis. The repair-by-ellipsis for island effects is not involved in the head blocking (i.e., Neg blocking, here) within the idiomatic domain. The idiomatic fragment answer undergoes focus movement to [Spec, FP] (i.e., [Spec, CP]) at PF. This is in accordance with the fact that the idiomatic themes may undergo focus movement when they are contrasted to be focused. While the fragment answer to the plain echo question is ambiguous between literal and idiomatic meanings, the fragment answer to the negative echo question has only a literal meaning. This is because the idiomatic domain of the fragment answer cannot be extended to FP (i.e., CP, here) beyond the NegP between VP (or vP) and TP since the head [Neg] blocks the head C through T from merging with the head [V] (i.e., verb root) at PF. Hence, the fragment answer to the negative echo question cannot have an idiomatic meaning. In addition, while the plain fragments may be extracted out of the embedded clause, the idiomatic fragments aren’t. That is, the idiomatic fragment answers are only derived from a simplex clausal source via ellipsis.
참고문헌 (33)
- Ahn, Hee-Don, "A study on fragments" (2012), Hankukmunhwasa
- Chomsky, Noam, "Ken Hale: A life in language", pp.1~52 (2001), MIT Press
- Chung, Inkie, "Suppletive negation in Korean and Distributed Morphology", Lingua, 117, pp.95~148 (2007)
- Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van, "The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax", pp.701~745 (2013), Cambridge University Press
- Franks, Steven, "What is that", Ms, pp.2004
- 김규민, "Phase based account of idioms and its consequences", 언어연구, 32(3), pp.631~670 (2015), 언어정보연구소
- 김선웅, "On the Embeddability of Fragmenting (and Gapping)", 언어연구, 32(2), pp.231~247 (2016), 한국현대언어학회
- 김랑혜윤, "On the Negativity of Negative Fragment Answers and Ellipsis Resolution", 생성문법연구, 23(3), pp.447~467 (2013), 한국생성문법학회
- 김랑혜윤, "관용표현이 조각문에 관해 말해주는 것", 언어학 연구, (37), pp.55~67 (2015), 한국중원언어학회[DOI]
- 이두원, "Phases and Successive Cyclic Movement", 현대문법연구, (39), pp.53~70 (2005), 현대문법학회
- 이두원, "Contrastive Topic of Stage-Level Predicate vs. Plain Topic of Individual-Level Predicate in Tough and Likely Varieties", 현대문법연구, (42), pp.51~69 (2005), 현대문법학회
- 이두원, "Janusian Idioms: with Reference to Them + Null Postposition vs. Theme + Lexical Verb", 현대문법연구, (49), pp.21~47 (2007), 현대문법학회
- 이두원, "목적어인상구문의 주변자질 이동:숙어를 이루는 주어의 목적어인상을 중심으로", 언어연구, 25(3), pp.65~81 (2008), 언어정보연구소
- 이두원, "Subject Raising vs. Non-Subject Raising", 영어영문학연구, 51(2), pp.179~195 (2009), 한국중앙영어영문학회
- 이두원, "VP-internal Structure of Idioms and A-movement", 언어학 연구, (23), pp.123~146 (2012), 한국중원언어학회[DOI]
- 이두원, "Negative Imperatives Revisited", 언어, 39(1), pp.133~153 (2014), 한국언어학회
- 이두원, "ECMed Position and NCI Fragment Licensing", 현대문법연구, (78), pp.21~46 (2014), 현대문법학회[DOI]
- 이두원, "Island Effects and NCI Fragment Licensing", 언어학, 22(2), pp.1~26 (2014), 대한언어학회
- 이두원, "Multiple Fragments in the Bi-Clausal Structure", 영어영문학연구, 56(4), pp.391~417 (2014), 한국중앙영어영문학회
- 이두원, "English VP Topic and Korean Accusative-Marked Causee: With Respect to Discourse Effects", 영어영문학연구, 57(4), pp.305~325 (2015), 한국중앙영어영문학회
- 이두원, "Idiomatic Subject and Complement Asymmetry in the Negative Construction", 언어과학연구, (78), pp.271~289 (2016), 언어과학회[DOI]
- Manetta, Emily, "Reconsidering rightward scrambling: Postverbal constituents in Hindi-Urudo", Linguistic Inquiry, 43, pp.43~74 (2012)
- Marantz, Alec, "No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your lexicon", University of Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), pp.201~225 (1997)
- Merchant, Jason, "Fragments and ellipsis", Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, pp.661~738 (2004)
- Miyoshi, Nobuhiro, "Negative imperatives and PF merger", Ms, pp.2002
- 문귀선, "The Availability of Island Evasion Strategies in Fragments", 생성문법연구, 26(3), pp.325~351 (2016), 한국생성문법학회[DOI]
- Nishiyama, Kunio, "Syntactic movement of overt Wh-phrases in Japanese and Korean", Japanese, 1996, pp.5, 337~351
- Noh, Yong-Kyun, "A dictionary of basic idioms on grammatical principles" (2002), Hankukmunhwasa
- 박명관, "Root vs. Embedded Clause Asymmetry in Korean and Its Implications", 생성문법연구, 18(4), pp.769~783 (2008), 한국생성문법학회
- Park, Kyubyong, "Dictionary of Korean idioms" (2013), Moonyerim
- Radford, Andrew, "Analysing English sentences: A minimal approach" (2009), Cambridge University Press
- Song, Hongkyu, "Causatives and resultatives in Korean", pp.2005
- Weir, Andrew, "Fragments and clausal ellipsis", pp.2014