28.3915, Diss: Syntax: Nicholas LaCara: 'Anaphora, Inversion, and Focus'

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-3915. Mon Sep 25 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.3915, Diss: Syntax: Nicholas LaCara: 'Anaphora, Inversion, and Focus'

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sarah Robinson <srobinson at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:04:46
From: Nicholas LaCara [nick.lacara at utoronto.ca]
Subject: Syntax: Nicholas LaCara: 'Anaphora, Inversion, and Focus'

 
Institution: University of Massachusetts at Amherst 
Program: Department of Linguistics 
Dissertation Status: Completed 
Degree Date: 2016 

Author: Nicholas LaCara

Dissertation Title: Anaphora, Inversion, and Focus 

Dissertation URL:  http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/746/

Linguistic Field(s): Syntax


Dissertation Director(s):
Jeremy Hartman
Kyle Johnson
Luiz Amaral
Ellen Woolford

Dissertation Abstract:

This dissertation proposes a novel analysis of as-parentheticals, a class of
anaphoric constructions introduced by the morpheme as. These include
utterances like Mary kissed a pig, as John also will and Tim is happy, as is
Daisy. I defend the view that the anaphoric component of these constructions
is derived by verb phrase ellipsis. This builds on previous research
(especially Lacara 2015, To Appear) that argues that as-parentheticals must
contain elided syntactic structure rather than null operator movement as
originally proposed by Potts (2002).
I also propose an analysis for some of the unusual properties that
as-parentheticals display. Although ellipsis is usually an optional operation,
the ellipsis is in as-parentheticals is obligatory. Likewise, the locality
conditions on the antecedent are more stringent than they are in
run-of-the-mill VPE. I develop an account of these facts that builds on recent
work on manner similatives. The locality condition is the result of the
specific syntax and semantics of the as-parenthetical and is separate from the
antecedent conditions on ellipsis. I argue that null operator movement, which
is in part responsible for deriving the locality condition, violates an island
at PF. The only way to ameliorate this violation, following Kennedy and
Merchant (2000), is to elide the vP, explaining why ellipsis is obligatory in
this construction.
Finally, I turn to the unusual inversion that occurs in as-parentheticals.
Subject can appear after all of the auxiliaries in an as-parenthetical; for
example, Mary might have been reading Moby-Dick, as might have been Sam. This
order cannot be generated by head movement, which derives the more common
subject--auxiliary inversion in questions. I propose that subjects remain low
in the structure, similar to the VSO orders found in some Romance languages
like Spanish. A comparison with locative inversion shows that the subjects in
these two constructions are in slightly different surface positions. I argue
that the placement of the subject in inverting as-parentheticals is the result
of the interaction of focus with ellipsis. Following Weir (2014), I propose
that subjects move to a position just outside vP in order to escape ellipsis
at PF, since these subjects are required to receive focus and eliding them
would prevent this from occurring.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-3915	
----------------------------------------------------------