英语和匈牙利语的重复片段:对小句省略的原位q等价方法的进一步支持

IF 1.9 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Language Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1353/lan.2023.0000
J. Griffiths, Güliz Güneş, A. Lipták
{"title":"英语和匈牙利语的重复片段:对小句省略的原位q等价方法的进一步支持","authors":"J. Griffiths, Güliz Güneş, A. Lipták","doi":"10.1353/lan.2023.0000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:We present a comparative analysis of English and Hungarian reprise fragments. We argue that reprise fragments should be afforded the same theoretical treatment as standard (i.e. nonreprise) fragments. Assuming that standard fragmentary answers and questions are remnants of an ellipsis operation that applies to a clause, this entails that reprise fragments are also remnants of clausal ellipsis. We show that the prevailing approach to standard fragments, which assumes that the remnant of ellipsis always undergoes movement (Merchant 2001, 2004), cannot be plausibly extended to explain the crosslinguistic reprise-fragment data. We argue that a theory is required that restricts antecedents to interrogatives and that allows—but crucially does not require—movement of the remnant. Under this account, the differences observed between English and Hungarian reprise and standard fragments follow from independent syntactic differences in how standard and reprise questions are formed in these languages. We therefore provide new evidence to support theories of ellipsis identity that state that only questions make for suitable antecedents for clausal ellipsis (so-called Q-equivalence approaches) and to support sententialist analyses of clausal ellipsis that permit ellipsis to occur around designated constituents (so-called in-situ approaches).","PeriodicalId":17956,"journal":{"name":"Language","volume":"99 1","pages":"154 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reprise fragments in English and Hungarian: Further support for an in-situ Q-equivalence approach to clausal ellipsis\",\"authors\":\"J. Griffiths, Güliz Güneş, A. Lipták\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/lan.2023.0000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:We present a comparative analysis of English and Hungarian reprise fragments. We argue that reprise fragments should be afforded the same theoretical treatment as standard (i.e. nonreprise) fragments. Assuming that standard fragmentary answers and questions are remnants of an ellipsis operation that applies to a clause, this entails that reprise fragments are also remnants of clausal ellipsis. We show that the prevailing approach to standard fragments, which assumes that the remnant of ellipsis always undergoes movement (Merchant 2001, 2004), cannot be plausibly extended to explain the crosslinguistic reprise-fragment data. We argue that a theory is required that restricts antecedents to interrogatives and that allows—but crucially does not require—movement of the remnant. Under this account, the differences observed between English and Hungarian reprise and standard fragments follow from independent syntactic differences in how standard and reprise questions are formed in these languages. We therefore provide new evidence to support theories of ellipsis identity that state that only questions make for suitable antecedents for clausal ellipsis (so-called Q-equivalence approaches) and to support sententialist analyses of clausal ellipsis that permit ellipsis to occur around designated constituents (so-called in-situ approaches).\",\"PeriodicalId\":17956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language\",\"volume\":\"99 1\",\"pages\":\"154 - 191\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2023.0000\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2023.0000","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

摘要:我们对英语和匈牙利语的重读片段进行了比较分析。我们认为,重演片段应该与标准(即非企业)片段一样得到理论处理。假设标准的零碎答案和问题是适用于从句的省略操作的残余,这就意味着重演片段也是从句省略的残余。我们表明,对标准片段的主流方法,即假设省略的残余总是发生移动(Merchant 20012004),不能合理地扩展到解释跨语言重复片段数据。我们认为,需要一种理论,将前因限制为疑问句,并允许——但至关重要的是,不要求——残余语的运动。在这种解释下,在英语和匈牙利语的重读和标准片断之间观察到的差异源于这些语言中标准和重读问题形成的独立句法差异。因此,我们提供了新的证据来支持省略同一性理论,即只有问题才是小句省略的合适前因(所谓的Q等价方法),并支持允许省略发生在指定成分周围的小句省略句法分析(所谓的原位方法)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reprise fragments in English and Hungarian: Further support for an in-situ Q-equivalence approach to clausal ellipsis
Abstract:We present a comparative analysis of English and Hungarian reprise fragments. We argue that reprise fragments should be afforded the same theoretical treatment as standard (i.e. nonreprise) fragments. Assuming that standard fragmentary answers and questions are remnants of an ellipsis operation that applies to a clause, this entails that reprise fragments are also remnants of clausal ellipsis. We show that the prevailing approach to standard fragments, which assumes that the remnant of ellipsis always undergoes movement (Merchant 2001, 2004), cannot be plausibly extended to explain the crosslinguistic reprise-fragment data. We argue that a theory is required that restricts antecedents to interrogatives and that allows—but crucially does not require—movement of the remnant. Under this account, the differences observed between English and Hungarian reprise and standard fragments follow from independent syntactic differences in how standard and reprise questions are formed in these languages. We therefore provide new evidence to support theories of ellipsis identity that state that only questions make for suitable antecedents for clausal ellipsis (so-called Q-equivalence approaches) and to support sententialist analyses of clausal ellipsis that permit ellipsis to occur around designated constituents (so-called in-situ approaches).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Language
Language Multiple-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: Language, the official journal for the Linguistic Society of America, is published quarterly and contains articles, short reports, book reviews and book notices on all aspects of linguistics, focussing on the area of theoretical linguistics. Edited by Greg Carlson, Language serves a readership of over 5,000 and has been the primary literary vehicle for the Society since 1924.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信