Embedded-complement and discontinuous pseudogapping in Hybrid Type-Logical Grammar: a rejoinder to Kim and Runner (2022)

IF 0.7 3区文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS

Linguistic Review Pub Date : 2022-09-22 DOI:10.1515/tlr-2022-2103

Yusuke Kubota, R. Levine

{"title":"Embedded-complement and discontinuous pseudogapping in Hybrid Type-Logical Grammar: a rejoinder to Kim and Runner (2022)","authors":"Yusuke Kubota, R. Levine","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In their recent paper on pseudogapping in Construction Grammar/HPSG, Kim and Runner (Kim, Jong-Bok & Jeffrey T. Runner. 2022. Pseudogapping in English: A direct interpretation approach. The Linguistic Review. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2094) suggest that the analysis of pseudogapping in Hybrid Type-Logical Grammar (Hybrid TLG) presented in Kubota and Levine (Kubota, Yusuke & Robert Levine. 2017. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2). 213–257) does not explain certain complex patterns of pseudogapping for which their own proposal does offer an account. Though Kim and Runner’s (2022) remarks on Kubota and Levine (Kubota, Yusuke & Robert Levine. 2017. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2). 213–257) leave room for interpretation, we take it to be reasonably clear that they simply mean that it is difficult to see how such data could be formally accounted for in Kubota and Levine’s proposal. The primary goal of our response is to refute Kim and Runner’s claim on this interpretation. After refuting their claim on this interpretation, we consider a different interpretation of their remarks, one which merely questions the conceptual plausibility of Kubota and Levine’s (2017) broader theoretical architecture. This latter discussion leads to some interesting and important cross-theoretical comparison of different approaches to ellipsis.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"743 - 753"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2103","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In their recent paper on pseudogapping in Construction Grammar/HPSG, Kim and Runner (Kim, Jong-Bok & Jeffrey T. Runner. 2022. Pseudogapping in English: A direct interpretation approach. The Linguistic Review. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2094) suggest that the analysis of pseudogapping in Hybrid Type-Logical Grammar (Hybrid TLG) presented in Kubota and Levine (Kubota, Yusuke & Robert Levine. 2017. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2). 213–257) does not explain certain complex patterns of pseudogapping for which their own proposal does offer an account. Though Kim and Runner’s (2022) remarks on Kubota and Levine (Kubota, Yusuke & Robert Levine. 2017. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2). 213–257) leave room for interpretation, we take it to be reasonably clear that they simply mean that it is difficult to see how such data could be formally accounted for in Kubota and Levine’s proposal. The primary goal of our response is to refute Kim and Runner’s claim on this interpretation. After refuting their claim on this interpretation, we consider a different interpretation of their remarks, one which merely questions the conceptual plausibility of Kubota and Levine’s (2017) broader theoretical architecture. This latter discussion leads to some interesting and important cross-theoretical comparison of different approaches to ellipsis.

查看原文本刊更多论文

混合类型逻辑语法中的嵌入补语和不连续伪映射:对Kim和Runner(2022)的回应

摘要在他们最近关于构造语法/HSG中的伪缺口的论文中，Kim和Runner（Kim，Jong Bok&Jeffrey T.Runner.2022）。英语中的伪语篇：一种直接的解释方法。语言学评论。https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2094)建议Kubota和Levine（Kubota，Yusuke&Robert Levine.2017。伪间隙作为伪VP省略号。语言学探究48（2）。213–257）并没有解释某些复杂的伪间隙模式，他们自己的提案确实提供了一个解释。尽管金和Runner（2022）对久保田和莱文的评论（久保田，Yusuke和Robert Levine，2017）。伪间隙作为伪VP省略号。语言学探究48（2）。213–257）留下了解释的空间，我们认为很明显，它们只是意味着很难在久保田和莱文的提案中正式解释这些数据。我们回应的主要目的是反驳金和Runner关于这一解释的说法。在驳斥了他们对这一解释的说法后，我们考虑对他们的言论进行不同的解释，这种解释只是质疑久保田和Levine（2017）更广泛的理论架构的概念合理性。后一种讨论导致了对省略的不同方法的一些有趣且重要的跨理论比较。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Linguistic Review Multiple-

CiteScore

1.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Linguistic Review aims at publishing high-quality papers in syntax, semantics, phonology, and morphology, within a framework of Generative Grammar and related disciplines, as well as critical discussions of theoretical linguistics as a branch of cognitive psychology. Striving to be a platform for discussion, The Linguistic Review welcomes reviews of important new monographs in these areas, dissertation abstracts, and letters to the editor. The editor also welcomes initiatives for thematic issues with guest editors. The Linguistic Review is a peer-reviewed journal of international scope.