A hybrid ellipsis analysis of two types of fragments in Korean

IF 0.4 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Linguistic Research Pub Date : 2017-12-01 DOI:10.17250/khisli.34.3.201712.005
Hee-Don Ahn, 조성은
{"title":"A hybrid ellipsis analysis of two types of fragments in Korean","authors":"Hee-Don Ahn, 조성은","doi":"10.17250/khisli.34.3.201712.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ahn, Hee-Don and Sungeun Cho. 2017. A hybrid ellipsis analysis of two types of fragments in Korean. Linguistic Research 34(3), 311-359. Nominal fragments in Korean can take two different forms: case-marked forms and caseless forms. Previous approaches to the two types of fragments are divided into two directions: uniform analyses and hybrid analyses. Uniform analyses are further classified into two species: direct interpretation approaches and ellipsis approaches. The direct interpretation approaches basically assume that fragments are non-sentential XPs. On this view, the unexpressed parts of the fragments’ interpretation are supplied not through syntactic structure but via correspondence with the meaning of the antecedent sentence. The ellipsis approaches, by contrast, assume that fragments have sentential sources and are derived through deletion process. Hybrid analyses, on the other hand, suggest that some fragments involve sentential sources and that others are non-sentential XPs. We propose that both case-marked and caseless fragments involve movement and TP deletion but that their sentential sources are not identical—a hybrid ellipsis analysis. We show that parallel behaviors of two types of fragments are explained under the assumption that they have sentential sources, while non-parallel behaviors are explained because of their different sentential sources. Our analysis further offers fresh accounts for adnonimal modifier fragments and their interesting contrasts. (Konkuk University · Yeungnam University)","PeriodicalId":43095,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Research","volume":"34 1","pages":"311-359"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Research","FirstCategoryId":"1092","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.34.3.201712.005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Ahn, Hee-Don and Sungeun Cho. 2017. A hybrid ellipsis analysis of two types of fragments in Korean. Linguistic Research 34(3), 311-359. Nominal fragments in Korean can take two different forms: case-marked forms and caseless forms. Previous approaches to the two types of fragments are divided into two directions: uniform analyses and hybrid analyses. Uniform analyses are further classified into two species: direct interpretation approaches and ellipsis approaches. The direct interpretation approaches basically assume that fragments are non-sentential XPs. On this view, the unexpressed parts of the fragments’ interpretation are supplied not through syntactic structure but via correspondence with the meaning of the antecedent sentence. The ellipsis approaches, by contrast, assume that fragments have sentential sources and are derived through deletion process. Hybrid analyses, on the other hand, suggest that some fragments involve sentential sources and that others are non-sentential XPs. We propose that both case-marked and caseless fragments involve movement and TP deletion but that their sentential sources are not identical—a hybrid ellipsis analysis. We show that parallel behaviors of two types of fragments are explained under the assumption that they have sentential sources, while non-parallel behaviors are explained because of their different sentential sources. Our analysis further offers fresh accounts for adnonimal modifier fragments and their interesting contrasts. (Konkuk University · Yeungnam University)
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
朝鲜语两类断句的混合省略分析
安、喜东和成周。2017.朝鲜语中两种类型片段的混合省略分析。语言学研究34(3),311-359。朝鲜语中的名词性断片可以有两种不同的形式:有格的形式和无格的形式。以前对这两种类型的片段的处理方法分为两个方向:均匀分析和混合分析。统一分析进一步分为两种:直接解释方法和省略方法。直接解释方法基本上假设片段是非句子XP。根据这一观点,片段解释中未表达的部分不是通过句法结构提供的,而是通过与前句含义的对应提供的。相比之下,省略方法则认为片段具有句子来源,并且是通过删除过程产生的。另一方面,混合分析表明,一些片段涉及句子来源,而另一些片段则是非句子XP。我们提出,有格和无格的片段都涉及移动和TP删除,但它们的句子来源并不相同——一种混合省略分析。我们发现,两类片段的平行行为是在假设它们有句子来源的情况下解释的,而非平行行为是因为它们的句子来源不同而解释的。我们的分析进一步提供了附件修饰片段及其有趣对比的新解释。(建国大学·杨南大学)
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
Linguistic Research
Linguistic Research LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Linguistic Research is an international journal which offers a forum for the discussion of theoretical research dealing with natural language data. The journal publishes articles of high quality which make a clear contribution to current debate in all branches of theoretical linguistics. The journal embraces both synchronic and diachronic perspectives, and carries articles that address language-specific as well as cross-linguistic and typological research questions. The journal features syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, phonetics, and pragmatics and is currently published quarterly (March, June, September, and December), including the special September issue with a particular focus on applied linguistics covering (second) language acquisition, ESL/EFL, conversation/discourse analysis, etc. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial evaluation by the Editors, and, if found suitable for further consideration, to double-blind peer review by independent expert referees.
期刊最新文献
Overt subject NPs as a contrast marker in Korean discourse Keyword analyses of English charter parties How do speakers of different languages differ in the encoding of complex motion events Revisiting the persuade-constructions in Korean with empirical evidence Loanword adaptation of English coronal fricatives into Mandarin Chinese
×
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:481959085
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