18.314, Diss: Syntax/Semantics: Szczegielniak: 'Relativization and Ellipsis'

[LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List: Vol-18-314. Tue Jan 30 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 18.314, Diss: Syntax/Semantics: Szczegielniak: 'Relativization and Ellipsis'

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project / Long Now Foundation  
         <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Hannah Morales <hannah at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.


===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 26-Jan-2007
From: Adam Szczegielniak < adam.s at post.harvard.edu >
Subject: Relativization and Ellipsis 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:31:31
From: Adam Szczegielniak < adam.s at post.harvard.edu >
Subject: Relativization and Ellipsis 
 


Institution: Harvard University 
Program: Department of Linguistics 
Dissertation Status: Completed 
Degree Date: 2004 

Author: Adam Szczegielniak

Dissertation Title: Relativization and Ellipsis 

Dissertation URL:  http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~szczeg/papers/dissertation_web.pdf

Linguistic Field(s): Semantics
                     Syntax


Dissertation Director(s):
Cedric Boeckx
Noam Chomsky
David Pesetsky

Dissertation Abstract:

This work addresses the puzzle why VP ellipsis where the subject plus an
auxiliary/modal /negation (non bare-VP ellipsis) is not possible in
relatives derived via operator movement, whereas VP ellipsis where only the
subject remains (bare-VP ellipsis) is possible in both relatives derived
via operator movement as well as head noun movement. 

In the first part, I show that Polish and Russian relative clauses divide
into two types: (i) derived by head noun movement (co/?to-relatives), and
(ii) derived by operator movement and adjunction of the relative to the
head noun (który/kotoryj-relatives). 

In the second part, I answer why bare-VP ellipsis is only possible in
co/?to-relatives, and non bare-VP ellipsis is possible in both types of
relatives. Adopting a model where VP ellipsis is carried out on
'afterthought' constructions (Chomsky 2001) and is preceded by de-stressing
(Chomsky and Lasnik 1993), I argue that bare-VP ellipsis requires overt VP
topicalization prior to de-stressing. The interaction of overt operator
movement and VP topicalization leads to violations on Remnant Movement
(Müller 1998): the topicalized VP containing the trace/copy of the operator
raises over the operator, which has moved to a lower Topic of the Left
Periphery (Rizzi 1997), thus, making bare-VP ellipsis impossible in
który/kotoryj-relatives. Non bare-VP ellipsis is shown to be licensed by
focusing the subject in Spec-? (Laka 1994). There is no VP raising, thus
conditions on remnant movement are not violated and VP ellipsis is possible
in both types of relatives. 




-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-18-314