西班牙语嵌入语隙中的补语缺失

IF 0.7 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Linguistic Review Pub Date : 2022-07-05 DOI:10.1515/tlr-2022-2096
Max Bonke, Sophie Repp
{"title":"西班牙语嵌入语隙中的补语缺失","authors":"Max Bonke, Sophie Repp","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Gapping in embedded environments may occur in two configurations: (i) the whole coordination containing both conjuncts is embedded (= embedded gapping, EG), (ii) the second (i.e. elliptical) clause is embedded within its own conjunct (= single conjunct embedded gapping, SCEG). Languages seem to differ in their restrictions on these two structures: EG in some languages does not allow for a complementizer in the elliptical conjunct, while it does in other languages. SCEG is outright unacceptable in some languages but acceptable in other languages. Overall, languages seem to fall into two groups such that one group allows a complementizer in the elliptical conjunct of EG and generally allows SCEG, whereas the other group allows neither. We present four experiments in Spanish on the acceptability of the complementizer que ‘that’ in the elliptical conjunct in EG. Our results suggest that que in Spanish EG is overall subject to similar restrictions as SCEG gapping: There are different degrees of degradation depending on the (type of) embedding verb without outright unacceptability. While the relevant property has been argued to be factivity for SCEG, we argue that it is not the factivity of the embedding verb as such that drives acceptability, but assertion embedding. We outline a theoretical proposal building on existing accounts of structural ambiguity in gapping, the truncation of complement CPs under some verbs including factives, and the general flexibility of the semantic/pragmatic categories factivity and assertion.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"525 - 555"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complementizer deletion in embedded gapping in Spanish\",\"authors\":\"Max Bonke, Sophie Repp\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/tlr-2022-2096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Gapping in embedded environments may occur in two configurations: (i) the whole coordination containing both conjuncts is embedded (= embedded gapping, EG), (ii) the second (i.e. elliptical) clause is embedded within its own conjunct (= single conjunct embedded gapping, SCEG). Languages seem to differ in their restrictions on these two structures: EG in some languages does not allow for a complementizer in the elliptical conjunct, while it does in other languages. SCEG is outright unacceptable in some languages but acceptable in other languages. Overall, languages seem to fall into two groups such that one group allows a complementizer in the elliptical conjunct of EG and generally allows SCEG, whereas the other group allows neither. We present four experiments in Spanish on the acceptability of the complementizer que ‘that’ in the elliptical conjunct in EG. Our results suggest that que in Spanish EG is overall subject to similar restrictions as SCEG gapping: There are different degrees of degradation depending on the (type of) embedding verb without outright unacceptability. While the relevant property has been argued to be factivity for SCEG, we argue that it is not the factivity of the embedding verb as such that drives acceptability, but assertion embedding. We outline a theoretical proposal building on existing accounts of structural ambiguity in gapping, the truncation of complement CPs under some verbs including factives, and the general flexibility of the semantic/pragmatic categories factivity and assertion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46358,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistic Review\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"525 - 555\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistic Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2096\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2096","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

嵌入式环境中的间隙可能发生在两种情况下:(i)包含两个连接词的整个配位被嵌入(=嵌入式间隙,EG); (ii)第二个(即椭圆)子句被嵌入到它自己的连接词中(=单个连接词嵌入间隙,SCEG)。不同语言对这两种结构的限制似乎不同:有些语言的EG不允许在省略连词中使用补语,而另一些语言则允许。SCEG在某些语言中是完全不可接受的,但在其他语言中是可以接受的。总的来说,语言似乎分为两类:一类允许在EG的椭圆连词中使用补语,通常允许SCEG,而另一类则不允许。我们提出了四个实验在西班牙语的补语que ' that '在EG的椭圆连词的可接受性。我们的研究结果表明,西班牙语EG中的que总体上受到与SCEG缺口类似的限制:根据嵌入动词的(类型)有不同程度的退化,但不会完全不可接受。虽然相关属性被认为是SCEG的实体性,但我们认为,驱动可接受性的不是嵌入动词的实体性,而是断言嵌入。我们概述了一个理论建议,建立在现有的缺口结构歧义,一些动词下的补语CPs的截断,包括事实,以及语义/语用范畴的一般灵活性,事实和断言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Complementizer deletion in embedded gapping in Spanish
Abstract Gapping in embedded environments may occur in two configurations: (i) the whole coordination containing both conjuncts is embedded (= embedded gapping, EG), (ii) the second (i.e. elliptical) clause is embedded within its own conjunct (= single conjunct embedded gapping, SCEG). Languages seem to differ in their restrictions on these two structures: EG in some languages does not allow for a complementizer in the elliptical conjunct, while it does in other languages. SCEG is outright unacceptable in some languages but acceptable in other languages. Overall, languages seem to fall into two groups such that one group allows a complementizer in the elliptical conjunct of EG and generally allows SCEG, whereas the other group allows neither. We present four experiments in Spanish on the acceptability of the complementizer que ‘that’ in the elliptical conjunct in EG. Our results suggest that que in Spanish EG is overall subject to similar restrictions as SCEG gapping: There are different degrees of degradation depending on the (type of) embedding verb without outright unacceptability. While the relevant property has been argued to be factivity for SCEG, we argue that it is not the factivity of the embedding verb as such that drives acceptability, but assertion embedding. We outline a theoretical proposal building on existing accounts of structural ambiguity in gapping, the truncation of complement CPs under some verbs including factives, and the general flexibility of the semantic/pragmatic categories factivity and assertion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Linguistic Review
Linguistic Review Multiple-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Linguistic Review aims at publishing high-quality papers in syntax, semantics, phonology, and morphology, within a framework of Generative Grammar and related disciplines, as well as critical discussions of theoretical linguistics as a branch of cognitive psychology. Striving to be a platform for discussion, The Linguistic Review welcomes reviews of important new monographs in these areas, dissertation abstracts, and letters to the editor. The editor also welcomes initiatives for thematic issues with guest editors. The Linguistic Review is a peer-reviewed journal of international scope.
期刊最新文献
Coordination versus separation: difference of gapping between Chinese and English and its prosodic attribution Force mismatch in clausal ellipsis Simplifying the theoretical treatment of wager verbs On the verb-raising analysis of non-constituent coordination in Japanese Morphological analysis of alienability contrast in Nuer: an atypical typical case
×
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