Read e-book Ellipsis in Comparatives (Studies in Generative Grammar [SGG])

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Ellipsis in Comparatives (Studies in Generative Grammar [SGG]) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Ellipsis in Comparatives (Studies in Generative Grammar [SGG]) book. Happy reading Ellipsis in Comparatives (Studies in Generative Grammar [SGG]) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Ellipsis in Comparatives (Studies in Generative Grammar [SGG]) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Ellipsis in Comparatives (Studies in Generative Grammar [SGG]) Pocket Guide.

De Gruyter Mouton. Log-in or create an account first! Glossary Some terminology that may be used in this description includes: New A new book is a book previously not circulated to a buyer.

  • Creative Ministry.
  • Edited by Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne.
  • Ellipsis in Comparatives.
  • by Lechner, Winfried?

Although a new book is typically free of any faults or defects, Ask the seller a question. Where can I get my book appraised? Most Interesting Books Sold in From some of the expected classics to some modern surprises, we've gathered our observations of the book buying trends in A special order item has limited availability and the seller may source this title from another supplier.

In this event, there may be a slight delay in shipping and possible variation in description. Our Day return guarantee still applies. Advanced Book Search Browse by Subject. Find Antiquarian Books Book Value. Sign up to receive offers and updates: Subscribe.

1 - 20 of 21 Results found

All Rights Reserved. We thus have two independent respects in which ellipsis fares better than NCA in explaining the syntactic visibility of OGs in Hebrew. A fourth piece of evidence comes from extraction. Admittedly, DPs in Hebrew are generally islands and extraction out of them is only allowed in extremely limited circumstances. Therefore, evidence for extraction out of elided DPs is hard to come by.

Nevertheless, relevant examples can be constructed. In 50a , a PP is topicalized out of an unraised VP-internal subject of an unaccusative verb — an overt one in the first conjunct, an elided one in the second.

Pronominal inflection and NP ellipsis in German

Thus, the elided DP in the second conjunct hosts an internal trace. But this implies that the elided object in the second conjunct hosts an internal trace at LF. Hosting an internal trace is a hallmark of syntactic structure — present in ellipsis, but absent in NCA. Thus, facts like 50a—b favor the former analysis over the latter. With these four arguments, we can safely conclude that Hebrew OGs are not at least, not solely derived by NCA, and that a productive mechanism of AE, removing phonological features but leaving syntactic structure intact, is also operative in the language.

The argument, due to Doron , draws on an intriguing observation made in Cole , in the context of discussing relative clauses in Hebrew. In general and barring island effects , resumptive pronouns are in free alternation with traces in direct object and nonlocal subject positions, but are obligatory in prepositional object positions, given that Hebrew lacks P-stranding. Doron, however, noted that V-identity is not required, as long as the two verbs subcategorize for the same preposition 52b. The solution to the puzzle, according to Doron, is to recognize that the PP-less versions of 52a—b are derived by ACD: the VP in the relative clause is deleted under identity with the matrix VP.

Recall that Doron assumes, as I do, that elliptical OG sentences in Hebrew are not constrained by V-identity, hence 52b poses no particular difficulty. The natural alternative is PP ellipsis; the missing PP in 52a—b just is the target of ellipsis. The two competing analyses are depicted below, assuming the standard LF-movement account of ACD required to place the elided constituent outside its antecedent. In each case, the antecedent is boldfaced and the ellipsis site is struck-through English words used for convenience.

In 54a the antecedent clause is monotransitive and the target clause is ditransitive, whereas in 54b , the reverse holds. The VP in the relative clause has no antecedent lexical VP at all to be recovered from see section 3. PP ellipsis is the only possible analysis. This sentence can mean: he has convincingly argued every point that I have argued but not convincingly. Importantly, negation in the target clause need not negate the very occurrence of the event, but only its adverbial modification. By contrast, the following example in Hebrew lacks a parallel reading; the relative clause can only be understood as negating the occurrence of the event.

Although the empirical discussion has focused on Hebrew, the conclusions have implications for the analysis of similar elliptical constructions in other languages. Evidently, our conclusion that Hebrew does not, after all, employ VSVPE, should serve as an impetus to revisit purported cases of VSVPE in other languages and ask whether they withstand a similar critique. Furthermore, the claim that Hebrew employs AE opens up new questions about the crosslinguistic distribution of this grammatical device. These questions are fully addressed in work in progress; here I will limit myself to sketching the relevant issues.

Sections 3—4 demonstrated that there is no distinguishing property that is found in VSVPE but not in AE; potential candidates for such properties were shown to be unreliable. On the other hand, as often noted in the literature, it is not easy to find empirical properties consistent only with AE and not with VSVPE. This test has been successfully applied to East Asian languages in the past, and in section 5. I have further developed this test, using creation verbs. The results, however, are not conclusive, as the test examples fail to distinguish a syntactic reason for the inclusion of the adjunct in the ellipsis site namely, that it is vP that is elided from a pragmatic reason for favoring the adjunct-including reading, which is perfectly compatible with AE see the discussion surrounding In fact, there seems to be positive evidence against it and in favor of AE, paralleling the arguments made here for Hebrew.

If this is an accurate assessment of the facts, a natural question arises: is VSVPE available in any language?

  • Worse Than Death: The Dallas Nightclub Murders and the Texas Multiple Murder Law (North Texas Crime and Criminal Justice Series);
  • Syntactic Features - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics.
  • Pronominal inflection and NP ellipsis in German | SpringerLink?
  • Supplementary Information.
  • Forest of Assassins;
  • Advances in LC-MS Instrumentation (Journal of Chromatography Library).
  • Cooking Famously.

But what could that constraint be? If V can raise out of VP in language L and if VP is a possible target of ellipsis in L say, following an auxiliary , then why can the two not cooccur in L, but can in other languages? Sailor in press argues that if VPE is triggered before V-raising is, VSVPE will not be possible, as V would be trapped inside the ellipsis site made inaccessible to syntactic operations, see Aelbrecht This, he claims, is what we see in mainland Scandinavian languages. Crucially, though, Sailor assumes that if the two operations are triggered by the same head, no order is imposed between them and so VSVPE should be possible on the derivation in which V-raising precedes VPE.

The challenge is to identify this principle. Exactly what determines which combinations of ellipsis and V-stranding or head-stranding more generally are permitted and which ones are not?

Top Authors

Can the relevant factors be traced to well-accepted, grammatical principles and structures? Inspired by these works, in Landau I address these theoretical questions and provides an account covering VSVPE as well as other cases of head-stranding ellipsis. Any such account, of course, should be strong enough to rule out VSVPE in principle leaving AE as the leading analysis for OG sentences in Hebrew and similar languages but not too strong to rule out true instances of head-stranding ellipsis.

Finally, let us turn to the grammar of AE itself. Most of the current literature on AE is focused on East Asian languages. That Hebrew should employ this device is, from the perspective of the existing literature, at least interesting, if not puzzling. Other proposals attribute the option of AE to scrambling Oku , the absence of a DP layer in the nominal projection Cheng , the agglutinative nature of the nominal f-morphology Simpson, Choudhury and Menon ; Otaki , or the property of radical pro -drop Sakamoto Currently, no existing proposal can do justice to the typological diversity of AE languages see Sakamoto for a recent comprehensive review.

Download Limit Exceeded

Hebrew compounds the problem: it has no scrambling in the usual sense only objects of ditransitive verbs may swap positions , no agglutinative nominal f-morphology, no radical pro -drop, and it certainly projects a DP layer in nominals. Indeed, it also lacks object agreement, but this criterion must be very narrowly applied at any rate, given that English also lacks it and still excludes AE. This might suggest that we have been looking in the wrong direction all along; perhaps the variation is to be explained in pragmatic terms regulating the recoverability of elided arguments , insofar as we countenance the existence of pragmatic parameters.

Starting from the late s and into the early s, the VSVPE analysis has been advocated for a great number of languages.

Supplementary Information

Curiously, this analysis has been retracted and superseded in all these languages up to now — except for Hebrew. It thus seemed increasingly suspicious that Hebrew alone should survive this revisionist wave. As I argued throughout this paper, the suspicion was fully warranted. This was shown by re-examining the full range of constructions admitting null objects in Hebrew. The inevitable conclusion is that AE is a necessary device in Hebrew grammar, and furthermore, that it can account for all the data for which VSVPE was invoked.

The next step was to show that VSVPE is not only dispensable but rather inconsistent with certain facts. This conclusion raises interesting questions for future research. It invites a reconsideration of alleged VSVPE derivations in other languages, and possibly, a deeper theoretical probe into constraints on head movement out of ellipsis sites.

Finally, it brings to the fore the pressing need in formulating a comprehensive theory of licensing AE across languages. Unlike syntactically generated traces, which are accessible to rebinding by a new antecedent in the ellipsis clause, PF-movement does not yield any syntactic variable. This reasoning, however, is at odds with compelling evidence for the interpretive effects of head movement, both in terms of scope interactions Lechner , and in terms of leaving LF-visible traces that impact MaxElide effects Hartman ; Thoms Whether the clausal gap is a residue of ellipsis or null pronominalization, then, cannot be decided on the basis of this test.

See also Hauser, Mikkelsen and Toosanvardani and Baltin for analyses that combine the two operations in the same derivation. Once the valued are supplied, the OG should be indistinguishable from a pronoun modulo Spellout, which has no interpretive effect. Perhaps the absence of a D-feature on OGs, as opposed to genuine pronouns, can account for their greater tolerance to nonspecific readings.

This distinction, however, leaves unexplain the availability of OGs interpreted as definites, including nonspecific de dicto definites, or quantified DPs.

  1. Where can I get my book appraised?.
  2. Legendary Scientists: The Life and Legacy of Galileo Galilei.
  3. Supplementary Information;
  4. Peter Svenonius.
  5. Collecting Banned & Challenged Books;
  6. Pick Up Lines for Murder?
  7. To continue, please check the box below:!
  8. We need not decide on the issue here. Doron and Taube cite examples where the antecedent of the OG is a nonlinguistic, purely deictic entity, as in i taken from Taube The speaker presents a new bag and says: yafe? I bought it on sale. For example: i. However, the growing literature on East Asian languages revealed that null objects may perfectly generate sloppy readings, plausibly though maybe not exclusively via the argument ellipsis derivation.

    Ellipsis in Comparatives

    Goldberg recognizes this for Japanese and Korean and even for Hebrew null object constructions p. Therefore, the un availability of a sloppy reading will not be used here as a method of distinguishing VSVPE and argument ellipsis. For present purposes, however, it is enough to entertain the weaker position namely, only argument structure is absent.