West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) (38th : 2020)

Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? : The view from Hungarian Ronai, Eszter; Stigliano, Laura 2020-03-06

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
73804-Ronai_E_et_al_Multiple_fronting_WCCFL38slides.pdf [ 623.66kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 73804-1.0389869.json
JSON-LD: 73804-1.0389869-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 73804-1.0389869-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 73804-1.0389869-rdf.json
Turtle: 73804-1.0389869-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 73804-1.0389869-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 73804-1.0389869-source.json
Full Text
73804-1.0389869-fulltext.txt
Citation
73804-1.0389869.ris

Full Text

Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing?The view from HungarianEszter Ronai & Laura StiglianoThe University of Chicago38th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics6-8 March 2020Main goals and claimsWhat is the source of (1-a) in Hungarian: (1-b) or (1-c)?(1) a. Valakisomeonemegh´ıvottinvitedvalakit,someone.accdebutnemnottudomknow.Ikiwho.nomkit.who.accmultiple sluicing‘Someone invited someone, but I don’t know who whom.’b. Kiwho.nomh´ıvottinvitedmegprtkit? singlewho.accwh-frontingLiteral: ‘Who invited whom?’c. Kiwho.nomkitwho.acch´ıvottinvitedmeg?prtmultiple wh-frontingLiteral: ‘Who whom invited?’Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 2Main goals and claims(1) a. Valakisomeonemegh´ıvottinvitedvalakit,someone.accdebutnemnottudom,I.knowkiwho.nomkit.who.acc‘Someone invited someone. But I don’t know who whom.’Structure A: ......debutnemnottudom,I.knowkiwho.nomh´ıvott meginvited prtkit.who.accsingle wh-frontingStructure B: ......debutnemnottudom,I.knowkiwho.nomkitwho.acch´ıvott meg.invited prtmultiple wh-frontingI We’ll adjudicate between these two sources.I Key idea: if Structure A vs. B is the source, there should be interpretational correlations.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 3Main goals and claimsI No interpretive difference among the structures in (1).Based on novel experimental data.Contra existing claims in the literature.I Answerhood conditions: not sufficient to determine source of Hungarian multiple sluicing.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 4Roadmap1. Background2. Experiment 1: Acceptability rating task3. Experiment 2: Forced choice task4. Theoretical implications5. ConclusionsEszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 5BackgroundThe properties of non-elliptical sentences should predict the properties of elliptical ones.(i.a. Tancredi, 1992)I Availability of multiple sluicing:Languages that allow multiple wh-movement allow multiple sluicing (i.a. Merchant, 2001).e.g. Bulgarian, Hungarian, Polish, and RussianI Parallel extends to possible interpretations:Interpretations of multiple wh-fronting questions = those of multiple sluicing.e.g. Hungarian (van Craenenbroeck & Lipta´k, 2013)Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 6Parallel in interpretationI Check what interpretations single vs. multiple wh-fronting questions allow for.I Check which one the interpretation(s) of multiple sluicing aligns with.→ Whichever type of question it parallels = the source.I There are disagreements in the existing literature on Hungarian.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 7E´. Kiss (2002)I Single wh-fronting questions must have a single-pair (SP) answer:(2) A: Ja´nosJohnkitwho.accmutatottintroducedbeprtkinek?who-to(E´. Kiss, 2002, ex.68)‘Who did John introduce to whom?’B: Pe´tertPeter.accmutattaintroducedbeprtMarinak.Mary-to‘He introduced Peter to Mary.’Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 8E´. Kiss (2002)I Multiple wh-fronting questions must have a pair-list (PL) answer:(3) A: Ja´nosJohnkitwho.acckinekwho-tomutatottintroducedbe?prt(E´. Kiss, 2002, ex.69)‘Who did John introduce to whom?’B: Pe´tertPeter.accMarinakMary-toe´sandE´va´nak,Eva-toZolta´ntZoltan.accE´va´nakEva-toe´sandJu´lia´nak,Julia-toIstva´ntIstvan.accpedigandJu´lia´nakJulia-toe´sandMarinakMary-tomutattaintroducedbe.prt‘He introduced Peter to Mary and Eva, Zoltan to Eva and Julia, and Istvan to Julia and Mary.’Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 9Sura´nyi (2006)I Single wh-fronting questions license both a PL and a SP answer:(4) A: Kiwhone´zettlookedra´prtkire?who-on(Sura´nyi, 2006, ex.28)‘Who looked at who?’B: Ja´nosJohnne´zettlookedra´prtMarira,Mary-onPaliPaulGabira,...Gaby-on‘John looked at Mary, Paul looked atGaby, ...’B’:Ja´nosJohnne´zettlookedra´prtMarira.Mary-on‘John looked at Mary.’Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 10Sura´nyi (2006)I Multiple wh-fronting questions must have a PL answer:(5) A: Kiwhomelyikwhichta´rgyatsubject.acctan´ıtja?teaches(Sura´nyi, 2006, ex.27)‘Who teaches which subject?’B: Pa´lPaulatheszintaxistsyntax.acctan´ıtja,teachesMa´rkMarkatheszintaxistsyntax.acce´sandathemorfolo´gia´t,...morphology.acc‘Paul teaches syntax, Mark teaches syntax and morphology, ...’B’: #Pa´lPaulatheszintaxistsyntax.acctan´ıtja.teaches‘Paul teaches syntax.’Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 11van Craenenbroeck and Lipta´k (2013)I Multiple wh-fronting questions must have a PL answer (also E´. Kiss, 1993).(6) Kiwhokinekwho-tohagyottleftegyau¨zenetet?message.acc(van Craenenbroeck & Lipta´k, 2013, ex.66)‘Who left a message for whom?’a. Everyone left a message for someone. I wonder who each person left a message for.b.*A single person left a message for someone. I wonder who the person was and for whom he lefta message.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 12van Craenenbroeck and Lipta´k (2013)I Multiple sluicing is only compatible with a PL scenario (promoted by everyone, (7-a)):(7) a. Mindenkieveryonehagyottleftegyau¨zenetetmessage.accvalakinek.someone-toNemnottudom,I.knowhogythatkiwhokinek.who-to‘Everyone left a message for someone. I don’t know who for whom.’b.*Valakisomeonehagyottleftegyau¨zenetetmessage.accvalakinek.someone-toNemnottudom,I.knowhogythatkiwhokinek.who-to‘Someone left a message for someone. I don’t know who for whom.’(van Craenenbroeck & Lipta´k, 2013, exs.67-68)(See also Nishigauchi 1998 for Japanese and Merchant 2001 for English.)I Assumption: Strict parallel between ellipsis and non-ellipsis.I Multiple sluicing derives from multiple wh-fronting.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 13Interim SummaryExisting literature:I Single wh-fronting questions: disagreement as to whether they only license SPanswers, or both SP and PL answers.I Multiple wh-fronting questions: allow for only a PL reading.I Multiple sluicing: is claimed to also only be available in PL contexts.I Multiple sluicing is derived from multiple wh-fronting.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 14Interim SummaryI None of the reported judgements have been subjected to rigorous experimental testing.I No minimal pairs → potential confounding factors in reported judgements:Which NP vs. who in the question.Transitives vs. ditransitives.Presence vs. absence of verb in the answer.Position of verb in the answer (VO vs. OV).Presence vs. absence of verbal particle: indexes focus movement.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 15Experiment 1: acceptability ratingI 45 native speakers of Hungarian.I Rate on a 1-7 scale how acceptable an (SP/PL) answer is to the relevant question in adialogue.I Methodology has been used successfully to test the answerhood conditions of questions inEnglish (Achimova, Deprez, & Musolino, 2013).Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 16Experiment 1: acceptability rating3×2 design:I 3 Constructions: multiple sluicing—8a, single wh-fronting questions—8b, multiplewh-fronting questions—8cI 2 Readings: SP and PL, promoted by a preceding sentence (Someone... for SP andEveryone... for PL) + a matching explicit SP/PL answer.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 17Experiment 1: stimuli(8) A:A:{Valaki{Someone//Mindenki}Everyone}megh´ıvottprt.invitedvalakit.someone.accTudod,you.knowhogy...that...a. ... kiwhokit.who.acc.b. ... kiwhoh´ıvottinvitedmegprtkit.who.accc. ... kiwhokitwho.acch´ıvottinvitedmeg.prt‘A: Someone/Everyone invited someone. Do you know who (invited) who?’(9) B:B:{MariMaryJa´nost.John.acc//MariMaryJa´nost,John.accPe´terPeterZsuzsit,Susie.accA´da´mAdampedigandE´va´t.}Eva.accEszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 18Experiment 1: results01234567Multiple sluicing Single wh Multiple whRatingssingle pair pair listHigh acceptability ratings.SP rated higher than PL:I Reading main effect (p < 0.001)I Construction n.s.I Interaction n.s.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 19Experiment 2: forced choiceI 39 native speakers of Hungarian.I Forced choice task: participants had to choose between a SP and a PL answer in responseto a question in a dialogue context.I 3 conditions = 3 Constructions:multiple sluicing—10a, single wh-fronting questions—10b, multiple wh-frontingquestions—10cEszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 20Experiment 2: stimuli(10)A:A:Valaki,Someone.sgvagyorvalakiksomeone.plmegh´ıvtakprt.invitedvalakit.someone.accTudod,you.knowhogy...that...a. ... kiwhokit.who.acc.b. ... kiwhoh´ıvottinvitedmegprtkit.who.accc. ... kiwhokitwho.acch´ıvottinvitedmeg.prt‘A: Someone, or some people invited someone. Do you know who (invited) who?’(11)B:B:{MariMaryJa´nost.John.acc//MariMaryJa´nost,John.accPe´terPeterZsuzsit,Susie.accA´da´mAdampedigandE´va´t.}Eva.accEszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 21Experiment 2: results0255075100Multiple sluicing Single wh Multiple whPercent of SPp<0.01Uniform preference for SP.Significant difference between:single (74% SP) and multiple (64%)wh-fronting questions (p < 0.01).Multiple sluicing (70% SP) doesn’tdiffer from either.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 22Overall resultsI Previously reported judgements not confirmed by our findings.7 Multiple sluicing and multiple wh-fronting questions: only compatible with PL.I Hungarian multiple sluicing, single and multiple wh-fronting questions pattern alike withrespect to their answerhood conditions:SP answers are preferred over PL ones across the board, though both answer types aregenerally available.I Exp. 2: multiple sluicing does not clearly align with either type of question in how strongthe SP preference is.Representing a “middle ground” when it comes to interpretation?Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 23Theoretical consequencesI These findings complicate our view of the syntax of multiple sluicing.I Assuming that properties of non-elliptical sentences predict properties of elliptical ones:no reason *in principle* to prefer analyzing multiple sluicing as deriving from eitherquestion type.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 24Potential sources12a: both wh-phrases are moved, and thus both escape deletion, which targets thecomplement of C (i.a. Merchant, 2001; van Craenenbroeck & Lipta´k, 2013).12b: one of the wh-phrases escapes deletion without needing to move (i.a. Abe, 2015, 2016).(12)Valaki/Mindenkisomeone/everyonemegh´ıvottinvitedvalakit.someone.accDebutnemnottudom,I.knowkiwho.nomkit.who.acc‘Someone/Everyone invited someone. But I don’t know who whom.’a. ......Debutnemnottudom,I.knowkiwho.nomkitwho.acc[C h´ıvott meg].invited prt→ move-and-delete approachb. ......Debutnemnottudom,I.knowkiwho.nom[C h´ıvott meginvited prt[kit]F].who.acc→ in-situ approachEszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 25Follow-up ideasInvestigate potential factors uncontrolled in earlier theoretical work, which may have led togeneralizations incompatible with our experimental findings:I Transitives vs. ditransitives.I Presence vs. absence of verb in the answer.I Position of verb in the answer (VO vs. OV).I Presence vs. absence of verbal particle: indexes focus movement.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 26ConclusionsI Claims about the answerhood conditions of Hungarian multiple sluicing andsingle/multiple wh-fronting questions were made on the basis of heterogeneousexamples.I Novel, controlled experimental data:All relevant structures pattern alike: license both SP and PL answers, with apreference for SP.Multiple sluicing is in between the two types of questions in terms of how strong apreference it has for SP.I Answerhood conditions cannot distinguish between the two possible sources for theellipsis site.→ No longer have an argument for multiple sluicing deriving from multiple wh-fronting.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 27Thank you!ronai@uchicago.edulaurastigliano@uchicago.eduEszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 28References IAbe, J. (2015). The in-situ approach to sluicing (Vols. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 222). JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.Abe, J. (2016). Make short answers shorter: Support for the in situ approach. Syntax, 19(3), 223–255.Achimova, A., Deprez, V., & Musolino, J. (2013). What makes pair list answers available: An experimentalapproach. In N. LaCara, L. Fainleib, & Y. Park (Eds.), NELS 41: Proceedings of the 41st AnnualMeeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA.E´. Kiss, K. (1993). Wh-movement and specificity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 11(1), 85–120.E´. Kiss, K. (2002). The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511755088Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford UniversityPress.Nishigauchi, T. (1998). ‘multiple sluicing’in japanese and the functional nature of wh-phrases. Journal of EastAsian Linguistics, 7(2), 121–152.Sura´nyi, B. (2006). Mechanisms of wh-saturation and interpretation in multiple wh-movement. In N. Corver& L. L. S. Cheng (Eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on (p. 289-318). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Tancredi, C. D. (1992). Deletion, deaccenting, and presupposition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Massachusetts Institute of Technology.van Craenenbroeck, J., & Lipta´k, A. (2013). What sluicing can do, what it can’t and in which language: Onthe cross-linguistic syntax of ellipsis.Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 29Data on individuals (Experiment 2)0255075100Multiple sluicingSingle wh Multiple whPercent of SP Count24681012Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 30Data on individuals (Experiment 2)ellipsis single_fronting multiple_fronting 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738390255075100ParticipantPercent of SPEszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 31Data on individuals (Experiment 2)02550751000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39ParticipantPercent of SPConditionLabelellipsis single_fronting multiple_fronting Eszter Ronai & Laura Stigliano Is multiple fronting necessary for multiple sluicing? The view from Hungarian 32

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.73804.1-0389869/manifest

Comment

Related Items