惯青扁包 郴 埃青拱

  • 埃青拱 郴 八祸 八祸
  • 埃青拱 肚绰 鼻/龋甫 "-傈眉-" 急琶窍矫搁 烹钦 八祸捞 啊瓷钦聪促

积己巩过楷备

八祸搬苞 :
5
傈眉急琶 Endnote Refworks
Recently, a school of thought claiming that ellipsis sites are determined by phasehood has emerged. More specifically, Gengel (2007, 2008) proposes that ellipsis sites correspond to Spell-out domains (i.e., complements of phase heads). However, Bošković (2014) and Harwood (2015) argue that not only Spell-out domains but also entire phases can be elided, by accounting for peculiar properties of VP ellipsis in multiple auxiliary verb constructions, i.e., sentences with the middle/aspectual field. In this paper, I claim that the connection between ellipsis sites and phasehood is not that tight. I will argue this by showing that Bošković (2014) and Harwood (2015) might be premature, in that they did not take into account the interplay between head movement and phasehood, which changes the phasehood of certain phrases, and thus, their conclusion that ellipsis is constrained by phase might be inconclusive. Furthermore, I argue that English gapping in DP serves as a counterargument to the idea that ellipsis is constrained by phasehood.
Determinacy is one of the desiderata imposed on syntax. This paper argues as one of its consequences that asymmetry is maximized in language and considers the labeling of XP-YP, which is problematic given the maximization of asymmetry. I propose asymmetric labeling for symmetric XP-YP structures. I argue that XP-YP can be labeled asymmetrically given Agree and Transfer, both of which make asymmetric relations possible, showing that it does not go against deterministic rule application. The discussion in the paper suggests that asymmetry is not a preference for labeling.
This paper concerns the so-called Swiping elliptical construction in English involving a wh-phrase followed by a preposition (e.g., Where from? as a response to I just moved here). The construction displays quite idiosyncratic properties in many respects: it applies only to a limited set of wh-expressions and prepositions, occurs only in Sluicing environments, and typically disallows an overt correlate in the antecedent clause. The paper reports a corpus investigation for the uses of the construction in real life and suggests a direct interpretation (DI) approach couched upon a construction-based HPSG framework that posits neither clausal sources nor derivational processes. It shows that the DI analysis can serve better in accounting for the semi-productive Swiping construction in English.
This paper explores the well-known correlation between morphological causatives and morphological passives in Korean. The paper claims that despite the apparent overlap between the two constructions, the causative and the passive in Korean are derived in two different ways from a synchronic perspective. More specifically, I argue that the suffix -CI that appears to mark both the causative and the passive is listed in the lexicon, separately; -eykey in the causative is a case marker whereas -eykey in the passive is a postposition; and the possibility of the passive interpretation of some causative constructions is an instance of structural ambiguity. I support the claim by showing that the two constructions exhibit different behaviors with respect to relativization, quantifier floating, the possibility of idiomatic readings, and the scope of tasi ‘again’.
A fair amount of attention has been paid in previous literature to the asymmetry of the appearance of complementizer ‘that’ in subordinate clauses. In this paper, we will begin with critical reviews on the recent previous literature that attempts to account for the so-called that-trace and anti-that-trace effects. Appealing to the Split C-domain, Spec-to-Spec Anti-locality, and Dynamic Phases, the previous analyses were able to capture why ‘that’ cannot appear when a wh-operator moves from subject position of the complement clause, but the complementizer must appear in subject relative clauses. However, they were unable to account for why anti-that-trace effects are not observed when wh-operators extract out of the object position in both types of clauses. To be more specific, they fail to explain why ‘that’ can be optional in object relative clauses. To explain the lack of anti-thattrace effects, I argue that a phrase that is contained within a phase is still active and can be probed by a higher head. That is, the case feature of object wh-operator in phase edge position is checked but still active, and establishes an Agree relation with C (Pesetsky and Torrego 2001). This triggers the case feature on the C head to be checked by the operator DP, which, in turn, bans on T-to-C movement. Consequently, it leads to no overt complementizer in object relatives.
1