The Phenomenon Of Sluicing English Language Essay

Sluicing is classified as a phenomenon of clausal eclipsis. The term Sluicing was foremost discovered and named by Ross ( 1969 ) . It by and large expresses a building with an interrogative clause that has merely one wh-phrase for pronunciation, as in ( 1 ) .

Tina will sell something but I do n’t retrieve what [ Tina will sell t ] .

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The square brackets contain the stuff which stands for the building ‘s unpronounced portion, though it should be interpreted. Both elements in the square brackets, the capable Tina and the aide will, are deleted in ( 1 ) . As we see in ( 1 ) , modals, busying T0, and topics, located in SpecTP, are deleted in Sluicing buildings suggest that we are covering with TP-ellipsis.

Sluicing can happen in two types of clauses. First, it occurs in embedded clauses, as in ( 1 ) , 2nd, it besides occurs in chief clauses, as in ( 2 ) .

Speaker A: Paul adores person.

Speaker B: Who [ Paul adores t ] ?

I will follow the cardinal analysis of Sluicing introduced by Ross ( 1969 ) and farther elaborated by Lasnik ( 2001 ) and Merchant ( 2001 ) , who regard the egg-shaped construction as a instance of regular wh-movement out of TP, which is followed by the omission of TP at PF. So, ( 3 ) reconstructs the derivations that take topographic point in Sluicing buildings. That means in item that foremost a wh-phrase is the topic to regular wh-movement to SpecCP, and secondly the omission of TP takes topographic point at PF.

( 3 ) Measure 1: Tina sold something. I wonder [ CP what [ TP Tina sold t ] ] .

Measure 2: Tina sold something. I wonder [ CP what [ TP Tina sold t ] ] .

However, there are besides other analyses of eclipsis, developed by Williams ( 1977 ) , Lobeck ( 1995 ) , Chung et Al. ( 1995 ) . Harmonizing to such analyses, an empty class is found in the topographic point of the deleted TP, so the empty class is moved due to the transcript operation of the ancestor TP at LF. Such analyses do non back up omission, since they do non possess any clausal building in the penstock.

Furthermore, there are purely semantic analyses as good which are developed by Dalrymple et Al. ( 1991 ) , Jacobson ( 1992 ) , and Hardt ( 1993, 1999 ) . Nevertheless, Ross ( 1969 ) , Merchant ( 2001 ) and StjepanoviA‡ ( 2003 ) represent comprehensive statements against the non-deletion attacks in their researches. Consequently, I will besides follow their manner of analyzing Sluicing as the PF-deletion.

The phenomenon of Sluicing is rather widespread in many linguistic communications. It is besides really productive in Russian. In the present paper I will concentrate on Russian for the most portion, and associate it to other Slavic languages whenever necessary.

As the English buildings show above, Russian can besides let embedded, every bit good as chief clause Sluicing. The ( 4a ) illustration demonstrates embedded Sluicing, while the ( 4b ) demonstrates matrix Sluicing severally.

( 4a ) Pavel dast komu-to rabotu, no ja ne pomnju komu/*kto [ Pavel dast T ] .

Pavel will give person DAT occupation but I non retrieve who DAT/NOM

‘Pavel will be giving person a occupation but I do n’t retrieve who. ‘

( 4b ) Speaker A: Pavel dast komu-to rabotu

Pavel will give person DAT occupation

‘Pavel will be giving person a occupation. ‘

Speaker B: Komu/*Kto?

who DAT /who NOM

‘Who? ‘

The illustrations in ( 4a ) and ( 4b ) decidedly show that dative instance is assigned to every leftover wh-phrases, and so the corresponding antecedent clauses should besides transport dative instance. Otherwise, the building is ungrammatical. The indirect object of the Russian verb davat’-?? & A ; deg ; ?? & A ; deg ; N‚N? , modeling with the English verb spring, gets obligatory dative instance. If the instance of the remnant wh-phrase is changed from dative to nominative, it leads to unacceptableness. Therefore, the instance grounds maintains that there is in fact the motion of wh-phrases out of TP, where they get dative instance assignment. Hence, the illustrations present true Sluicing instances. However, there is a discrepancy of Sluicing which is called Pseudo-Sluicing. In this instance, Pseudo-Sluicing would hold a different construction in the penstock, viz. a cleft construction, as shown in ( 5 ) .

( 5 ) Frank invited person but I do n’t retrieve who [ it was _ ( that Frank invited ) ] .

In Russian, clefted elements obligatory bear nominative instance, as in ( 6 ) from Russian.

( 6 ) Ivan dal komu-to knigu, no ja ne pomnju kto/*komu eto byl.

Ivan gave person book but I non retrieve who NOM/DAT it was

‘Ivan gave person a book but I do n’t retrieve who it was. ‘

The remnant wh-phrases in ( 4a ) and ( 4b ) are wholly different to the wh-phrase in ( 6 ) . Therefore, the illustrations in ( 4a ) and ( 4b ) are true instances of Sluicing.

Furthermore, Besides Sluicing with a remarkable wh-remnant which can be found in English, Russian besides allows Sluicing with multiple wh-remnants, as in ( 7 ) . Takanashi ( 1994 ) describes this phenomenon, as an operation of TP-deletion with multiple wh-remnants. Multiple Sluicing portions some belongingss with Sluicing. For illustration, like Sluicing, multiple Sluicing can happen in embedded clause, as the ( 7a ) illustration shows, and besides in chief clause, as the ( 7b ) illustration does below.

( 7a ) KaA?dyj iskal kogo-to V zale, no ja znaju kto kogo.

everyone searched person in hall but I non cognize who whom

‘Everyone searched person in the hall but I do n’t cognize who whom. ‘

( 7b ) Speaker A: KaA?dyj iskal kogo-to 5 zale.

everyone searched person in hall

‘Everyone searched person in the hall. ‘

Speaker B: Kto kogo?

who whom

‘Who whom? ‘

Since Slavic linguistic communications, and Russian in peculiar, are multiple wh-fronting linguistic communications, it is moderately to propose that such linguistic communications besides allow multiple Sluicing. Strictly talking, all au naturel wh-phrases move to the forepart in multiple inquiries in Russian, as in ( 8a ) and ( 8b ) .

( 8a ) Kto1 komu2 [ t1 zvonit t2 ] ?

who whom calls

‘Who calls who? ‘

( 8b ) *Kto1 [ t1 zvonit komu ] ?

who calls whom

2. Licensing TP-Deletion

A cardinal inquiry in eclipsis analysis is the definition of the classs that can licence the omission of their complements. Since the Ross ‘s survey on Sluicing ( 1969 ) , research workers regard that the interrogative +wh complementizer licenses the omission of the complement TP. The grounds for it comes from Sluicing in Germanic that includes merely interrogative clauses which wh-phrase is in SpecCP. Furthermore, Lobeck ( 1995 ) explores other different buildings in English. She observes, nevertheless, that TP-deletion is impossible in the undermentioned buildings as finite declaratory clauses, or in lexically governed TP-s, every bit good as in comparative clauses. Therefore, Merchant ( 2001 ) supposes, that in Sluicing the TP is the complement of an interrogative wh-complementizer. In other words, what licenses the TP omission of the complement is the complementizer that possesses the +Q characteristic and the +wh characteristic. The undermentioned construction of the penstock – C0 bearing [ +Q ] and [ wh ] characteristics – is shown in ( 9 ) , where the wh-phrase is in SpecCP and the interrogative C0 licenses the omission of its complement at PF.

( 9 ) Tina sold something. I wonder [ CP what C0 [ TP Tina sold t ] ] .

Since the Slavic linguistic communications do non stand for a similar form of wh-movement than the 1 in Germanic, it is rather questionable how the analysis presented above can be taken to the Slavic linguistic communications. Harmonizing to BoskoviA‡ ( 2002 ) , wh-fronting in Slavic linguistic communications, like Russian and Serbo-Croatian, includes another phenomenon called focalisation. However, Bulgarian, for illustration, has the +focus characteristic which is found in the place of the interrogative C0, in add-on the strong +wh characteristic is located at that place every bit good. Thus, Bulgarian resembles English in holding the same mark place of wh-movement, which is so SpecCP. Therefore, the licenser of Sluicing is clearly C0.

However, Sluicing in Russian and Polish and certain contexts in Serbo-Croatian demands some more profound account. The first issue to explicate is why the leftovers of Sluicing manage to stay after the omission.

2.1. Multiple wh-fronting and Contrastive focal point

The analysis of wh-fronting with the aid of focus-movement is fundamentally the same for Russian and Polish. Stepanov ( 1998 ) explores the phenomenon of wh-movement in Russian and asserts in his attack that it is non the +wh characteristic of C0 that triggers the wh-movement in Russian. Hence, the wh-phrases do non make SpecCP in open sentence structure. The statement of Stepanov ( 1998 ) goes back to the deficiency of high quality effects in Russian. Stepanov ( 1998 ) looks for the analogues with the Minimal Link Condition of Chomsky ( 1995 ) . He suggests that high quality determines a strong characteristic that drives motion and reveals the Economy attack for high quality. Under the Economy attack to high quality, C0 possesses a strong +wh characteristic that attracts the closest point with a +wh characteristic to SpecCP in order to look into characteristics, as formulated in Chomsky ‘s ( 1995 ) Minimal Link Condition. Therefore, this attack gives account for the being of high quality effects in English, illustrated with the aid of the paradigm in ( 10 ) .

( 10 ) a. Who sold what?

B. ? ? What did who sell T?

c. Who did Frank do T to make what?

d. *What did Frank do who to make t?

Harmonizing to the sentences in both ( 10b ) and ( 10d ) , which signalize that C0 does non in fact attracts the closest point, viz. what, to C0. The closer point is who, therefore the wh-movement in ( 10b ) and ( 10d ) is non economical.

Stepanov ( 1996 ) asserts that Russian wh-questions do non exhibit high quality effects in typically any contexts, no affair if it is in chief clause, as in the ( 11a, B ) illustration, or in embedded inquiries, as in the ( 11c, vitamin D ) illustration below.

( 11 ) a. Kto1 kogo2 [ t1 nenavidit t2 ] ?

who whom hatreds

b. Kogo2 kto1 [ t1 nenavidit t2 ] ?

c. Ja ne znaju [ kto kogo nenavidit ] .

I non cognize who whom hatreds

‘I do n’t cognize who hates who. ‘

d. Ja ne znaju [ kogo kto nenavidit ] .

In English, merely one wh-phrase can be fronted, as demonstrated in the paradigm in ( 10 ) . Unlike English, Russian multiple inquiries do non hold high quality effects in practically any context, as shown in ( 11 ) .

The facts from those illustrations can non, nevertheless, correspond to the Economy attack to high quality. Since the economic system issues of MLC make sense merely when there is really a Comp with a strong +wh characteristic nowadays in the construction. Therefore, Stepanov ( 1996 ) supposes, that Russian does non, really, have a strong +wh characteristic. It instead has a weak +wh characteristic, which does non drive open wh-movement and therefore, does non bring forth high quality effects.

In Russian, wh-phrases obligatory forepart and Stepanov ( 1996 ) is the first to detect that such fronting properties to incompatible focalisation. The analysis is based on the thought of interaction between wh-fronting and fronting of contrastively focused R-expressions in Slavic. Contrastively focussed R-expressions are fronted every bit good as wh-phrases in Slavic, as demonstrated by the Russian paradigm in ( 12 ) .

( 12 ) a. IVANA ja vstretila T.

IvanACC I met1.FEM.SG

‚I met Ivan ‘

B. ? ? Ja vstretila IVANA.

I met IVANACC

Therefore, Stepanov ( 1998 ) sums up, that wh-phrases in Russian are fronted to a focal point place below CP. As mentioned before, high quality effects are absent in Russian. BoskoviA‡ ( 1998 ) assumes that each wh-phrase itself carries a strong +focus characteristic and hence there is no competition between the wh-phrases with regard to the intimacy to C0. Following BoskoviA‡ ‘s ( 1998 ) manner of analysing, Stepanov ( 1998 ) explains that such focalisation is insensitive to high quality.

2.2. Focus-Licensed Sluicing

Equally far as Sluicing is concerned, it is supposed that the C0 is the structural licenser of TP-deletion. Anyway there is still one issue to explicate, viz. it is non clear how the remnant wh-phrases in Russian Sluicing survive the omission if they are non in SpecCP. Grebenyova ( 2006 ) proposes, that non merely an interrogative C0 can licence TP-deletion, but any functional class bearing a + focal point characteristic can licence the omission of its complement every bit good, bring forthing the construction as in ( 13 ) below.

( 13 ) Ivan kupil A?to-to, no ja ne znaju [ A?to X0 [ TP Ivan kupil T ] ] ?

+focus

Ivan bought something but I non cognize what Ivan bought

‘Ivan bought something but I do n’t cognize what. ‘

So, the wh-phrases in Russian survive TP-deletion due to this functional class.

It follows from this proposal, that Sluicing should be besides possible with contrastively focussed leftovers that are non wh-elements. And so the groundss from Russian confirm the proposal that the contrastively focussed R-expressions can in fact be leftovers of Sluicing.

( 14 ) Speaker A: Ty skazal, A?to on budet uvaA?at ‘ Masu.

you said that he will esteem Masa ACC

‘Did you say that he will esteem Masa? ‘

Speaker B: Internet. Ja skazal, A?to IVANA [ on budet uvaA?at ‘ t ] .

no I said that Ivan ACC he will esteem

‘No. I said that ( he will esteem ) IVAN. ‘

In ( 14 ) , the leftover is Masu and, in ( 15 ) , there are three leftovers: a wh-phrase and two R-expressions. This well confirms the proposal that wh-fronting and contrastive-focus-fronting map alike in Slavic, and in Russian in peculiar.

( 15 ) Speaker A: Ty ne pomnis ‘ , kogda Ivan vstretil Masu?

you non retrieve when Ivan NOM met Masa ACC

‘You do n’t retrieve when Ivan met Masa? ‘

Speaker B: Internet. Ja ne pomnju GDE SERGEY LENU.

no I non retrieve where Sergey NOM Lena ACC

‘No. I do n’t retrieve WHERE SERGEY ( met ) LENA. ‘

It is besides necessary to advert, that there are several possibilities to analyse the belongingss of the buildings in ( 14 ) and ( 15 ) .

The first possibility is to see a Pseudogapping analysis for ( 14 ) and ( 15 ) . However, since Pseudogapping is non by and large possible in Russian, the illustrations of ( 14 ) and ( 15 ) can non be the instances of Pseudogapping. The inaccessibility of Pseudogapping in Russian is shown in ( 16 ) . Furthermore, Sag ( 1976 ) , Lashnik ( 1995 ) analyze Pseudogapping as VP-ellipsis. What is elided in ( 14 ) is the subsidiary budet ‘will ‘ , bespeaking that a larger component so VP is elided.

( 16 ) * Masa budet A?itat ‘ knigu, a Ivan budet gazetu [ A?itat ‘ T ] .

Masa NOM will read book ACC and Ivan NOM will newspaper ACC

‘Masa will read a book and Ivan will a newspaper. ‘

The other possibility to see is that the illustrations of ( 14 ) and ( 15 ) above are the cases of Gaping. It is rather improbable to analyse these buildings as Gapping. Since in English every bit good as in Russian, Gapping is restricted to local coordinations and ( a ) and or ( ili ) , while the concurrence but can non happen in Gaping constructions, as illustrated in ( 17a-c ) .

( 17 ) a. Masa budet A?itat ‘ knigu, a Ivan budet A?itat ‘ gazetu.

Masa NOM will read book ACC and Ivan NOM will read newspaper ACC

‘Masa will be reading a book and Ivan a newspaper. ‘

b. Ili Masa budet A?itat ‘ knigu, ili Ivan budet A?itat ‘ gazetu.

either Masa NOM will read book ACC or Ivan NOM will read newspaper ACC

‘Either Masa will be reading a book or Ivan a newspaper. ‘

c. * Masa budet A?itat ‘ knigu, no Ivan budet A?itat ‘ gazetu.

Masa NOM will read book ACC but Ivan NOM will read newspaper ACC

‘Masa will be reading a book but Ivan a newspaper. ‘

Therefore, Gaping analysis can non besides account for the buildings ( 14 ) and ( 15 ) , since these easy contain but­ and are wholly grammatical, as shown in ( 18 ) below.

( 18 ) Ty skazal, A?to on budet uvaA?at ‘ Masu, no ja dumaju, A?to IVANA.

you said that he will esteem Masa ACC but I think that IvanACC

‘You said that he will esteem Masa, but I think that he will esteem Ivan. ‘

In both English and Russian, Gaping can non happen in embedded clauses, as demonstrated by the difference between ( 19a ) and ( 19b ) .

( 19 ) a. Masa budet A?itat ‘ knigu, a Ivan budet A?itat ‘ gazetu.

Masa NOM will read book ACC and Ivan NOM will read newspaper ACC

‘Masa will be reading a book and Ivan a newspaper. ‘

B. *Masa budet A?itat ‘ knigu, a Lena dumala, A?to Ivan gazetu.

Masa will read book and Lena NOM thought that Ivan newspaper

‘Masa will be reading a book and Lena thought that Ivan a newspaper. ‘

Furthermore, the ancestor of Gaping can non happen in an embedded clause, as the difference between ( 20a ) and ( 20b ) .

( 20 ) a. Ili Masa budet A?itat ‘ knigu, ili Ivan budet A?itat ‘ gazetu.

either Masa NOM will read book ACC or Ivan NOM will read newspaper ACC

‘Either Masa will be reading a book or Ivan a newspaper. ‘

b. Ili Lena dumala, A?to Masa budet A?itat ‘ knigu, ili Ivan budet A?itat ‘ gazetu.

either Lena thought that Masa will read book or Ivan will read newspaper

‘Either Lena thought that Masa will be reading a book, or Ivan a newspaper. ‘

Consequently, none of the chief demands of Gaping are met in ( 14 ) and ( 15 ) .

Therefore, Sluicing analysis seems to be the lone plausible account for these buildings.

2.3. Overt stuff in COMP

Lobeck ( 1995 ) , Chung et Al. ( 1995 ) and Merchant ( 2001 ) among others notice that nil besides the open stuff in SpecCP can last Sluicing. In other words, their proposal is that no open stuff in C0 itself survives Sluicing. Merchant ( 2001 ) analyzes the information from several linguistic communications, such as English, Danish, Dutch, Frisian, German, Norwegian, Slovene. For illustration, English state of affairss in ( 21a ) – ( 21d ) show that the subsidiary can non stay unelided under Sluicing, even though T-to-C motion is obligatory in the chief clauses.

( 21 ) a. What will John purchase?

B. *What John will purchase?

c. John will purchase something but I do n’t cognize what.

d. *John will purchase something but I do n’t cognize what will.

The proposal is valid for the elements that move to C0 and for the elements that are basal generated in C0 every bit good. Lasnik ( 1999a ) and Merchant ( 2001 ) research the affected elements and establish their researches on Economy and feature-movement. Its construct provinces that if the component in T0 does non travel to C0 overtly, so this stuff in T will do a PF clang. The grounds for PF clang are either because the strong characteristic of T0 will stay unbridled, or because this stuff will be unpronounceable at PF on the feature-movement history. At the same clip, if eclipsis deletes the construction with the insufficiency at PF, there are no more complications with the derivation.

Obviously, in ( 21 ) will does non travel to C0, and creates a job which is subsequently removed by Sluicing.

As for the base-generated elements, they are analyzed as clitics which must cliticize to the right, and hence can non stay unsupported in C0 under Sluicing.

Furthermore, Russian base-generated atom Li, which is an interrogative yes/no inquiry complementizer, can be a leftover of Sluicing, in instance there is a focussed component in SpecCP, as in ( 22 ) .

( 22 ) Ivan vstretil kogo-to, no ja ne znaju LENU Li.

Ivan met person ACC but I non cognize Lena ACC li C

‘Ivan met person but I do n’t cognize where he met LENA. ‘

In Russian, C0 can transport +focus characteristic. Therefore, there seem to be two focus places in Russian above TP: the first in CP and the other below CP. In ( 23 ) , the focussed component follows the declaratory complementizer A?to, stand foring the place below CP.

( 23 ) Maria ne znala, A?to IVANA ona dolA?na vstreA?at ‘ .

Maria non knew that Ivan ACC she must run into

‘Maria did n’t cognize that it was Ivan who she was supposed to run into. ‘

Grebenyova ( 2006 ) suggests that Russian Li is a clitic that cliticizes to the left, and hence can stay in C0 under Sluicing. Since Russian Li is base-generated in C0, the Economy considerations do non use to li. Hence, Sluicing provides a diagnostic for the belongingss of certain clitics.

The statement, that Russian Li cliticizes to the left, comes from a construction where Li articulations to a figure of focussed components and it ever goes after these components, as illustrated in ( 24 ) .

( 24 ) a. Ivan Li, Masa li napiset, mne vsjo ravno.

Ivan li Masa fifty-one will-write, to-me all equal

‘Whether Ivan or Masa will compose, does n’t count to me. ‘

B. *Ivan Li, fifty-one Masa napiset, mne vsjo ravno.

c. *Li Ivan, li Masa napiset, mne vsjo ravno.

The building of ( 25 ) proposes that if Li is supported by another morpheme from the left, so it can predate the focussed components. Here, to- does non truly give any excess significance to the sentence. Therefore, it is rather proper to say, that it functions in a dummy ‘do-support’-like mode.

( 25 ) To-li Ivan, to-li Masa napiset, mne vsjo ravno.

‘Whether Ivan or Masa will compose, does n’t count to me. ‘

Therefore, it is possible to reason that incompatible focal point can in fact licence Sluicing in Russian and some other Slavic linguistic communications. Hence, the facts above determine that incompatible focal point is capable of licencing Sluicing in Russian. Furthermore, Merchant ( 2004 ) uses the construct that focal point can licence omission of its complement besides in his analysis of fragment replies in English. Craenebroeck and Lipt & A ; aacute ; K ( 2005 ) besides come to this decision in their analysis of Ellipsis in comparative clauses in Hungarian. Thus, focal point has an ellipsis-licensing capableness in a figure of linguistic communications.

2.4. Unifying the Theory of Licensing TP-Deletion

On the one manus, we have Merchant ‘s ( 2001 ) decisions refering English, that the characteristic that licenses Sluicing in English is the +wh characteristic. On the other manus, we have the decisions of the old subdivision, that the characteristic that licenses Sluicing in Slavic is the +focus characteristic. Consequently, we have two options, either +wh and +focus characteristics are both capable of licencing TP-deletion, or the +focus characteristic is the licenser of TP-deletion in general. The last option seems to be the stronger one and, for this ground, is more complicated to asseverate.

Particularly a linguistic communication like English has troubles with the +focus characteristic as the licenser of TP-deletion, because contrastively focussed phrases in English ever remain in situ. However, Grebenyova ( 2006 ) proposes that Sluicing is licensed by the +focus characteristic with an overtly realized specifier of the caput transporting this characteristic. This proposal is illustrated in ( 26 ) .

( 26 )

XP

YP

Ten

+foc

TP

Thymine

In English, the +focus characteristic is weak, while in Russian it is strong. However, the characteristic strength should non be so of import for licencing Sluicing, if the mechanism of Sluicing licensing is attempted to be unified for both linguistic communications. So, the CP bed looks the undermentioned manner in English, as in ( 27 ) .

CP

what

C

+foc

+wh

TP

Thymine

( 27 )

This signifies that wh-movement in English represent by itself the operation that produces the needful constellation for licencing TP-deletion. While the +wh characteristic itself is unimportant for licencing TP-deletion. This hypothesis is really favorable, since the conditions that do non let Sluicing in English are likely to incorporate elements that can non be focused. Such elements are the comparative pronouns in comparative clauses and complementizers like that and if.

3. Multiple Sluicing and the Semantics of Multiple Interrogatives

Russian seems to let multiple Sluicing, but, nevertheless, the appropriate contexts for multiple Sluicing depend on the reading of multiple questions in this linguistic communication. Russian does non hold single-pair readings in multiple questions, as the contrast between ( 28 ) and ( 29 ) shows.

( 28 ) KaA?dyj priglasil kogo-to sodium tanec, no ja ne pomnju kto kogo.

everyone invited person to dance but I non retrieve who whom

‘Everyone invited person to a dance but I do n’t retrieve who whom. ‘

( 29 ) ? ? Kto-to priglasil kogo-to na tanec, no ja ne pomnju kto kogo.

person invited person to dance but I non retrieve who whom

‘Someone invited person to a dance but I do n’t retrieve who whom. ‘

Normally, multiple questions possess a Pair-List or a Single-Pair reading. Although the Single-Pair reading is more restricted crosslinguistically, as BoskoviA‡ ( 2003 ) and Grebenyova ( 2004 ) among others describe.

The scenarios in ( 30 ) and ( 31 ) represent the readings with regard to the English inquiry in ( 32 ) . The inquiry is inadmissible on the Single-Pair scenario in ( 31 ) , because English as Russian lacks Single-Pair readings.

( 30 ) Scenario 1 ( PL ) : John is at a formal dinner where there are diplomats and journalists. Each journalist was invited by a different diplomat. John wants to happen out all the inside informations, so he asks the host: ( 32 )

( 31 ) Scenario 2 ( SP ) : toilet knows that a really of import diplomat invited a really of import journalist to a private dinner. John wants to happen out all the inside informations, so he asks the caterer: ( 32 )

( 32 ) Who invited who to the dinner?

PL/*SP

Modeling with English, Russian besides lacks the SP reading in multiple questions, as illustrated in ( 33 ) .

( 33 ) Kto kogo priglasil na tanec? PL/*SP

Who whom invited to dance

‘Who invited who to a dance? ‘

Since Russian lacks the SP reading, it seems logical to say that the ancestor clause distributes a single-pair reading on the interrogative clause in the penstock and hence, the Russian multiple Sluicing in ( 29 ) is degraded. Obviously, a multiple wh-question in Russian can non hold precisely this type of reading.

There is one more type of reading, which is really near to the SP reading. This type is called Order reading, as in ( 34 ) .

( 34 ) John and Bill were contending. Who hit who foremost?

In Russian, multiple Sluicing is possible with Order reading, every bit long as the context provided by the ancestor is relevant.

( 35 ) Masa I Ivan posli na veA?er. Kto-to iz National Institutes of Health priglasil drugogo na tanec, no ja ne znaju kto kogo.

Masa and Ivan went to party. One of them invited the other to dance but I non cognize who whom.

‘Masa and Ivan went to a party. One of them invited the other to a dance but I do n’t cognize who invited who. ‘

Consequently, the instead direct decision can be reached at this phase, viz. , if the readings are available to wh-interrogatives in a given linguistic communication, so they are the lone readings of wh-interrogatives available under Sluicing in that linguistic communication. Therefore, the penstocks could be analyzed as full interrogative clauses.

Furthermore, it is besides possible to foretell out of this decision that multiple Sluicing should non be available with accessory wh-questions since the Order reading is impossible with adjuncts. The anticipation is confirmed, as demonstrated in ( 36 ) .

( 36 ) *Kto-to sprjatal gde-to zdes ‘ klad, no ja ne znaju kto gde.

person hid someplace here treasure bu I non cognize who where

‘Someone hid the hoarded wealth someplace here bu I do n’t cognize who hid it where. ‘

4. Superiority under Sluicing

In this subdivision, another belongings of Sluicing in Russian will be explored, viz. the Superiority effects. First Sandra StjepanoviA‡ ( 2003 ) observes for Serbo-Croatian that Sluicing enforces high quality effects in contexts where parallel non-elliptical constructions do non exhibit any high quality effects.

Superiority effects in Serbo-Croatian are by and large present in embedded but non in chief clauses.

( 37 ) a. Kto sta1 o njemu govori t1?

Who what about him says

‘Who says what about him? ‘

b. Sta1 ko o njemu govori t­1?

( 38 ) a. Pavle je pitao KO sta1 o njemu govori t1.

Pavle aux asked who what about him says

‘Pavle asked who says what about him. ‘

B. ? ? Pavle je pitao sta1 ko o njemu govori t1.

However, StjepenoviA‡ ( 2003 ) goes into item and asserts that high quality effects emerge in Serbo-Croatian in chief clauses under Sluicing, as in ( 39 ) .

( 39 ) Speaker A: Neko voli nekog.

person loves person

‘Somebody loves person. ‘

Speaker B1: Ko koga?

who who

Speaker B2: *Koga KO?

So, Serbo-Croatian multiple Sluicing exhibits high quality effects in chief clauses with void C0.

However, the same effects emerge besides in embedded clause in Serbo-Croatian, but they are of no importance, because the generalisation relates to the issues in parallel non-elliptical constructions.

Coming back to Russian, harmonizing to Stepanov ( 1998 ) , it is a linguistic communication that does non exhibit high quality effects either in chief or embedded clauses in non-elliptical constructions. Russian forms with Serbo-Croatian and so superiority effects besides emerge in Russian under Sluicing in chief and in embedded clauses every bit good, as shown in ( 40 ) and ( 41 ) .

( 40 ) a. Speaker A: KaA?dyj priglasil kogo-to na tanec.

everyone invited person to dance

‘Everyone invited person to a dance. ‘

B. Speaker B: Kto kogo?

Who whom

c. Speaker B: *Kogo kto?

( 41 ) a. KaA?dyj priglasil kogo-to na tanec, no ja ne pomnju kto kogo.

everyone invited person to dance but I non retrieve who who

‘Everyone invited person to a dance but I do n’t retrieve who who. ‘

B. * KaA?dyj priglasil kogo-to sodium tanec, no ja ne pomnju kogo kto.

Although it is known that Sluicing sometimes mend the derivation. And so, harmonizing to Merchant ( 2001 ) , who expects no island effects under Sluicing. However, in the instances above, Sluicing seems to destruct the derivation.

If high quality effects are, for illustration, taken as basically minimality effects and minimality is encoded into the definition of Attract ( Chomsky 1995 ) , therefore, such misdemeanors can non technically exist in any derivation and hence can non be repaired by omission. Obviously, this means that high quality effects in non-elliptical constructions in a linguistic communication like Bulgarian are non expected to vanish under Sluicing. Since Bulgarian is a linguistic communication with strong high quality effects.

Merchant ( 2001 ) explores the informations demonstrating that this is so the instance in Bulgarian. Then, he indicates that this produces an extra grounds for the omission attack to Ellipsis, since high quality is a diagnostic of motion and motion could hold taken topographic point out of the eclipsis site merely if a full clause is present in the construction from the beginning and is deleted at PF. Nevertheless, the information shows that Sluicing invokes high quality effects in linguistic communications that really lack superiority effects without Ellipsis, as in Serbo-Croatian and Russian.

StjepanoviA‡ ( 2003 ) assumes that the characteristic that licenses TP-deletion must be on C0, and hence she sums up that C0 must be merged in open sentence structure in Sluicing buildings in Serbo-Croatian. Therefore, high quality effects in Serbo-Croatian matrix clauses are driven by the strong +wh characteristic of C0.

Russian, in comparing to Serbo-Croatian, possesses the weak +wh characteristic and this fact makes it hard to widen the analysis for Serbo-Croatian to Russian. Since the +wh characteristic is weak in Russian, unifying C0 in open sentence structure can non take to superiority effects. However, Grebenyova ( 2006 ) researches another history and proposes that the high quality effects detected under Sluicing follow from an independent belongings of egg-shaped buildings, viz. , quantifier correspondence.

Grebenyova ( 2006 ) accepts the construct of correspondence, which was foremost explored by Fiengo and May ( 1994 ) , and is further developed by Fox and Lasnik ( 2003 ) . Parallelism requires that variables in the elided and antecedent clauses be bound from parallel places. Grebenyova ( 2006 ) besides supposes that the variable, which is introduced by an indefinite in the ancestor clause, is bound by experiential closing, as Kratzer ( 1997 ) claims.

At first, Grebenyova ( 2006 ) takes a instance of Russian multiple Sluicing, as in ( 42 ) and analyzes the LF of the ancestor in it.

( 42 ) a. Speaker A: KaA?dyj priglasil kogo-to na tanec.

everyone invited person to dance

‘Everyone invited person to a dance. ‘

B. Speaker B: Kto kogo [ priglasil na tanec ] ?

who whom invited to dance

c. Speaker B: *Kogo kto [ priglasil na tanec ] ?

The LF representation of the ancestor in Russian multiple Sluicing in ( 45a ) is given in ( 43 ) .

( 43 ) iˆ?iˆ x iˆ¤iˆ y [ x priglasil Y na tanec ]

invited to dance

The reading represented in ( 43 ) is the lone available significance available in ( 42a ) , since surface quantifier range is preserved in Russian. The illustration in ( 44 ) shows this even more clearly and the unacceptable discrepancy in ( 45 ) , which is an English based instance in Fox ( 2000:70 ) , does it every bit good.

( 44 ) Kakoj-to paren ‘ poceloval kaA?duju devusku. iˆ¤x iˆ?y / *iˆ?y iˆ¤x

some cat NOM kissed every miss ACC

‘Some cat kissed every miss. ‘

( 45 ) # Odin/kakoj-to A?asovoj stoit naprotiv kaA?dogo zdanija.

one/some guard is-standing in-front-of every edifice

‘One/some guard is standing in forepart of every edifice. ‘

Returning to the multiple Sluicing in ( 42 ) , their following LF representations of the acceptable penstock in ( 42b ) and the unacceptable 1 in ( 42c ) are given in ( 46b ) and ( 46c ) severally. The perennial version of ( 43 ) is given in ( 46a ) . Since high quality effects follow from quantifier correspondence, all three LF representations in ( 46a-c ) are supposed to run into the correspondence demand. In other words, the variables in these penstocks and in the LF of the ancestor should be bound from parallel places.

( 46 ) a. iˆ?iˆ x iˆ¤iˆ y [ x priglasil Y na tanec ] < LF ( ancestor )

invited to dance

b. kto x kogo Y [ x priglasil Y na tanec ] < LF ( wh1 & A ; gt ; wh2 )

who whom invited to dance

c. kogo Y kto x [ x priglasil Y na tanec ] < LF ( wh2 & A ; gt ; wh1 )

whom who invited to dance

Obviously, there is the correspondence in variable binding between ( 46a ) and ( 46b ) , but there is no correspondence between the ( 46a ) and ( 46c ) . This means that the quantifier, adhering the object variable, is inside the range of the quantifier, adhering the topic variable in the ancestor clause. While in the penstock in ( 46c ) , it is outside the range of the parallel quantifier.

For the farther trials, the object quantifier is scrambled over the topic in the ancestor clause, as in ( 47a ) . Consequently, we get an acceptable penstock with the wh2 & A ; gt ; wh1order in ( 47b ) , as the correspondence history posits, since now the object quantifier is outside the range of the topic quantifier in both the ancestor and the penstock.

( 47 ) a. Speaker A: KaA?dogo1 kto-to priglasil t1 na tanec.

everyone ACC person NOM invited to dance

‘Someone invited everyone to a dance. ‘ ( with iˆ?x iˆ¤y )

B. Speaker B: Kogo kto?

whom who

c. Speaker B: *Kto kogo?

who whom

Since in ( 47c ) , the topic & A ; gt ; object order of the wh-phrases can non be accepted, this in fact reinforces the correspondence history stated above.

Furthermore, as the above presented trials show, the existent beginning of the evident high quality effects under Sluicing in Russian is so correspondence and non minimality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *