Cleaving idioms with right-node-raising

Jeong-Seok Kim, Duk-Ho Jung, Jin Hyung Lee
{"title":"Cleaving idioms with right-node-raising","authors":"Jeong-Seok Kim, Duk-Ho Jung, Jin Hyung Lee","doi":"10.1075/lali.00148.kim","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper examines right-node-raising (RNR) with idiom chunks. RNR sentences allow idiomatic interpretation when\n they contain the whole idiom chunk within the pivot (i.e., the shared element) (e.g., Jessica believed, but Zac doubted, that\n Justin popped the question.), but those containing only a part of the idiom within the pivot do not (e.g., #John\n kicked, and Mary filled, the bucket.). Given this, Woo\n (2015) argues for a multidominance approach (cf. Wilder 1999) to RNR in that\n the multiply dominated pivot must not be partially shared for idiomatic interpretation. However, we report that even if the pivot\n contains the whole idiom part, the issue of missing idiomatic interpretation in RNR still lingers (e.g., #We played a party game,\n and they used an ice hammer, to break the ice.). In order to deal with this problem, multidominance, movement, or\n PF deletion analyses must resort to an extra interpretive parallelism according to which a pivot cannot be used in two different\n senses simultaneously. From this perspective, we argue that an LF copying approach can explain the idiomaticity in RNR without\n extra proviso since under this analysis, it is not necessary to postulate a separate LF constraint of interpretive symmetry. We\n extend our analysis to Korean (and Japanese) data pertaining to RNR with idiomatic or polysemous expressions. We thus conclude\n that lexical mismatches and interpretive mismatches in English and Korean RNR are solid evidence of interpretive identity in\n RNR.","PeriodicalId":117772,"journal":{"name":"Language and Linguistics / 語言暨語言學","volume":"122 37","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language and Linguistics / 語言暨語言學","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00148.kim","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper examines right-node-raising (RNR) with idiom chunks. RNR sentences allow idiomatic interpretation when they contain the whole idiom chunk within the pivot (i.e., the shared element) (e.g., Jessica believed, but Zac doubted, that Justin popped the question.), but those containing only a part of the idiom within the pivot do not (e.g., #John kicked, and Mary filled, the bucket.). Given this, Woo (2015) argues for a multidominance approach (cf. Wilder 1999) to RNR in that the multiply dominated pivot must not be partially shared for idiomatic interpretation. However, we report that even if the pivot contains the whole idiom part, the issue of missing idiomatic interpretation in RNR still lingers (e.g., #We played a party game, and they used an ice hammer, to break the ice.). In order to deal with this problem, multidominance, movement, or PF deletion analyses must resort to an extra interpretive parallelism according to which a pivot cannot be used in two different senses simultaneously. From this perspective, we argue that an LF copying approach can explain the idiomaticity in RNR without extra proviso since under this analysis, it is not necessary to postulate a separate LF constraint of interpretive symmetry. We extend our analysis to Korean (and Japanese) data pertaining to RNR with idiomatic or polysemous expressions. We thus conclude that lexical mismatches and interpretive mismatches in English and Korean RNR are solid evidence of interpretive identity in RNR.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用右侧节点抬高的方式拆分成语
本文研究了使用成语块的右节点提升(RNR)。当 RNR 句子在枢轴中包含整个成语块(即共享元素)时,可以进行成语解释(如:Jessica believed, but Zac doubted, that Justin popped the question.),但枢轴中只包含部分成语的句子则不能进行成语解释(如:#John kicked, and Mary filled, the bucket.)。有鉴于此,Woo(2015)主张采用多支配方法(参见 Wilder,1999 年)来处理 RNR,即多支配枢纽不得部分共享成语解释。然而,我们发现,即使枢轴包含整个成语部分,RNR 中成语解释缺失的问题仍然存在(例如,#We played a party game, and they used an ice hammer, to break the ice.)。为了解决这个问题,多义性分析、移动分析或 PF 删除分析必须借助额外的解释平行性,根据这种平行性,枢轴不能同时用于两种不同的意义。从这个角度出发,我们认为 LF 复制法可以解释 RNR 中的惯用法,而不需要额外的但书,因为根据这种分析方法,不需要假设单独的 LF 解释对称性约束。我们将分析扩展到了韩语(和日语)中与成语或多义词表达相关的 RNR 数据。因此,我们得出结论:英语和韩语 RNR 中的词汇错配和释义错配是 RNR 中释义同一性的确凿证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Foot-shift and disyllabification in the history of Chinese From negative to conjunctive 重慶方言句末語氣詞的意義功能及結構 從連類複數到真性複數 韓漢音的分期與中古到現代的演變
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1