寄生间隙不是寄生的,或者,在未邀请的客人的情况下

IF 0.7 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
P. Culicover, S. Winkler
{"title":"寄生间隙不是寄生的,或者,在未邀请的客人的情况下","authors":"P. Culicover, S. Winkler","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2021-2080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A parasitic gap construction typically occurs when an otherwise illicit gap in an island is ameliorated by a gap elsewhere in the sentence. In this paper, we consider the relationship between the unacceptability of extraction from subject islands (ExtrSubj) and the amelioration associated with parasitic gaps. We argue that there is no parasitic gap mechanism per se that has the effect of making extraction from an island grammatical. Rather, the link between the two is a matter of processing complexity. Our central claim is that in ExtrSubj, the presence of a distinct referring argument in the predicate contributes processing complexity. This referring argument is the ‘Uninvited Guest’. If an instance of ExtrSubj is of reduced acceptability, inclusion of the Uninvited Guest is likely to make it fully unacceptable, or ‘ungrammatical’ in conventional terms. On the other hand, linking of the argument position to the extracted A′ constituent – a ‘parasitic gap’ configuration – does not contribute additional processing complexity, thus giving rise to the appearance of amelioration.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"1 - 35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parasitic gaps aren’t parasitic, or, the case of the Uninvited Guest\",\"authors\":\"P. Culicover, S. Winkler\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/tlr-2021-2080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract A parasitic gap construction typically occurs when an otherwise illicit gap in an island is ameliorated by a gap elsewhere in the sentence. In this paper, we consider the relationship between the unacceptability of extraction from subject islands (ExtrSubj) and the amelioration associated with parasitic gaps. We argue that there is no parasitic gap mechanism per se that has the effect of making extraction from an island grammatical. Rather, the link between the two is a matter of processing complexity. Our central claim is that in ExtrSubj, the presence of a distinct referring argument in the predicate contributes processing complexity. This referring argument is the ‘Uninvited Guest’. If an instance of ExtrSubj is of reduced acceptability, inclusion of the Uninvited Guest is likely to make it fully unacceptable, or ‘ungrammatical’ in conventional terms. On the other hand, linking of the argument position to the extracted A′ constituent – a ‘parasitic gap’ configuration – does not contribute additional processing complexity, thus giving rise to the appearance of amelioration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46358,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistic Review\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 35\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistic Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2021-2080\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Linguistic Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2021-2080","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: 10

摘要

寄生间隙结构通常发生在一个岛屿上的非法间隙被句子中其他地方的间隙所改善时。在本文中,我们考虑了从主体岛提取的不可接受性(ExtrSubj)与与寄生间隙相关的改进之间的关系。我们认为,没有寄生间隙机制本身具有使从岛屿提取合乎语法的作用。相反,两者之间的联系是处理复杂性的问题。我们的中心主张是,在ExtrSubj中,谓词中不同引用参数的存在增加了处理的复杂性。这个论点是“不速之客”。如果一个ExtrSubj的例子不能被接受,那么加入“未被邀请的客人”很可能会使它完全不能被接受,或者用传统的术语来说是“不合语法的”。另一方面,将参数位置与提取的A '成分(“寄生间隙”配置)联系起来,不会增加处理的复杂性,从而产生改善的外观。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Parasitic gaps aren’t parasitic, or, the case of the Uninvited Guest
Abstract A parasitic gap construction typically occurs when an otherwise illicit gap in an island is ameliorated by a gap elsewhere in the sentence. In this paper, we consider the relationship between the unacceptability of extraction from subject islands (ExtrSubj) and the amelioration associated with parasitic gaps. We argue that there is no parasitic gap mechanism per se that has the effect of making extraction from an island grammatical. Rather, the link between the two is a matter of processing complexity. Our central claim is that in ExtrSubj, the presence of a distinct referring argument in the predicate contributes processing complexity. This referring argument is the ‘Uninvited Guest’. If an instance of ExtrSubj is of reduced acceptability, inclusion of the Uninvited Guest is likely to make it fully unacceptable, or ‘ungrammatical’ in conventional terms. On the other hand, linking of the argument position to the extracted A′ constituent – a ‘parasitic gap’ configuration – does not contribute additional processing complexity, thus giving rise to the appearance of amelioration.
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
Linguistic Review
Linguistic Review Multiple-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
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.
×
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