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

Parameterized [E]llipsis : An argument from German determiner sharing Schwarzer, Marie-Luise 2020

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-Schwarzer_ML_Parameterized_ellipsis_WCCFL38_2020handout.pdf [ 210.64kB ]
73804-Schwarzer_Marie-Luise_Parameterized_ellipsis_poster.pdf [ 196.23kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 73804-1.0389871.json
JSON-LD: 73804-1.0389871-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 73804-1.0389871-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 73804-1.0389871-rdf.json
Turtle: 73804-1.0389871-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 73804-1.0389871-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 73804-1.0389871-source.json
Full Text
73804-1.0389871-fulltext.txt
Citation
73804-1.0389871.ris

Full Text

Marie-Luise Schwarzer, Universität LeipzigWCCFL 38 @ University of British Columbia, Vancouver6–8 March 2020Parameterized [E]llipsisAn argument from German determiner sharing1 The Data• Structures in which a determiner or quantifier is omitted from the second conjunct in a gappingconstruction have been known as determiner sharing structures (DS) since McCawley (1993).• DS is acceptable, but marked and not information-structurally neutral (Schwarzer (in prep.)).(1) a. Few dogs eat Whiskas or few cats (*eat) Alpo. ( Johnson 2000)b. JedeeveryGräfincountessmaglikesLavendellavenderundandjedeeveryKöniginqueen(*mag)likesFlieder.lilac“Every Countess likes lavender and every Queen likes lilac.”c. Erhehathasjedemevery.datLehrerteacher.dateinaBuchbookgegebengivenundandjedemevery.datSchülerstudent.dateinaHeftfoldergegeben.given“He has given every teacher a book and every student a folder.”Generalizations:1. DS is parasitic on Gapping (McCawley 1993; Johnson 2000; Lin 2002 et seq). If the verb in the second(and following) conjuncts is not gapped, an interpretation of a shared quantifier is not available.(2) AlleallMädchengirlsspielenplayKlavierpianoundandJungenboysspielenplayGeige.violinonly interpretation: “All girls play the piano and boys in general play the violin.”2. The shared detmust be initial in its conjunct. Any material overtly intervening between the coor-dinator and the detmakes DS impossible.(3) *?[EinaTeleskop]telescope.acchabenhavevielemanyKollegencolleagues.nomPeterPgeschenktgivenundand[einenaRömertopf]clay.pothabenhavevielemanyFreundefriends.nomPeterPgeschenktgivenintended: “Many colleagues have given a telescope to Peter and many friends have given him a claypot.”3. DS can never skip elements. A prenominal modifier can only be deleted a) if it is the first one (gener-alization 2) or b) if it’s left/higher neighbor has been deleted.(4) JedereveryzweitesecondSchülerstudentspieltsuffersGeigeunderundstressjederandzweiteeveryLehrersecondspieltteacherKlavier.under noise*“Every other student suffers from stress and every other teacher suffers from noise.”“Every other student suffers from stress and every teacher suffers from noise.”1Schwarzer WCCFL38, March 20204. Not all dets may be shared. There is a lot of cross- and intra-linguistic variation. The only cross-linguistically robust generalization1 seems to be that (bare) cardinal numbers and the indefinite ar-ticlemay never be shared.(5) a. possible in German DS: alle ‘all’, einige ‘some’, wenige ‘few’, viele ‘many’, kein ‘no’, definitearticle, ordinal numbers, etc.b. impossible inGermanDS: indefinite article, cardinal numbers, possessive pronouns, demon-stratives2 Gapping in German• Many analyses of DS in other languages posit a low coordination structure for gapping sentences ( John-son (2000); Lin (2002); Arregi & Centeno (2005); Citko (2006)).• German is language that exhibits Large Conjunct Gapping, i.e., conjuncts are clause-sized and manyelements can be gapped alongside the predicate.• Evidence for clause-sized conjuncts:(6) No wide scope of negation (Repp 2009)?*MaxMaxhathasdentheKuchentellercake.platenichtnegabgewaschenwashedundandPaulPauldietheSalatschüssel.salad.bowl(7) No cross-conjunct binding?*Jede1everyStudentinstudentwähltvotesSPDSPDundandihr1herBetreueradvisorwähltvotesCDU.CDU(8) Object fronting (D. Büring via Hartmann 2000)IchIweißknownichtneg[waswhat.accPeterP.nomUteU.datzumtoGeburtstagbirthdayschenkt]giveundand[*(was)what.accsieshe.nomihmhim.datzumtoGeburtstagbirthdayschenkt]give3 Analysis• The relation between DS and gapping has the same properties as syntactic Agree (phase mates, c-command, Minimality):– Phase condition: The elided determiner and the gapped verb have to be phase mates. Assumingthat gapping licenses DS, gapping in the matrix clause cannot license DS in the embedded clausebecause of the intervening phase boundary.(9) [CP KeinnoMädchengirlsollteshouldKlavierpianospielen,]playfindetthinkssie,sheundand[CP *(kein)noJungeboysollteshouldGeigeviolinspielen],playfindetthinkser.he– C-command condition: The operation that produces DS obeys c-command. Gapping in an em-bedded sentence should be too low to license DS in the matrix clause.(10) *[CP JedeeveryProfessorinprofessorglaubtbelievesdassthatdietheRegierunggovernment.nomdietheWirtschafteconomy.accbeeinflusst]influencesundand[CP jedeeveryStudentinstudentdenktthinks(*dass)thatdertheMarktmarket.nomdietheRegierunggovernment.accbeeinflusst]influencesintended: “Every professor believes that the government influences the economy and every stu-dent believes that the market influences the government.”1Based on a small sample of 5 languages: German, English (Lin 2000; Johnson 2000; McAdams 2012), Spanish (Arregi & Centeno2005), Korean(Kim 2011; Citko 2006, Hyunjung Lee, p.c.), and Dutch dialects (Ackema & Szendrői 2002).2Schwarzer WCCFL38, March 2020– This is tricky to test. (10) also involves a phase boundary. Unfortunately, gapping can indepen-dently only apply to finite verbs, and embedding of finite verbs always involves a phase boundary.– Minimality condition: The IO c-commands the DO, intervening in the relation between thegapping-triggering Fin0 and the DS-exhibiting DO.(11) *IchIhabehavemeinermy.datMuttermotherjedeeveryBlumeflowergezeigtshownundandmeinemmy.datVaterfatherjedeeveryKrähe.crowintended: “I have shown my mother every flower and my father every crow.”⇒ Gapping licenses DS via AgreeProposal:DS is a type of [E]-deletion (Merchant 2001), licensed by Agree with gapping-[E] (Aelbrecht 2010, (12)).• A syntactic head carries a feature [E] that, under Agree with a higher, licensing head, instructs post-syntax to leave that head’s complement unpronounced, (12).• Axiom: [E] is phase-bound, i.e., it can only target elements within the same phase as its host head(12) Ellipsis and licensing (Aelbrecht 2010). . .XPX′. . .ellipsis siteX[E]licensor• Special [E] feature for every type of ellipsis (Merchant 2001, 2004).• New type [EDS ] differs from [Esluice] in systematic ways:– direction: [Esluice] marks an element in its c-command domain for non-pronunciation; [EDS ] is“upward”: it deletes an element that c-commands it– locality: [Esluice] deletes the most minimal element (= complement); [EDS ] deletes the most anti-local element (as far away from it as possible, but still within the same phase)• [EDS ] is defined in (13) (in a notation that combines Merchant’s and Aelbrecht’s). [EDS ] is hosted onN0, has to be licensed by agreeing with Fin0, and instructs PF to leave a [–c-command, –local] elementunpronounced.(13) Definition of [EDS ]a. cat: [E]b. inf: [uFin]c. sel: [uN*]d. phon: ϕ(X[–c-com,–loc])→∅/[E]3Schwarzer WCCFL38, March 20203.1 Derivation(14) Step 1: Determiner sharingDPQPQ′. . .NPN[E]QquantifierD• [EDS ] mark the most anti-local c-commandingelement for non-pronunciation(15) Step 2: Licensing of DS by gapping-[E]&P. . .FinPCPTPTvPv′vVPVDPDPQPQ′N[E]QquantDCFin[E]. . .&Agreeellipsis• DS must be licensed by gapping⇒Agree between [EDS ] onN0 and [Egap] on Fin0• [E] acts as a derivational time bomb: if [EDS ]can’t agreewith [Egap], the structure becomes un-grammatical• [Egap]: deletion of CP-complement(16) Step 3: Gapping and evacuation movement of the remnants&PTopPTop′FocPFoc′FinPCPtDP . . . tXP . . .verbsTPCFin[E]FocXP remnantTopDPnoun[E]quant&4Schwarzer WCCFL38, March 20203.2 Accounting for the properties of DSGen1 The dependency on gapping: [E]-licensing by Agree with gapping-[E]Gen2 Conjunct initiality: The requirement to be conjunct-initial should be reduced to Minimality. OtherDPs/XPs are defective interveners in the Agree relation between [E] on Fin0 and [E] on N0.Gen3 No skipping: Also a Minimality effect. [E] can re-apply and successively delete all c-commanding, anti-local elements. A potential elidee cannot be skipped.Gen4 impossible dets: Numerals and indefinite articles are considered to be lower nominal projections (e.g.Julien 2002). They might be so low that they are not anti-local enough.4 Implications and extensions• If this analysis is on the right track, [E] could be more flexible than previously thought, (17).(17) Generalized [E]-ellipsisWithin phase pi, [E] on head H marks an element ε in pi, ε [α c-command, α local], for non-pronunciation.• The [E] feature can be parameterized: some ellipses target [+/+] elements, others [–/–] elements.• Obvious question: are the other patterns [α c-command, –α local] also possible?• It seems so:• Cardinal numbers cannot be shared in DS on their own, (18-a). However, as part of a complex of mod-ifiers, they can be, (18-b).(18) a. *ZwölftwelveMädchengirlsmachenmakeTeeteaundandzwölftwelveJungenboysmachenmakeKaffee.coffeeb. Alleall1212MädchengirlsmachenmakeTeeteaundandalleall1212JungenboysmachenmakeKaffee.coffee• This is reminiscent of the Principle of Minimal Compliance (Richards 198), (19).(19) Principle of Minimal Compliance (Preminger 2019)Once a probe P has successfully targeted a goal G, any other goal G’ that meets the same featuralsearch criterion, and is dominated or c-commanded by G (= dominated by the mother of G), isaccessible to subsequent probing by P irrespective of locality conditions.• Low, local elements can only be elided after deletion of higher, non-local elements. Thus, in (18), [EDS ]can target “zwölf” in a second round of application, even though that element is usually too low.• The other possible pattern is that in a second round of application, [E] checks only DPs with the feature[+c-com, –loc], i.e. phrases that are in the c-command domain of the [E]-carrying N, but are not local.• PPs may be such elements as their phase barrier classifies them as anti-local.• Observe the contrast in (20). In (20-a), no deletion of a determiner occurred and the reading "moviesabout linguists" is not available, thus it cannot be present in the structure. (20-b) involves DS and makesthe reading available.(20) a. [DP VielemanyBücherbooks[PP überaboutLinguisten]]linguistshabhaveichIgelesenreadundand[DP vielemanyFilme]moviesgesehen.watched”I have read many books about linguists and have seen many movies (#about linguists).”b. [DP VielemanyBücherbooks[PP überaboutLinguisten]]linguistshabhaveichIgelesenreadundand[DP vielemanyFilmemoviesüberaboutLinguisten]linguistsgesehen.watched”I have read many books about linguists and have seen many movies about linguists.”5Schwarzer WCCFL38, March 20205 ConclusionDS is a niche phenomenon but can potentially give us insights into the core properties of ellipses. It shows howtwo different ellipsis processes interact through syntactic licensing, and a potential instantiation of MinimalCompliance in ellipsis.If Agree can apply downward and upward (as argued for by Himmelreich 2017 e.g.), then this parameteri-zation of [E] is entirely expected.ReferencesAckema, Peter, & Kriszta Szendrői. 2002. Determiner sharing as an instance of dependent ellipsis. The Journal of Com-parative Germanic Linguistics 5:3–34.Arregi, Karlos, & Naiara Centeno. 2005. Determiner sharing and cyclicity in wh-movement. In Theoretical and exper-imental approaches to Romance linguistics, ed. Randall Gess & Edward Rubin, 1–19. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.Citko, Barbara. 2006. Determiner sharing from a crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 6:73–96.Himmelreich, Anke. 2017. Case matching effects in free relatives and parasitic gaps: A study on the properties of Agree.Doctoral dissertation, UniversitLeipzig.Johnson, Kyle. 2000. Few dogs eat Whiskas or cats Alpo. UMOP 23:59–82.Julien, Marit. 2002. Determiners and word order in Scandinavian DPs. Studia Linguistica 56:265–315.Kim, Jeong-Seok. 2011. D-sharing. Studies in Modern Grammar 63:21–46.Lin, Vivian. 2000. Determiner sharing and the syntactic composition of determiner phrases. Handout of paper presentedat GLOW 2000, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz.Lin, Vivian. 2002. Coordination and sharing at the interfaces. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy, Cambridge, MA.McAdams, Darryl. 2012. Unifying determiner sharing and NCC-PSC. Ms., University of Maryland.McCawley, James D. 1993. Gapping with shared operators. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol-ume 19, 245–253.Schwarzer, Marie-Luise. in prep. Ellipsis in DP and quantifier scope: An experimental study of German determinersharing. Manuscript in preparation.6 Marie-Luise Schwarzer, Universität LeipzigWCCFL 38 @ University of British Columbia, Vancouver6–8 March 2020Parameterized [E]llipsisAn argument from German determiner sharing1 The Data• Structures in which a determiner or quantifier is omitted from the second conjunct in a gappingconstruction have been known as determiner sharing structures (DS) since McCawley (1993).• DS is acceptable, but marked and not information-structurally neutral (Schwarzer (in prep.)).(1) a. Few dogs eat Whiskas or few cats (*eat) Alpo. ( Johnson 2000)b. JedeeveryGräfincountessmaglikesLavendellavenderundandjedeeveryKöniginqueen(*mag)likesFlieder.lilac“Every Countess likes lavender and every Queen likes lilac.”c. Erhehathasjedemevery.datLehrerteacher.dateinaBuchbookgegebengivenundandjedemevery.datSchülerstudent.dateinaHeftfoldergegeben.given“He has given every teacher a book and every student a folder.”Generalizations:1. DS is parasitic on Gapping (McCawley 1993; Johnson 2000; Lin 2002 et seq). If the verb in the second(and following) conjuncts is not gapped, an interpretation of a shared quantifier is not available.(2) AlleallMädchengirlsspielenplayKlavierpianoundandJungenboysspielenplayGeige.violinonly interpretation: “All girls play the piano and boys in general play the violin.”2. The shared detmust be initial in its conjunct. Any material overtly intervening between the coor-dinator and the detmakes DS impossible.(3) *?[EinaTeleskop]telescope.acchabenhavevielemanyKollegencolleagues.nomPeterPgeschenktgivenundand[einenaRömertopf]clay.pothabenhavevielemanyFreundefriends.nomPeterPgeschenktgivenintended: “Many colleagues have given a telescope to Peter and many friends have given him a claypot.”3. DS can never skip elements. A prenominal modifier can only be deleted a) if it is the first one (gener-alization 2) or b) if it’s left/higher neighbor has been deleted.(4) JedereveryzweitesecondSchülerstudentspieltsuffersGeigeunderundstressjederandzweiteeveryLehrersecondspieltteacherKlavier.under noise*“Every other student suffers from stress and every other teacher suffers from noise.”“Every other student suffers from stress and every teacher suffers from noise.”1Schwarzer WCCFL38, March 20204. Not all dets may be shared. There is a lot of cross- and intra-linguistic variation. The only cross-linguistically robust generalization1 seems to be that (bare) cardinal numbers and the indefinite ar-ticlemay never be shared.(5) a. possible in German DS: alle ‘all’, einige ‘some’, wenige ‘few’, viele ‘many’, kein ‘no’, definitearticle, ordinal numbers, etc.b. impossible inGermanDS: indefinite article, cardinal numbers, possessive pronouns, demon-stratives2 Gapping in German• Many analyses of DS in other languages posit a low coordination structure for gapping sentences ( John-son (2000); Lin (2002); Arregi & Centeno (2005); Citko (2006)).• German is language that exhibits Large Conjunct Gapping, i.e., conjuncts are clause-sized and manyelements can be gapped alongside the predicate.• Evidence for clause-sized conjuncts:(6) No wide scope of negation (Repp 2009)?*MaxMaxhathasdentheKuchentellercake.platenichtnegabgewaschenwashedundandPaulPauldietheSalatschüssel.salad.bowl(7) No cross-conjunct binding?*Jede1everyStudentinstudentwähltvotesSPDSPDundandihr1herBetreueradvisorwähltvotesCDU.CDU(8) Object fronting (D. Büring via Hartmann 2000)IchIweißknownichtneg[waswhat.accPeterP.nomUteU.datzumtoGeburtstagbirthdayschenkt]giveundand[*(was)what.accsieshe.nomihmhim.datzumtoGeburtstagbirthdayschenkt]give3 Analysis• The relation between DS and gapping has the same properties as syntactic Agree (phase mates, c-command, Minimality):– Phase condition: The elided determiner and the gapped verb have to be phase mates. Assumingthat gapping licenses DS, gapping in the matrix clause cannot license DS in the embedded clausebecause of the intervening phase boundary.(9) [CP KeinnoMädchengirlsollteshouldKlavierpianospielen,]playfindetthinkssie,sheundand[CP *(kein)noJungeboysollteshouldGeigeviolinspielen],playfindetthinkser.he– C-command condition: The operation that produces DS obeys c-command. Gapping in an em-bedded sentence should be too low to license DS in the matrix clause.(10) *[CP JedeeveryProfessorinprofessorglaubtbelievesdassthatdietheRegierunggovernment.nomdietheWirtschafteconomy.accbeeinflusst]influencesundand[CP jedeeveryStudentinstudentdenktthinks(*dass)thatdertheMarktmarket.nomdietheRegierunggovernment.accbeeinflusst]influencesintended: “Every professor believes that the government influences the economy and every stu-dent believes that the market influences the government.”1Based on a small sample of 5 languages: German, English (Lin 2000; Johnson 2000; McAdams 2012), Spanish (Arregi & Centeno2005), Korean(Kim 2011; Citko 2006, Hyunjung Lee, p.c.), and Dutch dialects (Ackema & Szendrői 2002).2Schwarzer WCCFL38, March 2020– This is tricky to test. (10) also involves a phase boundary. Unfortunately, gapping can indepen-dently only apply to finite verbs, and embedding of finite verbs always involves a phase boundary.– Minimality condition: The IO c-commands the DO, intervening in the relation between thegapping-triggering Fin0 and the DS-exhibiting DO.(11) *IchIhabehavemeinermy.datMuttermotherjedeeveryBlumeflowergezeigtshownundandmeinemmy.datVaterfatherjedeeveryKrähe.crowintended: “I have shown my mother every flower and my father every crow.”⇒ Gapping licenses DS via AgreeProposal:DS is a type of [E]-deletion (Merchant 2001), licensed by Agree with gapping-[E] (Aelbrecht 2010, (12)).• A syntactic head carries a feature [E] that, under Agree with a higher, licensing head, instructs post-syntax to leave that head’s complement unpronounced, (12).• Axiom: [E] is phase-bound, i.e., it can only target elements within the same phase as its host head(12) Ellipsis and licensing (Aelbrecht 2010). . .XPX′. . .ellipsis siteX[E]licensor• Special [E] feature for every type of ellipsis (Merchant 2001, 2004).• New type [EDS ] differs from [Esluice] in systematic ways:– direction: [Esluice] marks an element in its c-command domain for non-pronunciation; [EDS ] is“upward”: it deletes an element that c-commands it– locality: [Esluice] deletes the most minimal element (= complement); [EDS ] deletes the most anti-local element (as far away from it as possible, but still within the same phase)• [EDS ] is defined in (13) (in a notation that combines Merchant’s and Aelbrecht’s). [EDS ] is hosted onN0, has to be licensed by agreeing with Fin0, and instructs PF to leave a [–c-command, –local] elementunpronounced.(13) Definition of [EDS ]a. cat: [E]b. inf: [uFin]c. sel: [uN*]d. phon: ϕ(X[–c-com,–loc])→∅/[E]3Schwarzer WCCFL38, March 20203.1 Derivation(14) Step 1: Determiner sharingDPQPQ′. . .NPN[E]QquantifierD• [EDS ] mark the most anti-local c-commandingelement for non-pronunciation(15) Step 2: Licensing of DS by gapping-[E]&P. . .FinPCPTPTvPv′vVPVDPDPQPQ′N[E]QquantDCFin[E]. . .&Agreeellipsis• DS must be licensed by gapping⇒Agree between [EDS ] onN0 and [Egap] on Fin0• [E] acts as a derivational time bomb: if [EDS ]can’t agreewith [Egap], the structure becomes un-grammatical• [Egap]: deletion of CP-complement(16) Step 3: Gapping and evacuation movement of the remnants&PTopPTop′FocPFoc′FinPCPtDP . . . tXP . . .verbsTPCFin[E]FocXP remnantTopDPnoun[E]quant&4Schwarzer WCCFL38, March 20203.2 Accounting for the properties of DSGen1 The dependency on gapping: [E]-licensing by Agree with gapping-[E]Gen2 Conjunct initiality: The requirement to be conjunct-initial should be reduced to Minimality. OtherDPs/XPs are defective interveners in the Agree relation between [E] on Fin0 and [E] on N0.Gen3 No skipping: Also a Minimality effect. [E] can re-apply and successively delete all c-commanding, anti-local elements. A potential elidee cannot be skipped.Gen4 impossible dets: Numerals and indefinite articles are considered to be lower nominal projections (e.g.Julien 2002). They might be so low that they are not anti-local enough.4 Implications and extensions• If this analysis is on the right track, [E] could be more flexible than previously thought, (17).(17) Generalized [E]-ellipsisWithin phase pi, [E] on head H marks an element ε in pi, ε [α c-command, α local], for non-pronunciation.• The [E] feature can be parameterized: some ellipses target [+/+] elements, others [–/–] elements.• Obvious question: are the other patterns [α c-command, –α local] also possible?• It seems so:• Cardinal numbers cannot be shared in DS on their own, (18-a). However, as part of a complex of mod-ifiers, they can be, (18-b).(18) a. *ZwölftwelveMädchengirlsmachenmakeTeeteaundandzwölftwelveJungenboysmachenmakeKaffee.coffeeb. Alleall1212MädchengirlsmachenmakeTeeteaundandalleall1212JungenboysmachenmakeKaffee.coffee• This is reminiscent of the Principle of Minimal Compliance (Richards 198), (19).(19) Principle of Minimal Compliance (Preminger 2019)Once a probe P has successfully targeted a goal G, any other goal G’ that meets the same featuralsearch criterion, and is dominated or c-commanded by G (= dominated by the mother of G), isaccessible to subsequent probing by P irrespective of locality conditions.• Low, local elements can only be elided after deletion of higher, non-local elements. Thus, in (18), [EDS ]can target “zwölf” in a second round of application, even though that element is usually too low.• The other possible pattern is that in a second round of application, [E] checks only DPs with the feature[+c-com, –loc], i.e. phrases that are in the c-command domain of the [E]-carrying N, but are not local.• PPs may be such elements as their phase barrier classifies them as anti-local.• Observe the contrast in (20). In (20-a), no deletion of a determiner occurred and the reading "moviesabout linguists" is not available, thus it cannot be present in the structure. (20-b) involves DS and makesthe reading available.(20) a. [DP VielemanyBücherbooks[PP überaboutLinguisten]]linguistshabhaveichIgelesenreadundand[DP vielemanyFilme]moviesgesehen.watched”I have read many books about linguists and have seen many movies (#about linguists).”b. [DP VielemanyBücherbooks[PP überaboutLinguisten]]linguistshabhaveichIgelesenreadundand[DP vielemanyFilmemoviesüberaboutLinguisten]linguistsgesehen.watched”I have read many books about linguists and have seen many movies about linguists.”5Schwarzer WCCFL38, March 20205 ConclusionDS is a niche phenomenon but can potentially give us insights into the core properties of ellipses. It shows howtwo different ellipsis processes interact through syntactic licensing, and a potential instantiation of MinimalCompliance in ellipsis.If Agree can apply downward and upward (as argued for by Himmelreich 2017 e.g.), then this parameteri-zation of [E] is entirely expected.ReferencesAckema, Peter, & Kriszta Szendrői. 2002. Determiner sharing as an instance of dependent ellipsis. The Journal of Com-parative Germanic Linguistics 5:3–34.Arregi, Karlos, & Naiara Centeno. 2005. Determiner sharing and cyclicity in wh-movement. In Theoretical and exper-imental approaches to Romance linguistics, ed. Randall Gess & Edward Rubin, 1–19. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.Citko, Barbara. 2006. Determiner sharing from a crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 6:73–96.Himmelreich, Anke. 2017. Case matching effects in free relatives and parasitic gaps: A study on the properties of Agree.Doctoral dissertation, UniversitLeipzig.Johnson, Kyle. 2000. Few dogs eat Whiskas or cats Alpo. UMOP 23:59–82.Julien, Marit. 2002. Determiners and word order in Scandinavian DPs. Studia Linguistica 56:265–315.Kim, Jeong-Seok. 2011. D-sharing. Studies in Modern Grammar 63:21–46.Lin, Vivian. 2000. Determiner sharing and the syntactic composition of determiner phrases. Handout of paper presentedat GLOW 2000, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz.Lin, Vivian. 2002. Coordination and sharing at the interfaces. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy, Cambridge, MA.McAdams, Darryl. 2012. Unifying determiner sharing and NCC-PSC. Ms., University of Maryland.McCawley, James D. 1993. Gapping with shared operators. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol-ume 19, 245–253.Schwarzer, Marie-Luise. in prep. Ellipsis in DP and quantifier scope: An experimental study of German determinersharing. Manuscript in preparation.6 Parameterized [E]llipsis:An argument from German determiner sharingWCCFL38 University of British Columbia 6 – 8 March 2020 Marie-Luise Schwarzeri i i i l iF 1 minute rundown F•New analysis of determiner ellipsis in gapped coordinations.⇒ Proposal: [E]-deletion with licensing via Agree• Implication: parameterization of [E] (upward/downward)Determiner sharing constructions (DS)•DS = symmetric coordination + gapping + omission of a determiner/quantifier (Mc-Cawley 1993 et seq.). DS is acceptable, butmarked andnot information-structurallyneutral (Schwarzer 2020).(1) Jedeevery Gräfincountess maglikes Lavendellavender undand jedeevery Königinqueen (*mag)likes Flieder.lilacGeneralizations:1. DS is parasitic on gapping (McCawley 1993, Lin 2002 a.o.).(2) Alleall Mädchengirls spielenplay Klavierpiano undand Jungenboys spielenplay Geige.violinonly interpretation: “All girls play the piano and boys in general play the violin.”2. The shared quantifier must be initial in its conjunct. Any material overtlyintervening between the coordinator and the quantifier makes DS impossible.(3) *?[Eina Teleskop]telescope.acc habenhave vielemany Kollegencolleagues.nom PetraP geschenktgiven undand [einenaRömertopf]clay.pot habenhave vielemany Freundefriends.nom PetraP geschenkt.givenintended: “Many colleagues have given a telescope to Petra and many friendshave given him a clay pot.”3. DS can never skip elements. A prenominal modifier can only be deleted a) if itis the first one or b) if it’s left/higher neighbor has been deleted.(4) Jederevery zweitesecond Schülerstudent spieltplays Geigeviolin undand jederevery zweitesecond Lehrerteacher spieltplays Klavierpiano4. Cardinal numbers and the indefinite article cannot be shared (German, English(Lin 2002, MacAdams 2012 a.o.), Spanish (Arregi & Centeno 2005), Korean (Kim2011, Citko 2006, H. J. Lee, p.c.), and Dutch dialects (Ackema & Szendrői 2002)).• The relation between DS and gapping has the same properties as syntactic Agree(phase mates, c-command, Minimality, Chomsky 2000).– Phase condition: The elided determiner and the gapped verb have to be phasemates. Assuming that gapping licenses DS, gapping in the matrix clause cannotlicense DS in the embedded clause because of the intervening phase boundary.(5) [CP KeinnoMädchengirlsollteshouldKlavierpianospielen,]playfindetthinkssie,sheundand[CP *(kein)noJungeboysollteshouldGeigeviolinspielen],playfindetthinkser.heAnalysis⇒Gapping licenses DS via AgreeProposalDS is a type of [E]-deletion(Merchant 2001, 2004),licensed by Agree with gapping-[E] (Aelbrecht 2010, (6)).(6) Ellipsis and licensing(Aelbrecht 2010). . .XPX′. . .ellipsis siteX[E]licensor•New type [EDS] differs from [Esluice] in systematic ways:– direction: [Esluice] marks an element in its c-command domain for non-pronunciation; [EDS] is “upward”: it deletes an element that c-commands it– locality: [Esluice] deletes the most minimal element (= complement); [EDS]deletes the most anti-local element (as far away from it as possible, but stillwithin the same phase)(7) Sluicing-[E]XP[E]downwardlocal(8) DS-[E][E]XPupwardanti-local(9) Definition of [EDS]a. cat: [E]b. inf: [uFin]c. sel: [uN*]d. phon: ϕ(X[–c-com,–loc])→ ∅/[E][EDS] is hosted on N0, has to be licensedby agreeing with Fin0, and instructs PF toleave a [–c-command, –local] element un-pronounced.Derivation:(10) Determiner sharingDPQPQ′. . .NPN[E]QquantifierDÊ [EDS] marks the mostanti-local, c-commandingelement fornon-pronunciationËDS must be licensed bygapping⇒ Agree between [EDS]on N0 and [Egap] on Fin0Ì derivational time bomb: if [EDS] can’t agree with[Egap], the structure becomes ungrammaticalÍ [Egap]: deletion of CP-complement(11) Licensing of DS by gapping-[E]&P. . .FinPCPTPTvPv′vVPVDPDPQPQ′N[E]QquantDCFin[E]. . .&AgreeellipsisImplications and extensions• If this is on the right track, [E] could be more flexible than previously thought.Generalized [E]-ellipsisWithin phase pi, [E] on head H marks an element ε in pi, ε [α c-command, α local],for non-pronunciation.• The [E] feature can be parameterized: some ellipses target [+/+] elements, others[–/–] elements.•Are the other patterns [α c-command, –α local] also possible? It seems so:[– c-command, +local] in complex modifiers• Cardinal numbers cannot be shared in DS on their own, (12-a). However, as partof a complex of modifiers, they can be, (12-b).(12) a. #ZwölftwelveMädchengirlsmachenmakeTeeteaundandzwölftwelveJungenboysmachenmakeKaffee.coffeeb. Alleall1212MädchengirlsmachenmakeTeeteaundandalleall1212JungenboysmachenmakeKaffee.coffee• This is reminiscent of the Principle of Minimal Compliance (Richards 1998,2001), (13).(13) Principle of Minimal Compliance (Preminger 2019)Once a probe P has successfully targeted a goal G, any othergoal G’ that meets the same featural search criterion, and isdominated or c-commanded by G (= dominated by themotherof G), is accessible to subsequent probing by P irrespective oflocality conditions.• Low, local elements can only be elided after deletion of higher, non-local ele-ments. Thus, in (12), [EDS] can target “zwölf” in a second round of application,even though that element is usually too low.• For [+c-command, – local] (in postnominal PPs), see handout.• If Agree in general can apply downwards and upwards (Himmelreich 2017), thisparameterization of [E] is expected.ConclusionDS is a niche phenomenon but can potentially give us insights into the core proper-ties of ellipses. It shows how two different ellipsis processes interact through syn-tactic licensing, and a potential instantiation of Minimal Compliance in ellipsis. Theanalysis explicitly identifies [E]-deletion as an Agree operation with all the relevantproperties.Selected References. Aelbrecht (2010) The syntactic licensing of ellipsis. Himmelreich (2017) Case matching effects in free relatives and parasiticgaps, PhD thesis. Johnson (2000) Few dogs eat Whiskas or cats Alpo, UMOP. Lin (2002) Coordination and sharing at the interfaces, PhD thesis.McCawley (1993) Gapping with shared operators. Proceedings of BLS 19. Merchant (2001) The syntax of silence. Merchant (2004) Fragments andellipsis. Lingustics and Philosophy 27. Richards (1998) The principle of minimal compliance. LI 29.I am grateful for discussions with Klaus Abels, Kyle Johnson, GereonMüller, AndyMurphy andMartin Salzmann. This research has been supportedby Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (project number 282077626).

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.73804.1-0389871/manifest

Comment

Related Items