Scopability and sluicing

Christian Barker

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    This paper analyzes sluicing as anaphora to an anti-constituent (a continuation), that is, to the semantic remnant of a clause from which a subconstituent has been removed. For instance, in Mary said that [John saw someone yesterday], but she didn't say who, the antecedent clause is John saw someone yesterday, the subconstituent targeted for removal is someone, and the ellipsis site following who is anaphoric to the scope remnant John saw ___ yesterday. I provide a compositional syntax and semantics on which the relationship between the targeted subconstituent and the rest of the antecedent clause is one of scopability, not movement or binding. This correctly predicts that sluicing should be sensitive to scope islands, but not to syntactic islands. Unlike the currently dominant approaches to sluicing, there is no need to posit syntactic structure internal to the ellipsis site, nor is there any need for a semantic mutual-entailment requirement. Nevertheless, the fragment handles phenomena usually taken to suggest a close syntactic correspondence between the antecedent and the sluice, including case matching, voice matching, and verbal argument structure matching. In addition, the analysis handles phenomena exhibiting antecedent/sluice mismatches, including examples such as John remembers meeting someone, but he doesn't remember who, [InlineMediaObject not available: see fulltext.], and especially so-called sprouting examples such as John left, but I don't know when, in which there is no overt subconstituent to target for removal. In Sect. 5, I show how the analysis accounts for Andrews Amalgams such as Sally ate [I don't know what] today, in which the antecedent surrounds the sluiced clause. Finally, in Sect. 6, I propose a new semantic constraint on sluicing: the Answer Ban, which says that the antecedent clause must not resolve, or even partially resolve, the issue raised by the sluiced interrogative.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)187-223
    Number of pages37
    JournalLinguistics and Philosophy
    Volume36
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    StatePublished - May 2013

    Fingerprint

    semantics
    sect
    ban
    mismatch
    syntax
    Sluicing
    Clause
    Syntax
    Sect
    Ellipse

    Keywords

    • Amalgams
    • Anaphora
    • Continuations
    • Focus
    • Scopability
    • Scope
    • Sluicing
    • Sprouting
    • Type logical grammar

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Linguistics and Language
    • Philosophy

    Cite this

    Scopability and sluicing. / Barker, Christian.

    In: Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 36, No. 3, 05.2013, p. 187-223.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Barker, Christian. / Scopability and sluicing. In: Linguistics and Philosophy. 2013 ; Vol. 36, No. 3. pp. 187-223.
    @article{50d6d022cbf64b459211936541b35947,
    title = "Scopability and sluicing",
    abstract = "This paper analyzes sluicing as anaphora to an anti-constituent (a continuation), that is, to the semantic remnant of a clause from which a subconstituent has been removed. For instance, in Mary said that [John saw someone yesterday], but she didn't say who, the antecedent clause is John saw someone yesterday, the subconstituent targeted for removal is someone, and the ellipsis site following who is anaphoric to the scope remnant John saw ___ yesterday. I provide a compositional syntax and semantics on which the relationship between the targeted subconstituent and the rest of the antecedent clause is one of scopability, not movement or binding. This correctly predicts that sluicing should be sensitive to scope islands, but not to syntactic islands. Unlike the currently dominant approaches to sluicing, there is no need to posit syntactic structure internal to the ellipsis site, nor is there any need for a semantic mutual-entailment requirement. Nevertheless, the fragment handles phenomena usually taken to suggest a close syntactic correspondence between the antecedent and the sluice, including case matching, voice matching, and verbal argument structure matching. In addition, the analysis handles phenomena exhibiting antecedent/sluice mismatches, including examples such as John remembers meeting someone, but he doesn't remember who, [InlineMediaObject not available: see fulltext.], and especially so-called sprouting examples such as John left, but I don't know when, in which there is no overt subconstituent to target for removal. In Sect. 5, I show how the analysis accounts for Andrews Amalgams such as Sally ate [I don't know what] today, in which the antecedent surrounds the sluiced clause. Finally, in Sect. 6, I propose a new semantic constraint on sluicing: the Answer Ban, which says that the antecedent clause must not resolve, or even partially resolve, the issue raised by the sluiced interrogative.",
    keywords = "Amalgams, Anaphora, Continuations, Focus, Scopability, Scope, Sluicing, Sprouting, Type logical grammar",
    author = "Christian Barker",
    year = "2013",
    month = "5",
    doi = "10.1007/s10988-013-9137-1",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "36",
    pages = "187--223",
    journal = "Linguistics and Philosophy",
    issn = "0165-0157",
    publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
    number = "3",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Scopability and sluicing

    AU - Barker, Christian

    PY - 2013/5

    Y1 - 2013/5

    N2 - This paper analyzes sluicing as anaphora to an anti-constituent (a continuation), that is, to the semantic remnant of a clause from which a subconstituent has been removed. For instance, in Mary said that [John saw someone yesterday], but she didn't say who, the antecedent clause is John saw someone yesterday, the subconstituent targeted for removal is someone, and the ellipsis site following who is anaphoric to the scope remnant John saw ___ yesterday. I provide a compositional syntax and semantics on which the relationship between the targeted subconstituent and the rest of the antecedent clause is one of scopability, not movement or binding. This correctly predicts that sluicing should be sensitive to scope islands, but not to syntactic islands. Unlike the currently dominant approaches to sluicing, there is no need to posit syntactic structure internal to the ellipsis site, nor is there any need for a semantic mutual-entailment requirement. Nevertheless, the fragment handles phenomena usually taken to suggest a close syntactic correspondence between the antecedent and the sluice, including case matching, voice matching, and verbal argument structure matching. In addition, the analysis handles phenomena exhibiting antecedent/sluice mismatches, including examples such as John remembers meeting someone, but he doesn't remember who, [InlineMediaObject not available: see fulltext.], and especially so-called sprouting examples such as John left, but I don't know when, in which there is no overt subconstituent to target for removal. In Sect. 5, I show how the analysis accounts for Andrews Amalgams such as Sally ate [I don't know what] today, in which the antecedent surrounds the sluiced clause. Finally, in Sect. 6, I propose a new semantic constraint on sluicing: the Answer Ban, which says that the antecedent clause must not resolve, or even partially resolve, the issue raised by the sluiced interrogative.

    AB - This paper analyzes sluicing as anaphora to an anti-constituent (a continuation), that is, to the semantic remnant of a clause from which a subconstituent has been removed. For instance, in Mary said that [John saw someone yesterday], but she didn't say who, the antecedent clause is John saw someone yesterday, the subconstituent targeted for removal is someone, and the ellipsis site following who is anaphoric to the scope remnant John saw ___ yesterday. I provide a compositional syntax and semantics on which the relationship between the targeted subconstituent and the rest of the antecedent clause is one of scopability, not movement or binding. This correctly predicts that sluicing should be sensitive to scope islands, but not to syntactic islands. Unlike the currently dominant approaches to sluicing, there is no need to posit syntactic structure internal to the ellipsis site, nor is there any need for a semantic mutual-entailment requirement. Nevertheless, the fragment handles phenomena usually taken to suggest a close syntactic correspondence between the antecedent and the sluice, including case matching, voice matching, and verbal argument structure matching. In addition, the analysis handles phenomena exhibiting antecedent/sluice mismatches, including examples such as John remembers meeting someone, but he doesn't remember who, [InlineMediaObject not available: see fulltext.], and especially so-called sprouting examples such as John left, but I don't know when, in which there is no overt subconstituent to target for removal. In Sect. 5, I show how the analysis accounts for Andrews Amalgams such as Sally ate [I don't know what] today, in which the antecedent surrounds the sluiced clause. Finally, in Sect. 6, I propose a new semantic constraint on sluicing: the Answer Ban, which says that the antecedent clause must not resolve, or even partially resolve, the issue raised by the sluiced interrogative.

    KW - Amalgams

    KW - Anaphora

    KW - Continuations

    KW - Focus

    KW - Scopability

    KW - Scope

    KW - Sluicing

    KW - Sprouting

    KW - Type logical grammar

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883451331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883451331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1007/s10988-013-9137-1

    DO - 10.1007/s10988-013-9137-1

    M3 - Article

    VL - 36

    SP - 187

    EP - 223

    JO - Linguistics and Philosophy

    JF - Linguistics and Philosophy

    SN - 0165-0157

    IS - 3

    ER -