Multiple Sluicing in English

PACLIC 21 / Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea / November 1-3, 200

Ellipsis, economy, and the (non)uniformity of traces

A number of works have attempted to account for the interaction between movement and ellipsis in terms of an economy condition Max- Elide. We show that the elimination of MaxElide leads to an empirically superior account of these interactions. We show that a number of the core effects attributed to MaxElide can be accounted for with a parallelism condition on ellipsis. The remaining cases are then treated with a generalized economy condition that favors shorter derivations over longer ones. The resulting analysis has no need for the ellipsisspecific economy constraint MaxElide

Voice Mismatches in English and Spanish Sluicing

Voice mismatches are claimed to be disallowed in sluicing due to a morpho-syntactic requirement dictating that voice specifications must be isomorphic between the antecedent and the elliptical clause (Merchant 2007). However, following Vicente’s (2008) and Rodrigues et al.’s (2009) analysis of apparent P-stranding in Spanish sluicing, one must conclude that voice mismatches are a natural consequence of the need for copular constructions as sources for sluiced clauses in this language. The picture that emerges is one in which we need a mixed system of copular and non-copular sources in Spanish sluicing resolution. The present paper also shows that only passiveactive mismatches are possible and offers an explanation based on trivial structural requirements of subject DPs in copular clauses. Interesting new data is analyzed with respect to English that suggest that we may also need the postulation of such a mixed system in this language, contrary to what is generally assumed. Furthermore, it is shown that voice mismatch data in English sluicing can be accounted for along the same lines as those used for Spanish. The cross-linguistic facts discussed throughout the paper also help to provide evidence for the proposal that, aside from semantic and pragmatic requirements, there are morpho-syntactic conditions to be considered in sluicing and also that sluicing involves the construction of full structures in the elided clauses that are later deleted at PF.Se ha señalado que la incompatibilidad de diátesis no está permitida en el truncamiento debido a un requisito morfosintáctico según el cual las especificaciones de voz deben ser isomórficas entre la cláusula antecedente y la elíptica (Merchant 2007). Sin embargo, siguiendo a Vicente (2008) y Rodrigues et al. (2009) con respecto a los casos de abandono aparente de la preposición en el truncamiento en español, debemos concluir que las incompatibilidades de diátesis son una consecuencia natural de la necesidad de tener construcciones copulativas como fuentes de las cláusulas truncadas en esta lengua. El cuadro resultante hace necesario el uso de un sistema mixto de fuentes copulativas y no copulativas en la resolución del truncamiento en español. Este trabajo también muestra que las únicas incompatibilidades posibles son pasiva-activa y ofrece una explicación basada en requisitos estructurales triviales de los SDs que son sujetos de cláusulas copulativas. A continuación se analizan datos interesantes del inglés que sugieren que también podemos necesitar ese sistema mixto en esta lengua, al contrario de lo que se asume generalmente. Es más, se muestra que los datos sobre las incompatibilidades de diátesis en el truncamiento en inglés pueden explicarse de una forma similar a como se hace para el español. Los datos analizados también sirven para apoyar la propuesta de que, además de requisitos semánticos y pragmáticos, existen condiciones morfosintácticas que deben tenerse en cuenta en el truncamiento y que este supone la construcción de estructuras completas en las cláusulas elididas que son luego eliminadas en FF.Tem sido defendido que as não correspondências de voz não são permitidas em truncamento devido a uma condição morfo-sintáctica que dita que as especificações de voz têm de ser isomórficas entre o antecedente e a oração elíptica (Merchant 2007). No entanto, seguindo a análise de Vicente (2008) e Rodrigues et al. (2009) do aparente isolamento da preposição em truncamento no espanhol, concluímos que as não correspondências de voz são uma consequência natural da necessidade de construções copulativas como fontes para as orações truncadas nesta língua. O quadro que emerge é aquele em que necessitamos de um sistema misto de fontes copulativas e não copulativas na resolução do truncamento em espanhol. O artigo também demonstra que apenas são possíveis as não correspondências passiva-activa e oferece uma explicação baseada em condições estruturais básicas de sujeitos DPs em frases copulativas. Em seguida, são analisados novos dados relativos ao inglês, sugerindo que talvez seja necessário postular um sistema misto também nesta língua, contrariamente ao que é geralmente assumido. Para além disso, demonstramos que os dados relativos à não correspondência de voz em truncamento no inglês podem ser explicados da mesma forma que aqueles usados para o espanhol. Os factos interlinguísticos discutidos ao longo do artigo ajudam ainda a sustentar a proposta de que, além de condições semânticas e pragmáticas, existem condições morfo-sintácticas a ser consideradas no truncamento e também que o truncamento envolve a construção de estruturas completas nas orações elididas que posteriormente são apagadas na PF

Sluicing and Multiple Wh-fronting.

This paper explores multiple wh-fronting under Sluicing. Contrary to previous proposals that an interrogative +wh complementizer licenses TP-ellipsis, I propose that +focus feature licenses this ellipsis operation. Assuming the deletion analysis of sluicing, following Ross (1969), I argue for focus-licensed sluicing based on data from Slavic languages like Russian and Polish, where it is possible to have focused R-expressions as remnants of sluicing. I demonstrate how semantic restrictions in multiple interrogatives are maintained under sluicing, presenting a new argument for the clausal structure of the sluice. Finally, I explore Superiority effects under sluicing, deriving those from parallelism in variable binding

Sluicing Puzzles in Russian

The general goal of this paper is to explore the properties of sluicing (IPellipsis) in Russian and to see how the Russian data shed light on the general processes underlying the phenomenon of sluicing. The first issue we will address is what positions wh-remnants occupy in sluicing constructions in Russian, considering the properties of wh-movement in Russian. We will then turn to sluicing with multiple wh-remnants, which I will refer to as multiple sluicing, following Takahashi (1994). Here we will investigate how the interpretative properties of multiple interrogatives in Russian affect the multiple sluicing possibilities in this language. Finally, I will present the data showing that superiority effects emerge under sluicing in Russian. This is unexpected, given that Russian does not exhibit superiority effects in corresponding non-elliptical interrogatives. In addressing the question of what causes superiority effects under sluicing, I will propose an analysis which makes use of an independent property of ellipsis, namely, quantifier parallelism

Sluicing and stripping in Korean : a non-ellipsis, anaphoric analysis

This dissertation examines some constructions that have been traditionally described as ellipsis phenomena in Korean. Specifically, I focus on the embedded sluicing construction and its two variants (i.e., the embedded sluicing-like construction and the embedded confirmative/contrastive construction), and the stripping construction. In doing so, I first show that there are two possible types for each of the constructions in terms of the presence of a copula. I then argue that regardless of whether or not they contain a copula they are not truly 'ellipsis', since they cannot be related to a full form by adding words. Instead they should be treated as simple full clauses. In particular, I claim that they are like other subject-predicate constructions, where the subject is a (possibly phonologically silent) anaphoric pronoun and a [VERBAL +] predicate. I show that previous analyses of these constructions face problems in accounting for their diverse intriguing properties, since they do not distinguish between these two types or they resort to PF deletion and silent syntax. I then argue that when the clause occurs with a copula, the copula has a specificational use, whereas when it does not occur with a copula, the [VERBAL +] predicate simply denotes the property of the pronominal subject. I also offer formal representations of some representative examples of the these constructions, adopting the framework of HPSG (Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar). This analysis enables us to capture their numerous common grammatical properties and to explain their different behavior in some respects, making the most of discourse/context information.Linguistic

Multiple Left-Branch Extraction Under Sluicing

The general goal of this paper is to explore the interaction between multiple whfronting, left-branch extraction (LBE) and sluicing, with the hope of finding insights into the nature of each of the phenomena. One of the issues I will address is why, even though LBE is available in certain multiple wh-fronting languages (e.g. Russian, Serbo-Croatian), multiple LBE is prohibited in these languages. In order to solve this puzzle, we will take a close look at the processes underlying LBE as compared to regular wh-movement. In Section 3, I will argue that LBE, unlike regular wh-movement, is headmovement to a Topic head above TP, essentially a scrambling type of move. The account builds on the unified analysis of d-linking and scrambling developed by Boeckx and Grohmann (2004) and draws on the connection between LBE and movement of d-linked wh-phrases. The conclusion that will be reached is that prohibition against multiple LBE is a result of a minimality violation (i.e. Minimal Link Condition of Chomsky (1995)). The analysis in Section 3 will provide a ready solution to another puzzle, namely, why multiple LBE violations are not repaired by sluicing, given that sluicing is known to repair certain types of derivations. The answer will come from the fact that sluicing cannot repair minimality violations in principle, and violations of multiple LBE are analyzed as minimality violations

Sluicing Puzzles in Russian

The general goal of this paper is to explore the properties of sluicing (IPellipsis) in Russian and to see how the Russian data shed light on the general processes underlying the phenomenon of sluicing. The first issue we will address is what positions wh-remnants occupy in sluicing constructions in Russian, considering the properties of wh-movement in Russian. We will then turn to sluicing with multiple wh-remnants, which I will refer to as multiple sluicing, following Takahashi (1994). Here we will investigate how the interpretative properties of multiple interrogatives in Russian affect the multiple sluicing possibilities in this language. Finally, I will present the data showing that superiority effects emerge under sluicing in Russian. This is unexpected, given that Russian does not exhibit superiority effects in corresponding non-elliptical interrogatives. In addressing the question of what causes superiority effects under sluicing, I will propose an analysis which makes use of an independent property of ellipsis, namely, quantifier parallelism