Ellipsis and Syntactic Representation
Yüklə 121,54 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 3 Ellipsis and Parasitic Gaps
10 Ellipsis and Syntactic Representation in which the syntactic component generates a pair of representations, one that in- terfaces with the phonological component (PF), and one that interfaces with the semantic component (LF) (as in Chomsky 1995, etc.). I will show that VP-ellipsis constructions are sensitive to configurational constraints on (LF) representations, but not to morphophonological constraints governing the interpretation of PF rep- resentations, in line with the predictions in (29). I should note that I am adopting a multistratal framework for convenience. The predictions in (29) hold of any theory that includes both configurational and morphophonologically defined “interpretive” constraints on syntactic well-formedness: ellipsis constructions should be sensitive to the former but not the latter.
As originally observed by Kim and Lyle (1996), apparent parasitic gap chains do not show island effects when the expected position of the parasitic gap is contained in a deleted VP (see also Lappin 1992). (30)
a.
Which article £ did you summarize ¥¦£ after Jim asked [who had read PG £
b. Which article £ did you summarize ¥¦£ after Jim asked [who would be willing to]? (31)
Adjuncts a.
Which movie £ did you see ¥¦£ because Polly was so excited [after going to PG
]? b. Which movie £ did you see ¥¦£ because Polly was so excited [after she did]? (32)
Complex NPs a.
Mayor Daley £ , whom everyone met ¥¦£ except [the people who didn’t know that there would be an opportunity to see PG £ ], discussed Chicago politics. b. Mayor Daley £ , whom everyone met ¥¦£ except [the people who didn’t know that there would be an opportunity to], discussed Chicago pol- itics.
Christopher Kennedy 11 (33) Coordinate structures a.
Which books £ did you read ¥¦£ after learning that Erik had bought PG £
£ ? b. Which books £ did you read ¥¦£ after learning that Erik had and enjoyed them £
Kennedy (1997) argues that these facts have a fairly straightforward and simple explanation: the putative parasitic gap chains in (30b)-(33b) do not show island effects because, contrary to what might be initially assumed, these sentences do not actually contain parasitic gaps. Instead, the “gap” in the deleted VP is actually a pronoun. In other words, the structural descriptions of (30b)-(33b) are as in (34a)- (34d), where the struck-through text corresponds to the deleted VP. (34) a.
£ did you summarize ¥¦£ after Jim asked who would be willing to [ VP summarize it £ ] b. Which movie £ did you see ¥¦£ because Polly was so excited after she did [ VP
£ ]? c. Mayor Daley £ , who everyone met ¥¦£ except the people who didn’t know that there would be an opportunity to [ VP meet him £ ], discussed Chicago politics. d. Which books £ did you read ¥¦£ after learning that Erik did [ VP read them £ ]
£ ? The reason that VP-deletion is possible here, despite the apparent non-identity be- tween deleted and antecedent VPs, is that these examples are just instances of what Fiengo and May (1994) call “vehicle change”: the observation that in many con- texts, pronouns and other expressions (in particular, A-traces) “count as” identical for the purpose of licensing deletion. 1 One of the arguments that Kennedy presents in favor of the claim that the elided VPs in (30b)-(33b) contain pronouns, not parasitic gaps, comes from crossover effects. As is well known, parasitic gaps show strong crossover effects (i.e., they are subject to Condition C; see Postal 1993; Cinque 1990). This is illustrated by the contrast in (35). (35) a.
Who £ were they investigating ¥¦£ before he £ knew they suspected PG £ ? b. Who
£ were they investigating ¥¦£ before you knew they suspected PG £ ? 1 See Merchant 2001 for a semantic licensing condition on ellipsis, based on Schwarzchild’s (1999) theory of focus and deaccenting, that derives vehicle change.
12 Ellipsis and Syntactic Representation Sentences like (30b)-(33b), however, do not show strong crossover effects: (36) a.
£ did Maureen vote for because he £ asked her to? b. Which students £ did Otis report without them £ knowing he had? c. Who
£ did you call before she £ asked you to? If the elided VPs in these examples contain pronouns, rather than parasitic gaps, then the facts in (36) follow: these sentences have structures that are com- pletely parallel to examples like the ones in (37), which also do not show crossover effects.
(37) a. Who £ did Maureen vote for ¥¦£ because he £ asked her to vote for him £ b.
£ did Otis report ¥¦£ without them £ knowing he had re- ported them £ c. Who £ did you call ¥¦£ before she £ asked you to call her £ If, however, the elided VPs in these examples contained parasitic gaps, then they should be as ungrammatical as corresponding examples with overt parasitic gaps, such as those in (38). (38) a.
£ did Maureen vote for ¥¦£ because *he £ /Charles asked her to sup- port PG
b. Which students £ did Otis report ¥¦£ without *them £ /you knowing he suspected PG £ c. Who
£ did you call ¥¦£ before *she £ /Marcus asked you to visit PG £
C) effects, they do show Condition B effects: (39)
a.
Who £ did Maureen recommend because he £ /Louis wouldn’t? b.
Which students £ did Otis report even after telling them £ /you to?
c.
Who £ did you try to serve before seeing that she £ /I already had? Again, this follows if the “gaps” in the ellipsis sites are pronouns: (40)
a.
Who £ did Maureen recommend ¥¦£ because he £ wouldn’t recommend him £
Which students £ did Otis report ¥¦£ even after telling them £ to report them £
Yüklə 121,54 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|