1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistics in the Netherlands
  4. Volume 37, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 37, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

This article compares two alternatives to the standard movement-and-deletion approach to clausal ellipsis, which postulates deletion of TP after the remnants of ellipsis are (sometimes exceptionally) A′-moved into the left periphery of the clause. One alternative is the approach, which denies the involvement of movement in the derivation of clausal ellipsis; it claims that clausal ellipsis can apply to run-of-the-mill syntactic structure and simply deletes the familiar/given information from the propositional domain of the clause. Another alternative is the selective spell-out approach; it denies the involvement of deletion and states that the remnants undergo regular A′-movement into the specifiers of specific semantically relevant functional projections (CP, FocusP, NegP, etc.), which are subsequently selected for spell-out. This article argues that the selective spell-out approach is superior to the two deletion approaches.

© Algemene Vereniging voor Taalwetenschap
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00035.bro
2020-10-27
2025-04-29

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/avt.00035.bro
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/avt.00035.bro.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00035.bro&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Barbiers, Sjef
    1995 The syntax of interpretation, University of Leiden/HIL: PhD thesis.
  2. 2010 “Focus particle doubling.” Structure preserved. Studies in syntax for Jan Koster, ed. byJan-Wouter Zwart and Mark De Vries. 21–29. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.164.03bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.164.03bar [Google Scholar]
  3. 2014 “Syntactic doubling and deletion as a source of variation.” Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, ed.M. Carme Picallo. 197–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.003.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bayer, Josef
    2012 “From modal particle to interrogative marker. A study of German denn.” Functional Heads, ed. byLaura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro and Cecilia Poletto. 13–28. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2017 “Clitic denn and wh-movement.” Wiener Linguistische Gazette82 [Festschrift für Martin Prinzhorn]: 1–11.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 2018 “Criterial Freezing in the syntax of particles.” Freezing. Theoretical approaches and empirical domains, ed. byJutta Hartmann, Marion Jäger, Andreas Konietzko and Susanne Winkler. 225–263. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501504266‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504266-007 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2019 “Why doubling discourse particles?” Linguistic variation: structure and interpretation, ed. byLudovico Franco and Paolo Lorusso. 47–72. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bayer, Josef, and Hans-Georg Obenauer
    2011 “Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types.” The Linguistic Review28: 449–491. 10.1515/tlir.2011.013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2011.013 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bhattacharya, Tanmoy, and Andrew Simpson
    2012 “Sluicing in Indo-Aryan: An investigation of Bangla and Hindi.” Sluicing: cross-Linguistic perspectives, ed. byJason Merchant and Andrew Simpson. 183–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645763.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645763.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  10. Boone, Enrico
    2014 The syntax and licensing of gapping and fragments, University of Leiden: PhD thesis.
  11. Broekhuis, Hans
    2018 “The syntax of Dutch gapping.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 2018, ed. byJanine Berns and Bert Le Bruyn. 19–33. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Broekhuis, Hans, and Norbert Corver
    2016 Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and verb phrases, volume3. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_614910
     https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_614910 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2019 Syntax of Dutch. Coordination and Ellipsis. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/25972. 10.2307/j.ctvk3gpn5
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvk3gpn5 [Google Scholar]
  14. Den Dikken, Marcel
    1995 “Extraposition as intraposition, and the syntax of English tag questions.” Unpublished ms.Free University (Amsterdam).
  15. Hankamer, Jorge
    1971 Constraints on deletion in syntax, Yale University: PhD thesis.
  16. 1979 Deletion in coordinate structures. New York/London: Garland Publishing Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hentschel, Elke
    1986 Funktion und Geschichte der deutschen Partikeln: “Ja”, “doch”, “halt” und “eben”. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111371221
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111371221 [Google Scholar]
  18. Johnson, Kyle
    2009 “Gapping is not (VP-)ellipsis.” Linguistic Inquiry40: 289–328. 10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.289
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.289 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2017 “Gapping.” The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax [2nd, revised edition], ed. byMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. 1745–1783. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom046
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom046 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kayne, Richard S.
    1998 “Overt vs. covert movement.” Syntax1: 128–191. Also published as chapter 13 inParameters and universals. Oxford University Press 2000.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Merchant, Jason
    2001 The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 2004 “Fragments and ellipsis.” Linguistics and Philosophy27: 661–738. 10.1007/s10988‑005‑7378‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3 [Google Scholar]
  23. Neijt, Anneke
    1979 Gapping. A contribution to sentence grammar, University of Utrecht: PhD thesis. 10.1515/9783111546001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111546001
  24. Ott, Dennis, and Volker Struckmeier
    2018 “Particles and deletion.” Linguistic Inquiry49: 393–407. 10.1162/LING_a_00277
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00277 [Google Scholar]
  25. Zwart, Jan-Wouter
    1993 Dutch syntax. A minimalist approach, University of Groningen: PhD thesis.
  26. 1997 Morphosyntax of verb movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5880‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5880-0 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00035.bro
Loading
Clausal ellipsis
Linguistics in the Netherlands 37, 23 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00035.bro
/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00035.bro
/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00035.bro
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): A′-movement; clausal ellipsis; deletion; discourse particles; spell-out

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error