Typing after syntax. An argument from quotation and ellipsis

Wiślicki, Jan

dc.contributor.author	Wiślicki, Jan	en
dc.date.accessioned	2017-03-14T10:20:16Z
dc.date.available	2017-03-14T10:20:16Z
dc.date.issued	2017-02-23	en
dc.identifier.issn	1731-7533	en
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/11089/20879
dc.description.abstract	The paper, assuming the general framework of Chomsky’s (2013a, 2015b) current version of the Minimalist syntax, investigates the syntax of quotation in light of ellipsis. I show that certain unexpected effects arising for quotational ellipsis are problematic for the standard feature valuation system and, especially, for the theory of phases. I discuss some effects of two possible interpretations of such ellipsis, as well as a constraint following from deviant antecedents, to show that the standard view on the internal syntax of quotational expressions should be reconsidered. The paper offers a new view on feature valuation, as well as the connection between the Narrow Syntax and the C-I interface, defined in terms of recursive typing taking place at the interface.	en
dc.publisher	Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego	en
dc.relation.ispartofseries	Research in Language;14	en
dc.rights	This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.	en
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0	en
dc.subject	quotation	en
dc.subject	ellipsis	en
dc.subject	typing	en
dc.subject	feature valuation	en
dc.title	Typing after syntax. An argument from quotation and ellipsis	en
dc.page.number	351-375	en
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation	Uniwersytet Warszawski	en
dc.identifier.eissn	2083-4616
dc.references	Ackema, P. and A. Neeleman. 2004. Beyond Morphology. Interface Conditions and Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press	en
dc.references	Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou and S. Wurmbrand. 2014. Movement vs. Long Distance Agree in Raising: Disappearing Phases and Feature Valuation. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 43. 1-12	en
dc.references	Asher, N. 2015. Types, Meanings and Coercions in Lexical Semantics. Lingua 157. 66-82	en
dc.references	Barros, M. 2016. Syntactic Identity in Ellipsis, and Deviations Therefrom. The Case of Copular Sources in Sluicing. MS	en
dc.references	Barros, M. and L. Vicente. 2016. A Remnant Condition for Ellipsis. In: Keong-min Kim et al. (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 33, 57-66. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.	en
dc.references	Boeckx, C. 2012. Phases Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In: A. J. Gallego (ed.). Phases. Developing the Framework, 45-66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.	en
dc.references	Bošković, Ž. 2016. On Pronouns, Clitic Doubling and Argument Ellipsis: Argument Ellipsis as Predicate Ellipsis. MS	en
dc.references	Cappelen, H. and E. Lepore. 2007. Language Turned on Itself. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metalinguistic Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press	en
dc.references	Chierchia, G. 1998. Reference to Kinds Across Languages. Natural Language Semantics 6(4): 339-405	en
dc.references	Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press	en
dc.references	Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press	en
dc.references	Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In: R. Martin et al. (eds.), Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.	en
dc.references	Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from Below. In: U. Sauerland and H.-M. Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?1-29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.	en
dc.references	Chomsky, N. 2008. On Phases. In: R. Freidin, C. Otero and M. Zubizarreta Luisa (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133-167. The MIT Press.	en
dc.references	Chomsky, N. 2013a. Problems of Projection. Lingua 130. 33-49.	en
dc.references	Chomsky, N. 2013b. The Dewey Lectures 2013: What Kind of Creatures Are We? Lecture II: What Can We Understand? The Journal of Philosophy 110(12). 663-684.	en
dc.references	Chomsky, N. 2014a. Minimal Recursion: Exploring the Prospects. In: T. Roeper and M. Speas (eds,). Recursion: Complexity in Cognition, 1-15. Berlin: Springer.	en
dc.references	Chomsky, N. 2014b. Spring 2014 Syntax Seminar, MIT	en
dc.references	Chomsky, N. 2015a. A Discussion with Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi. Sophia Linguistica 64. 70-97	en
dc.references	Chomsky, N. 2015b. Problems of Projection: Extensions. In: E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann and S. Matteini (eds.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, 1-16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.	en
dc.references	Davidson, D. 1979. Quotation. Theory and Decision 11(1). 27-40.	en
dc.references	Frampton, J. and S. Gutmann. 2002. Crash-Proof Syntax. In: S. D. Epstein and T. D. Seely (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, 90-105. Malden Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.	en
dc.references	Gallego, Á. J. 2016. Lexical Items and Feature Bundling. Consequences for Microparametric Approaches to Variation. In: L. Eguren, O. Fernández-Soriano and A. Mendikoetxea (eds.), Rethinking Parameters, 133-169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Geach, P. T. 1957. Mental Acts. Their Content and Their Objects. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul	en
dc.references	Grano, T. and H. Lasnik. 2015. How to Neutralize a Finite Clause Boundary: Phase Theory and the Grammar of Bound Pronouns. Ms., Indiana University and University of Maryland.	en
dc.references	Griffiths, J. and A. Lipták. 2014. Contrast and Island Sensitivity in Clausal Ellipsis. Syntax 17(3). 189-234 doi: 10.1111/synt.12018	en
dc.references	Harwood, W. et al. 2016. Idioms: Phasehood and Projection. MS.	en
dc.references	Ingason, A. K., E. F. Sigurðsson and J. Wood. 2016. Displacement and Subject Blocking in Verbal Idioms: Evidence from Passive-like Constructions in Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 96. 26-48	en
dc.references	Jackendoff, R. and E. Wittenberg. 2014. What You Can Say Without Syntax: Hierarchy of Grammatical Complexity. In: F. J. Newmeyer and L. B. Preston (eds.), Measuring Grammatical Complexity, 65-82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Jakielaszek, J. 2011. Blind Merge. Strengthening the No Tampering Condition. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Wydziału Polonistyki UW	en
dc.references	Kupula Roos, M. 2016. External Arguments and Dative Cliticization: Evidence of Selective Spell-out of Functional Heads. Syntax 19(3). 192-221 doi: 10.1111/synt.12119	en
dc.references	Larson, B. 2015. Minimal Search as a Restriction on Merge. Lingua 156. 57-69	en
dc.references	Larson, R. 2011. Clauses, Propositions, and Phases. In: A. M. Di Sciullo and C. Boeckx (eds.), The Biolinguistic Enterprise. New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, 366-391. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Luo, Z. 2010. Type-theoretical Semantics with Coercive Subtyping. Semantics and linguistic theory 20 (SALT20), Vancouver.	en
dc.references	Luo, Z. 2012. Formal Semantics in Modern Type Theories With Coercive Subtyping. Linguistics & Philosophy 35(6). 491-513	en
dc.references	Parsons, T. 1982. What Do Quotation Marks Name? Frege’s Theory of Quotations and That-clauses. Philosophical Studies 42(3). 315-328 doi: 10.1007/BF00714364	en
dc.references	Partee, B. H. 1973. The Syntax and Semantics of Quotation. In: S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Hale, 410-418. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.	en
dc.references	Partee, B. and M. Rooth. 1983. Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity. In: R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, 361-383. Berlin: De Gruyter.	en
dc.references	Maier, E. 2008. Breaking Quotations. In: K. Satoh et al. (eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 187-200. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.	en
dc.references	Maier, E. 2014a. Mixed Quotation: The Grammar of Apparently Transparent Opacity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7. 1-67.	en
dc.references	Maier, E. 2014b. Pure Quotation. Philosophy Compass 9(9). 615-630 doi: 10.1111/phc3.12149	en
dc.references	Maier, E. 2016. A Plea Against Monsters. Grazer Philosophische Studien 93. 363-395.	en
dc.references	Mateu, J. and M. T. Espinal. 2007. Argument Structure and Compositionality in Idiomatic Constructions. The Linguistic Review 24(1). 33-59	en
dc.references	Mateu, J. and M. T. Espinal. 2010. On Classes of Idioms And Their Interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(5). 1397-1411 doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.016	en
dc.references	Messick, T. and G. Thoms. 2016. Ellipsis, Economy, and the (Non)uniformity of Traces. Linguistic Inquiry 47(2). 306-332	en
dc.references	Piggott, G. & L. D. Travis. 2013. Adjuncts Within Words and Complex Heads. In: R. Folli, C. Sevdali and R. Truswell (eds.), Syntax and Its Limits, 157-174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Richards, M. D. 2007. On Feature Inheritance: An Argument From the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (3). 563-572.	en
dc.references	Richards, M. D. 2012. On Feature Inheritance, Defective Phases, And the Movement-morphology Connection. In: Á. Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the Framework, 195-232. Berlin-New York: Walter De Gruyter.	en
dc.references	Saka, P. 2013. Quotation. Philosophy Compass 8(10). 935-949 doi: 10.1111/phc3.12069	en
dc.references	Sakamoto, Y. 2016. Phases And Argument Ellipsis in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 25(3). 243-274	en
dc.references	Soames, S. 1999. Understanding Truth. New York: Oxford University Press	en
dc.references	Takita, K., N. Goto and Y. Shibata. 2016. Labeling Through Spell-Out. The Linguistic Review 33(1). 177-198	en
dc.references	Tarski, A. 1933. The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages. In: J. Corcoran (ed.), Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, 152-278. Indianapolis: Hackett. 152-278	en
dc.references	Tiskin, D. 2015. Locating Hidden Quantifiers in De Re Reports. In: T. Brochhagen, F. Roelofsen and N. Theiler (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquim, 398-407. [Online] [Available from: http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mVkOTk2N/AC2015-proceedings.pdf]	en
dc.references	Trotzke, A. and J.-W. Zwart. 2014. The Complexity of Narrow Syntax: Minimalism, Representational Economy, and Simplest Merge. In: F. J. Newmeyer and L. B. Preston (eds.), Measuring Grammatical Complexity, 128-147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Wiese, R. 1996. Phrasal Compounds And the Theory of Word Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1). 183-193.	en
dc.references	Wiślicki, J. 2016a. An Argument for Zwart’s Merge. Quotation as a Challenge for Feature-Driven Phases. MS., University of Warsaw	en
dc.references	Wiślicki, J. 2016b. Roots and root typing. Evidence from discontinuity. Handout and talk delivered at IGG 42, Lecce	en
dc.references	Wurmbrand, S. 2013. QR and Selection: Covert Evidence for Phasehood. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 42. 277-290	en
dc.references	Wurmbrand, S. 2016. Stripping and Topless Complements. Ms., University of Connecticut.	en
dc.references	Vries, M. 2006. Reported Direct Speech in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands 23 (1). 212-223.	en
dc.references	Zwart, J.-W. 2013. Ellipsis in Layered Derivations. Handout and talk delivered at U4 Workshop New Approaches to the Syntax/Semantics Interface, Göttingen	en
dc.contributor.authorEmail	jan.wislicki@gmail.com	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.1515/rela-2016-0023	en

Files in this item

Name:: rela-2016-0023.pdf
Size:: 285.0Kb
Format:: PDF

View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Research in Language (2016) vol.14 nr 4 [6]

Show simple item record

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.