| { | |
| "paper_id": "Y14-1009", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:44:20.516472Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Phonological Suppression of Anaphoric Wh-expressions in English and Korean", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Myung", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "-" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Park", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "Dongguk University Seoul", | |
| "location": { | |
| "postCode": "100-715", | |
| "country": "Korea" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "parkmk@dgu.edu" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kwan", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "Dongguk University Seoul", | |
| "location": { | |
| "postCode": "100-715", | |
| "country": "Korea" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "This paper follows the lead of Chung (2013), examining the phonological suppression of the wh-expression in English and Korean. We argue that the wh-expression itself cannot undergo ellipsis/deletion/dropping, as it carries information focus. However, it can do so, when in anaphoricity with the preceding token of wh-expression, it changes into an E-type or sloppy-identity pronoun. This vehicle change from the whexpression to a pronoun accompanies the loss of the wh-feature inherent in the wh-expression. In a certain structural context such as a quiz question, the interrogative [+wh] complementizer does not require the presence of a whexpression, thus the expression being optionally dropped.", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "Y14-1009", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "This paper follows the lead of Chung (2013), examining the phonological suppression of the wh-expression in English and Korean. We argue that the wh-expression itself cannot undergo ellipsis/deletion/dropping, as it carries information focus. However, it can do so, when in anaphoricity with the preceding token of wh-expression, it changes into an E-type or sloppy-identity pronoun. This vehicle change from the whexpression to a pronoun accompanies the loss of the wh-feature inherent in the wh-expression. In a certain structural context such as a quiz question, the interrogative [+wh] complementizer does not require the presence of a whexpression, thus the expression being optionally dropped.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "As Chung (2013) notes, the interrogative expression in Korean corresponding to the whexpression in English cannot be phonologically suppressed 1 , as follows:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 3, | |
| "end": 15, | |
| "text": "Chung (2013)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1) A: na-nun chelswu-ka ecey mwues-ul I-Top Chelswu-Nom yesterday what-Acc sass-nunci molu-keyss-ta.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "bought-Interr don't know 'I don't know what Chelswu bought yesterday.' B: na-to yenghuy-ka ecey *(mwues-ul) I-also Yenghuy-Nom yesterday what-Acc sass-nunci molukeyssta. bought-Interr don't know 'I don't know what Yenghuy bought yesterday.'", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the conversation between speakers A and B, speaker B's sentence is required to bear the interrogative expression mwues 'what', despite the fact that another token of the same expression is mentioned in the previous sentence spoken by speaker A. Apparently, the same distribution of the whexpression is found in English, as follows:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2)A: I don't know what John bought yesterday. B: *I don't know Bill did (buy what yesterday), either. B': I don't know *(what) Bill did (buy t yesterday), either.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As in (2B), the wh-expression what cannot be included in the portion deleted by VP ellipsis. Nor is it phonologically suppressed after it is moved to the embedded [Spec,CP] position, as in (2B'). Chung (2013) attempts to account for the impossibility of phonologically suppressing the interrogative expression in Korean by adopting the pro hypothesis for the null argument. More specifically, Chung follows the line of analysis advanced by Ahn and Cho (2012) , who propose that the null argument as pro always substitutes for NP, but not for the next higher QP projected by the functional element Q such as a quantity word or a wh-feature, as schematized below:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 163, | |
| "end": 172, | |
| "text": "[Spec,CP]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 196, | |
| "end": 208, | |
| "text": "Chung (2013)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 440, | |
| "end": 458, | |
| "text": "Ahn and Cho (2012)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "PACLIC 28 ! 58 (3) [ QP [ NP pro ] Q ]", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Chung's analysis works fine for Korean, but his analysis squarely faces a problem when it is extended to examples like (2B) and (2B') in English, where the empty pro is known not to be available in grammar.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We examine this issue of why the interrogative or wh-expression is not phonologically suppressed. We argue that the interrogative or wh-expression in its own form cannot be deleted, because it carries informational focus or new information. However, it can undergo deletion when it is anaphoric with the preceding interrogative or wh-expression and potentially changes into a pronoun. This vehicle change from the interrogative or wh-expression to the corresponding pronoun results in loss of the whfeature inherent in the former expression, so that the resulting pronoun necessarily fails to enter into successful Agree relation with the interrogative complementizer, inducing a derivational crash.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this section we examine the phonological suppression of the wh-expression in English. First of all, the wh-expression or relative whoperator can be phonologically suppressed in relative clauses, as follows:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(4)a. We read the article [ (which) Smith recommended]. b. The safe [ (which) Henry keeps his money in ] has been stolen. Baker (1995: 293) In (4), the head of the chain formed by the relative pronoun or wh-operator which can be dropped. We understand this dropping of the relative pronoun along the line of analysis for the copy trace(s), as in (5):", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 122, | |
| "end": 139, | |
| "text": "Baker (1995: 293)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(5) What did Stacy say [(what) 1 Becky bought (what) 1 ]?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the course of the wh-movement, the moving wh-expression leaves behind its copy trace(s) along the way to its target position. The difference between the movement of the relative wh-operator and the regular wh-movement is that in the case of the former, the chain created by the relative wh-operator forms an 'extended' chain with the relative antecedent. This results in allowing the head of the chain created by the relative wh-operator to be dropped, in identity with the relative antecedent, which is now the head of the extended chain. A question that arises is why the following sentence is ungrammatical:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(6) *Who 1 do you wonder [ CP t' 1 [ TP t 1 won the trace]]?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It is argued in Lasnik and Saito (1984) The ill-formedness of (6)' is, in the more recent analysis (cf. Chomsky (2000) , (2001a, b)), attributed to the illegitimate step of movement from the embedded to the matrix [Spec,CP] position, as the moving wh-expression has its featural requirement met in the embedded [Spec,CP] position, being unable to undergo further movement. One thing to note regarding the copy trace deletion of the chain formed by the whexpression or the relative wh-operator is that the copy trace left behind by the wh-expression or the relative wh-operator changes into a resumptive pronoun (though as well-known, the resumptive pronoun in English allegedly occurs within an island structure), as follows:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 16, | |
| "end": 39, | |
| "text": "Lasnik and Saito (1984)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 104, | |
| "end": 118, | |
| "text": "Chomsky (2000)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 214, | |
| "end": 223, | |
| "text": "[Spec,CP]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(7)a. This is the chef 1 that Ted inquired how *e 1 /she 1 prepared the potatoes b. The detective interrogated a man 1 who the prosecutor knows why the officer arrested *e 1 /him 1 .", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The availability of a resumptive pronoun instead of a copy trace linked to the moved whexpression clearly points to the fact that the copy trace is a kind of pronoun realized in anaphoricity with the head of the chain (i.e., the Merchant (2001: 203) This shows that the questioning wh-expression can be substituted for by the (E-type) pronoun. Note that the E-type pronoun as part of the full or elided clause covaries in reference with the questioning wh-expression. The availability of (9a-b) corresponding to (8a-b) involving ellipsis renders compelling evidence showing that the wh-expression is represented as a pronoun inside a portion to be deleted. The form change (or vehicle change, following Fiengo and May's (1994) and Merchant's (2001) terminology) of the wh-expression into a pronoun inside the portion to be deleted seems to be a reasonable option, as the whole portion to be deleted or the expressions within it are construed as discoursegiven or anaphoric to the previous verbal discourse. It seems, however, that the anaphoric substitution of the E-type pronoun for the whexpression is restricted to Sluicing or TP ellipsis. The following sentences accommodate the interpretation where the wh-expression in the first conjunct clause and the substituting pronoun that putatively occurs in the elided VP of the second conjunct clause can be referentially distinct:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 229, | |
| "end": 249, | |
| "text": "Merchant (2001: 203)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 703, | |
| "end": 726, | |
| "text": "Fiengo and May's (1994)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 731, | |
| "end": 748, | |
| "text": "Merchant's (2001)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(10)a. I know when John read what, but I don't know where Bill did. b. John asked me why Mary bought what, but John didn't ask me how Susan did.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In other words, in 10awhat John read may be referentially different from what Bill did. Note that the pronoun in the elided VP of the second conjunct clause, which is vehicle-changed from the wh-expression in the first conjunct clause, may be understood as a sloppy-identity pronoun.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The difference between (8a-b) and (10a-b) in regard to the interpretation of the ellipsisinternal pronoun anaphoric to the preceding whexpression reminds us of the contrast between TP and VP ellipsis in regard to the ability to introduce new discourse referents by using indefinite expressions, which Chung et al. (2011) discuss. In fact, Chung et al. suggest that the contrast in question is correlated with the size of ellipsis site and the domain of existential closure that unselectively binds all indefinite expressions. Chung et al. argue that TP ellipsis involves LF reconstruction or re-use of the antecedent TP into the ellipsis site, whereas VP ellipsis involves PF deletion/unpronunciation of a vP. Departing from Chung et al., let's instead assume that both cases of ellipsis involve PF deletion. Furthermore, we take the domain of existential closure to be the smallest constituent in which all the predicate's arguments have had a chance to be introduced, presumably the position adjoined to vP. Given these assumptions, the two cases of deletion are taken to proceed in the following fashion: identity/parallelism, because the existential operator is outside of the vP to be deleted as in (12) 2 . Returning to the examples in (2), repeated below as (13), we are now in a position to account for the impossibility of phonologically suppressing the wh-expression in (13B) and (13B'). 13 Recall that the portion to be deleted or the expressions within it are discourse given, so that the wh-expression changes into a corresponding pronoun. Otherwise, the wh-expression carries information focus and so cannot be subject to deletion, as stated below: 14The wh-expression carries information focus and so cannot be subject to deletion.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 301, | |
| "end": 320, | |
| "text": "Chung et al. (2011)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In Merchant's (2001) notion of e-givenness, the wh-expression cannot count as e-given information.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 3, | |
| "end": 20, | |
| "text": "Merchant's (2001)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "To repeat, the wh-expression has to change into an (E-type or sloppy-identity) pronoun to be included in the portion to be deleted. However, the resulting pronoun vehicle-changed from the wh-expression does not carry the wh-feature inherent in the wh-expression. This anaphoric process is a culprit for the ungrammaticality of (13B) and (13B'). For the sake of the exposition, we represented the wh-expression in (13B) and (13B') as undergoing deletion or dropping, but the wh-expression in (13B) and (13B') that undergoes deletion or dropping has to be represented as a pronoun corresponding to it. Under this circumstance, the pronoun fails to enter into successful Agree relation with the interrogative complementizer, resulting in a derivational crash (cf. Chung (2013)).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "2 The contrast between TP and VP ellipsis in terms of existential closure reminds us of the parallel difference between them in terms of voice match. Merchant (2013) argues that TP ellipsis requires voice match, whereas VP ellipsis does not. This difference follows from the fact that TP ellipsis always includes a Voice head, but VP ellipsis does not.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 150, | |
| "end": 165, | |
| "text": "Merchant (2013)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Leaving this section, we note that there is an additional set of examples where the whexpression is phonologically suppressed. The relevant examples are as follows: 15 In this regard, it seems right to say that what is phonologically suppressed in (15a-d) is the echoic wh-expression as found in (16). It is also to be noted that the phonological suppression takes place only at the right edge of the sentence. Why is it possible to drop the echoic whexpression in quiz questions as in (15)? The answer to this question may be that the echoic wh-expression can be dropped in registerdependent contexts such as quizzes. Still the more important aspect of quiz questions using echoic wh-expressions is that they do not bear the interrogative complementizer (cf. Sobin (2010)). Therefore, the optional dropping of an echoic wh-expression in quiz questions does not result in a derivational crash.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The syntax of wh-expression: Wisdom from English", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the previous section, we saw that the whexpression undergoes phonological suppression as part of copy trace deletion or TP-or VPdeletion. Especially in the latter case, the whexpression can be part of TP-or VP-deletion when it vehicle-changes into an (E-type or sloppy-identity) pronoun, (though in the former case, the copy trace changes into a resumptive pronoun in restricted structural contexts). However, it itself cannot be part of TP-or VPdeletion because it is inherently construed as new information.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Extension to Korean", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We turn to Korean, where the wh-expression can be scrambled out of the embedded interrogative clause, unlike in 6 Unlike in (6) of English, in (17b) the scrambling of the wh-expression proceeds to the matrix clause without entering into Agree relation with the embedded interrogative complementizer, anticipating the undoing of it to its original position in the covert syntax (cf. Saito (1989) ). The copy trace left behind by the overt-syntax scrambling of the wh-expression undergoes copy trace deletion, in identity with the head of the chain formed by this scrambling.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 382, | |
| "end": 394, | |
| "text": "Saito (1989)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Extension to Korean", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The wh-expression can also be part of ellipsis, as follows: Merchant's (1998) terminology)). Given the analysis for English, we can say that the wh-expressions in (19a-b) each changes into an E-type pronoun in the context of clausal ellipsis.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 60, | |
| "end": 77, | |
| "text": "Merchant's (1998)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Extension to Korean", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "However, returning to the example in (1), repeated below as (19), (19B) turns out to be unacceptable, if the wh-expression is phonologically suppressed. 19 Continuing on extending the analysis proposed for English to Korean, we account for (19B) without the overtly-realized wh-expression by saying that the wh-expression itself cannot be phonologically suppressed haphazardly, since it carries new information. However, it can be dropped only when it changes into a discourseold pronoun. As correctly argued by Chung (2013) , mwues-ul 'what' can change into the empty pronoun pro that Korean utilizes but English does not. When this applies, however, there is no expression that the embedded interrogative complementizer can partake in legitimate Agree relation with, thus ultimately resulting in a derivational crash. By contrast, though the wh-expression within clausal ellipsis in the second conjunct clause of (18a-b) changes (in fact, has to change) into a pronoun, the additional wh-expression such as way 'why' and ettehkey 'how' steps in to successfully establish Agree relation with the interrogative complementizer.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 512, | |
| "end": 524, | |
| "text": "Chung (2013)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Extension to Korean", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The following example (with some slight modification) reported by Chung (2013) Ttenass-nunci cosahay-la left-Interr examine-Imper 'Chelswu, you examine who left when, and Yenghuy, you examine who left for where.'", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 66, | |
| "end": 78, | |
| "text": "Chung (2013)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Extension to Korean", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The difference between (18) and this example is that, on the one hand, the former contains one single wh-expression, but the latter contains multiple wh-expressions in the first conjunct clause. Unlike (19B), on the other hand, both (18) and (20) contain an additional whexpression in the second conjunct clause, which participates in Agree relation with the interrogative complementizer, despite the other anaphoric argument wh-expression changing into a pronoun. One thing worth noting is the referentiality of the wh-expression that is phonologically suppressed in the second conjunct clause of 18and 20. It seems that there is no disagreement about the wh-expression that is part of clausal ellipsis in (18). It is construed as an E-type pronoun, as found in the similar structural context of (8a-b) in English. Several linguists that I consulted about (20) also claimed that the phonologically suppressed wh-expression in the second conjunct clause of (20) is only interpreted as an E-type pronoun. However, I concur with Chung's (2013) report that the phonologically suppressed wh-expression nwuka 'who' in the second conjunct clause of (20) allows for sloppy-identity interpretation. In our analysis, the wh-expression nwu-ka 'who' in the second conjunct clause of (20) changes into an empty pronoun that is construed as a sloppyidentity one in the interpretive component. Note at this point that the size of phonological suppression is critical for the interpretation of the pronoun which is vehicle changed from the wh-expression. In (18), the pronoun is part of clausal ellipsis, allowing for E-type interpretation. In 20, by contrast, the pronoun is a null argument, allowing for sloppy-identity interpretation in addition to E-type interpretation. As suggested above for English, the domain of existential closure and parallelism in ellipsis come into play, distinguishing the pronoun in (18) and that in (20) in terms of interpretational aspects.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 1027, | |
| "end": 1041, | |
| "text": "Chung's (2013)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Extension to Korean", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Now turning to quiz questions in Korean, we note the usual instances of such questions, as follows:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Extension to Korean", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(21)a. seykyey-eyse kacang kin kang-un? world-in most long river-Top 'The longest river in the word is?' b. seykyey-eyse kacang manhi phallin cha world-in most many sold car TOP 3-nun TOP 3-Top thoyothakhololla, photu F silicu, kuliko Toyota Corolla, Ford F Series, and (ikes-un)? (this-Top) 'The 3 best-selling cars in the world are Toyota Corolla, Ford F Series, and (this)?'", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Extension to Korean", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "To construct a quiz question, Korean utilizes the Topic marker with somewhat peculiar intonation on it, with the immediately following string of words phonologically suppressed at the right edge of the sentence. This formulaic device is extended to the non-quiz type of sentences in (22), reported by Chung (2013):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Extension to Korean", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(22)A: chelswu-ka sakwa-lul swunhuy-eykey Chelswu-Nom apple-Acc Swunhuy-to encey cwuess-ni? when gave-Interr 'When did Chelswu give an apple to Swunhuy?' B: ecey yesterday 'Yesterday.' A: kulem, yengswu-ka sakwa-lul then, Yengswu-Nom apple-Acc yenghuy-eykey-nun Yenghuy-to-Top (enceycwuessni)? when gave-Interr 'Then, Yengswu gave an apple to Yenghuy when?' As in (22), the second sentence by speaker A has its right edge dropped immediately after the Topic marker.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Extension to Korean", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It seems that the dropping of the right of the sentence does not obey such a syntactic condition as constituent-hood, allowing the embedded predicate and the matrix predicate to be phonologically suppressed, excluding the other embedded constituents. We take the insensitivity to constituent-hood in the course of producing a quiz question to indicate that the dropping of the string of words is non-syntactic and the quiz question like (21ab), just as in English, does not involve the interrogative complementizer, so that it does not require the presence of the wh-expression within it.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Extension to Korean", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This paper has investigated why the whexpression cannot be deleted/elided nor part of the portion to be deleted/elided. We have argued that the wh-expression is construed as information focus, not being able to undergo deletion, otherwise impinging on the recoverability condition on deletion/ellipsis. However, it can be substituted for by a pronoun in an anaphoric relation with the preceding token of wh-expression. Under this circumstance, it can be deleted/elided or part of the portion to be deleted/elided, but at the cost of losing the wh-feature inherent in it. Thus, if the wh-feature is in demand for the Agree relation with the interrogative complementizer, the pronoun that is vehicle-changed from the wh-expression cannot provide such a feature. In fact, this is the paradoxical situation for the whexpression to be deleted/elided or part of the portion to be deleted/elided. If it remains in its form, it cannot be subject to deletion/ellipsis. If it changes into an anaphoric pronoun, the resulting pronoun ends up with losing the whfeature the corresponding wh-expression used to have.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion", | |
| "sec_num": "4." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In passing, we have first discussed the two different types of pronouns that are vehiclechanged from wh-expressions: E-type pronoun and sloppy-identity pronoun. This distinction follows from the domain of existential closure and the parallelism/identity condition on deletion/ellipsis. Second, as Merchant (2001) and Chung (2013) note, when one whexpression changes into an anaphoric pronoun, failing to enter into Agree relation with the interrogative complementizer, the multiple whquestion makes available an additional whexpression, which steps in to do so instead. Third, the quiz question construction employs the echo wh-question strategy, thereby the interrogative complementizer in the construction not requiring for the expected Agree relation with an expression with the wh-feature. Thus, the dropping of the wh-expression in this construction does not lead to a derivational crash.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 297, | |
| "end": 312, | |
| "text": "Merchant (2001)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 317, | |
| "end": 329, | |
| "text": "Chung (2013)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion", | |
| "sec_num": "4." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We occasionally use the theory-neutral notion 'phonological(ly) suppress(ion)' to refer to such terms as (phonological) dropping, copy trace deletion, ellipsis/deletion, etc.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "On Some ellipsis phenomena in Korean", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Hee-Don", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ahn", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Sungeun", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Cho", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2012, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 14th Seoul Internal Conference on Generative Grammar: Three Factors and Syntactic Theory", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "3--33", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Ahn, Hee-Don and Sungeun Cho. 2012. On Some ellipsis phenomena in Korean. In Proceedings of the 14th Seoul Internal Conference on Generative Grammar: Three Factors and Syntactic Theory, ed. Bum-Sik Park, 3-33. Seoul, Korea: Hankuk Publishing Co.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "English Syntax", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Carl", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Baker", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Lee", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1995, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Baker, Carl Lee. 1995. English Syntax. 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "Minimalist inquiries: The framework", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Noam", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chomsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2000, | |
| "venue": "Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "89--155", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Noam", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chomsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2001, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky,Noam. 2001a. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Derivation by phase", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Noam", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chomsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2001, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "1--52", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam. 2001b. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "On the nature of null WHphrases in Korean", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Daeho", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chung", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2013, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic Research", | |
| "volume": "30", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "473--487", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chung, Daeho. 2013. On the nature of null WH- phrases in Korean. Linguistic Research 30.3:473- 487.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "Sluicing(:) Between structure and inference", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Sandra", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chung", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "William", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ladusaw", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "James", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mccloskey", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": ";", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "R" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Gutierrez-Bravo", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2011, | |
| "venue": "Representing Language: Essays in Honor of Judith Aissen", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "31--50", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 2011. Sluicing(:) Between structure and inference. In Representing Language: Essays in Honor of Judith Aissen, ed. R. Gutierrez-Bravo et al., 31-50. California Digital Library eScholarship Repository. Linguistic Research Center, UCSC.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "Indices and Identity. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 24", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Robert", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Fiengo", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Robert", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1994, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and Identity. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "On the nature of proper government", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Howard", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Lasnik", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Mamoru", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Saito", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1984, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic. Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "15", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "235--289", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic. Inquiry 15:235-289.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Pseudosluicing\": Elliptical Clefts in Japanese and English", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jason", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Merchant", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1998, | |
| "venue": "Zas Working Papers in Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "88--112", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Merchant, Jason. 1998. \"Pseudosluicing\": Elliptical Clefts in Japanese and English. In Zas Working Papers in Linguistics, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, N. Fuhrhop, Paul Law and U Kleinhenz, 88-112. Berlin: Zertrum Fur AllgemeineSprachwissenschaft.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jason", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Merchant", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2001, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Merchant, Jason. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "Voice and ellipsis", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jason", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Merchant", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2013, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "44", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "77--108", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44:77-108.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "Scrambling as semantically vacuous A'-movement", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Mamoru", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Saito", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1989, | |
| "venue": "Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "182--200", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A'-movement. In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, ed. Mark Baltin and Anthony Kroch, 182-200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "Echo questions in the Minimalist Program", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Nicholas", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sobin", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2010, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "41", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "131--148", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Sobin, Nicholas. 2010. Echo questions in the Minimalist Program. Linguistic Inquiry 41.1: 131- 148.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "TABREF2": { | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "TP and VP deletion differ in regard to whether the ellipsis site includes the existential closure operator (\u2203). The ellipsis site of the former case DOES include the existential operator as in (11).", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>PACLIC 28</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">11) TP ellipsis:</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">[ (12) VP ellipsis:</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">[ As the identity/parallelism condition on deletion</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">demands that the indefinite expressions</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">(including wh-expressions) in the ellipsis TP be</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">identical/parallel in reference to their correlate</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">expressions in the antecedent TP, TP ellipsis</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">requires strict identity/parallelism. However, VP</td></tr><tr><td>ellipsis</td><td>allows</td><td>looser</td><td>or</td><td>sloppy</td></tr><tr><td>! 60</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |