惯青扁包 郴 埃青拱

  • 埃青拱 郴 八祸 八祸

积己巩过楷备

八祸搬苞 :
9
傈眉急琶 Endnote Refworks
积己巩过楷备 格瞒
积己巩过楷备 格瞒
茄惫积己巩过切雀 祈笼何
积己巩过楷备 力27鼻 力4龋/ 2017
1-1 (1 pages)
牢巩切>攫绢切
The Why-stripping construction consists of why and a remnant but conveys the same propositional content as fully sentential source, inducing form-meaning mismatch. Similar to other ellipsis phenomena such as sluicing, the construction thus allows to unexpress clausal material, but the unexpressed, elided material needs to be recovered in a proper way. This paper discusses two different approaches for the analysis of the Why-stripping in English and Korean: ellipsis and direct interpretation approaches. Discussing several key empirical facts, the paper argues for a direct interpretation (DI) approach, couched upon the framework of Construction-based HPSG and an independently motivated theory of dialogue context.
This paper investigates the nature of the gap in the gapped RDC. In the literature, the gapped RDC has been examined without considering the context in detail. The paper shows that in-depth considerations of context provide new perspectives on the nature of the gap and on the issue of how the gapped RDC is derived. We argue that the gap exhibits certain variability contingent on the relevant context. It may involve pro, argument ellipsis, or both, and their distributions are restricted by the context. We show that the variability can best be captured by the (bi-clausal) ellipsis approach to the gapped RDC. As implications, we also explore the possibility that the gap can be construed as what we call default indefinites in positive context or default NPIs in negative context.
Head Movement (HM) is problematic in a number of ways. In this paper, I concentrate on the fact that HM is unformulable in Bare Phrase Structure (BPS). Rather than propose novel mechansims or complicate the notion of Merge, I propose that HM be rethought of as Feature Geometry growth. Taking seriously the idea that syntactic heads are merely feature bundles organized into a geometry, I propose that these feature bundles can merge, forming larger feature geometries. The feature geometry thus formed must be consistent with the overall feature geometry of the language in question. Just as intervening features in a Feature Geometry cannot be missing, HM cannot skip intervening heads, thus deriving the Head Movement Constraint. This theory of HM is illustrated in depth with negation in English, resolving some thorny issues left unsettled under the traditional theory of HM. Some tentative remarks are made regarding noun incorporation and Long Head Movement. The paper concludes with a discussion of the advantages of the proposed theory of the traditional theory of HM and with some unresolved issues.
This paper provides novel empirical arguments for the position that category-neutral roots are capable of selecting a complement. Prepositional verb and particle verb constructions are well-known for their syntactic differences in (non)compositional semantics, flexibility in adverb insertion, and detachability of the preposition/particle and DP sequence from the verb root (Radford 1988, O’dowd 1998, Cowan 2008, a.o.). I argue that these classic contrasts are best explained in the modern framework of verb phrases by the distinct syntactic loci of the preposition and particle elements. In particular, I show that while the PP argument of prepositional verbs is selected by the categorizing head (Merchant 2016), the particle phrase is introduced by the acategorial root. Thus, the results of this paper converge to the conclusion that roots are capable of selection at least in some cases, albeit lacking categorial information. Some welcome corollaries of the current analysis are the optionality of particles to incorporate to verbal roots and the interactions of the two constructions with OF-ing and ACC-ing nominalizations.
There exist asymmetries between the iss-headed periphrases and the others of grammatical aspect in Korean. The auxiliary verb iss- ‘to be’ is plastic with regard to the grammatical aspect being rendered as well as the accompanying aspectual suffix, in a stark contrast with the other aspectual auxiliary verbs that are rigid in those regards. In addition, the -e iss- perfective, one of the iss-headed periphrases, is subject to both the telicity and the intransitivity requirement on participating verbs from which the other aspectual auxiliary verbs are free. It is suggested that these asymmetries stem from the semantic vagueness of the auxiliary verb iss-, and that this auxiliary verb is underspecified for the grammatical aspect.
Whether VP-ellipsis exists or not in Korean has been a controversial issue. In this paper, I consider a new fact from one construction involving a right-dislocated relative clause in an attempt to argue for its existence in this language. The success of this argument is significant in that other alternative approaches such as NP-ellipsis or pro replacement popular in most of the existing literature are bound to be weakened that much. It is also seen that the current argument requires the head-initial hypothesis for the structure building in Korean, invalidating the traditional, yet unverified, head-final hypothesis. This is confirmed by showing that other approaches such as NP-ellipsis and pro replacement cannot properly deal with the VP-ellipsis in the right-dislocated construction in question under the head-final structure. In particular, it is argued that this right-dislocated construction is more properly analyzed under the head-first mono-clausal approach than under the conventional head-final bi-clausal approach.
This paper aims to investigate the syntactic structure of how come interrogatives. In particular, I focus on two interesting aspects where how come differs from other wh-interrogatives; 1) how come interrogatives do not show T-to-C movement, and 2) while C should remain null, it must be overtly realized when modifiers intervene between how come and the rest of the clause. To resolve the puzzles, I assume that how come externally merges to a relatively higher position than other wh-phrases. Thus, unlike other root wh-interrogatives where C values an uninterpretable clause-type feature on T, how come values the [uclause-type: ] feature on T instead, which prohibits T from undergoing movement to C. I also assume that C is split into Foc and Fin (Rizzi 1997), and a modifier head may intervene between the two heads (Rizzi and Shlonsky 2007). I argue that [uwh] and [Q] in root wh-interrogatives originate from separate heads Foc and Fin, respectively and morphological affixation takes place via Fin-to-Foc movement. If the head movement is prohibited by an intervening modifier head, Fin[Q] must be overtly realized with overt complementizer that.
This squib addresses the theoretical and empirical premise of comparisons between informal and formal acceptability judgments in defense of necessities and implications of our own work on experimental syntax. Since the early days of experimental syntax, some linguists have expressed concerns about comparing the results of informal and formal methods. Contrary to this stance, we have found ample evidence that comparing these two types of judgments is not only justified but also a fruitful method for delving into syntactic constraints.
1