Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 539–592 | Cite as

Ellipsis in split questions

  • Karlos Arregi
Article

Abstract

Split questions such as What tree did John plant, an oak? contain a wh-question part and a tag. Drawing on Spanish, Basque and English data, this article argues that these two parts of a split question are independent clauses. The tag is in fact an elliptical non-wh-question, where ellipsis is licensed in the same way as in other sentence fragments. I provide detailed argumentation that the tag involves movement of a correlate of the wh-phrase, followed by ellipsis of the remnant, thus contributing to the growing body of evidence that sentence fragments (sluicing, fragment answers, etc.) are syntactically full clauses. The syntax proposed provides a simple account of the intonation patterns found in split questions and of their semantics. Furthermore, it is argued that the only existing alternative analysis of split questions cannot account for many of the properties of this construction.

Keywords

Split questions Ellipsis Fragments Islands Pied-piping 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis, and Elena Guerzoni. 2004. Double negation, negative concord and metalinguistic negation. In CLS 38-1: the main session, eds. Mary Andronis, Erin Debenport, Anne Pycha, and Keiko Yoshimura, 15–31. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago. Google Scholar
  2. Arregi, Karlos. 2002. Focus on Basque movements. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  3. Arregi, Karlos. 2003a. Clausal pied-piping. Natural Language Semantics 11: 115–143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arregi, Karlos. 2003b. Clitic left dislocation is contrastive topicalization. In Penn working papers in linguistics 9.1: proceedings of the 26th annual Penn linguistic colloquium, 31–44. Google Scholar
  5. Baltin, Mark. 2006. Extraposition. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, Volume II, eds. Martin Everaert, Henk van Riemsdijk, Rob Goedemans, and Bart Hollebrandse. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  6. Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence: on reconstruction and its implications. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  7. Bäuerle, Rainer. 1979. Questions and answers. In Semantics from different points of view, eds. Rainer Bäuerle, Urs Egli, and Arnim von Stechow, 61–74. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  8. Beckman, Mary E., Manuel Díaz-Campos, Julia Tevis McGory, and Terrell A. Morgan. 2002. Intonation across Spanish, in the tones and break indices framework. Probus 14: 9–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bleam, Tonia. 2003. Properties of double object constructions in Spanish. In A Romance perspective in language knowledge and use. Selected papers from the 31st linguistic symposium on Romance languages (LSRL), Chicago, 19–22 April 2001, eds. Rafael Nuñez-Cedeño, Luis López, and Richard Cameron, 215–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  10. Bosque, Ignacio. 1980. Sobre la negación. Madrid: Cátedra. Google Scholar
  11. Brucart, Josep M. 1987. La elisión sintáctica en español. Barcelona: Bellaterra. Google Scholar
  12. Brunetti, Lisa. 2003. Information focus movement in Italian and contextual constraints on ellipsis. In WCCFL 22 proceedings, eds. Gina Garding and Mimu Tsujimara, 95–108. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  13. Büring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus: the 59th Street Bridge accent. New York: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Camacho, José. 2002. Wh-doubling: implications for the syntax of wh-movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 157–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT press. Google Scholar
  16. Chung, Sandra. 2006. Sluicing and the lexicon: the point of no return. In BLS 31: general session and parasession on prosodic variation and change, eds. Rebecca T. Cover and Kim Yuni, 73–91. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley. Google Scholar
  17. Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 239–282. Google Scholar
  18. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–297. Google Scholar
  19. Contreras, Heles. 1976. A theory of word order with special reference to Spanish. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Google Scholar
  20. Contreras, Joan M., and Francesc Roca. 2007. Un tipus especial d’oracions interrogatives: les interrogatives escindides. Caplletra: Revista Internacional de Filología 42: 145–183. Google Scholar
  21. Coppock, Elizabeth. 2001. Gapping: in defense of deletion. In CLS 37: the main session, eds. Mary Andronis, Christopher Ball, Heidi Elston, and Sylvain Neuvel, 133–147. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  22. Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Structural asymmetries but same word order: the dative alternation in Spanish. In Asymmetry in grammar, Volume 1: syntax and semantics, ed. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, 117–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  23. Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7: 5–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Depiante, Marcela. 2000. The syntax of deep and surface anaphora: a study of null complement anaphora and stripping/bare argument ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Google Scholar
  26. den Dikken, Marcel, and Anastasia Giannakidou. 2002. From hell to polarity: “Aggressively non-D-linked” wh-phrases as polarity items. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 31–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. den Dikken, Marcel, André Meinunger, and Chris Wilder. 2000. Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54: 41–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. de Pedro Munilla, Mónica. 2004. Dative doubling structures in Spanish: Are they double object constructions? In WCCFL 23: proceedings of the 23rd west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Vineeta Chand, Ann Kelleher, Angelo J. Rodríguez, and Benjamin Schmeiser, 168–181. Somerville: Cascadilla. Google Scholar
  29. Drubig, Hans B. 1994. Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. In Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 51. Universität Tübingen. Google Scholar
  30. Echepare, Ricardo. 1997. Two types of focus in Basque. In Proceedings of the fifteenth west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Brian Agbayani and Tang Sze-Wing, 113–127. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  31. Elordieta, Arantzazu. 2001. Verb movement and constituent permutation in Basque. Doctoral dissertation, Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics/Leiden University. Google Scholar
  32. Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  33. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press and MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Google Scholar
  34. Fox, Danny, and Howard Lasnik. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: the difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 143–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  36. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative … concord? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18: 457–523. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2006. N-words and negative concord. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, volume III, eds. Martin Everaert, Henk van Riemsdijk, Rob Goedemans, and Bart Hollebrandse, 327–391. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Han, Chung-Hye, and Maribel Romero. 2004. The syntax of whether/Q … or questions: ellipsis combined with movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 527–564. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hankamer, Jorge. 1979. Deletion in coordinate structures. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  40. Herburger, Elena. 2001. The negative concord puzzle revisited. Natural Language Semantics 9: 289–333. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hernanz, María Lluïsa, and José María Brucart. 1987. La sintaxis. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica. Google Scholar
  42. Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 547–570. Google Scholar
  43. Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Google Scholar
  44. Irurtzun, Aritz. 2006. Focus and clause structuration in the minimalist program. In Minimalist essays, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 68–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  45. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  46. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  47. Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A. 2000. Incomplete VP deletion and gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20: 64–81. Google Scholar
  48. Johnson, Kyle. 2001. What VP-ellipsis can do, what it can’t, but not why. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, eds. Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 439–479. Malden: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Johnson, Kyle. 2009. Gapping is not (VP-) ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 289–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Klecha, Peter. 2008. English split questions. Manuscript, University of Chicago. Google Scholar
  51. Krifka, Manfred. 1996. Frameworks for the representation focus. In Proceedings of the conference on formal grammar, eighth European summer school on logic, language and information, eds. Geert-Jan Kruijff, Glyn Morrill, and Dick Oehrle. Prague. Google Scholar
  52. Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In The architecture of focus, eds. Valerie Molnar and Susanne Winkler, 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  53. Ladusaw, William A. 1992. Expressing negation. In SALT II: proceedings of the second conference on semantics and linguistic theory, eds. Chris Barker and David Dowty, Vol. 40 of Working Papers in Linguistics, 237–259. Columbus: Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  54. Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: on the nature of functional categories and projections. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  55. Larson, Richard K. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 217–264. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. On feature strength: three minimalist approaches to overt movement. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 197–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  58. López, Luis. 1999. VP-ellipsis in English and Spanish and the features of auxiliaries. Probus 11: 263–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. López, Luis, and Susanne Winkler. 2000. Focus and topic in VP-anaphora constructions. Linguistics 38: 623–664. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. López-Cortina, Jorge. 2003. The structure of split interrogatives. In Theory, practice, and acquisition: papers from the 6th Hispanic linguistics symposium and the 5th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese, eds. Paula Kempchinsky and Carlos-Eduardo Piñeros, 140–155. Somerville: Cascadilla. Google Scholar
  61. Lorenzo, Guillermo. 1994. Qué expletivo en preguntas dislocadas. Archivum: Revista de la Facultad de Filología 44: 423–446. Google Scholar
  62. May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Google Scholar
  63. May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  64. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  65. Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661–738. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Merchant, Jason. 2007. Voice and ellipsis. Manuscript, University of Chicago. Google Scholar
  67. Merchant, Jason. 2008. An asymmetry in voice mismatches in VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 169–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Morgan, Jerry. 1973. Sentence fragments and the notion “sentence”. In Issues in linguistics, eds. Braj Kachru, Robert Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli, and Sol Saporta, 719–751. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Google Scholar
  69. Morgan, Jerry. 1989. Sentence fragments revisited. In CLS 25, parasession on language in context, eds. Bradley Music, Randolph Graczyk, and Caroline Wiltshire, 228–241. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago. Google Scholar
  70. Murasugi, Keiko. 1991. Noun phrases in Japanese and English: a study in syntax, learnability, and acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Google Scholar
  71. Navarro Tomás, Navarro. 1968. Manual de pronunciación española. Madrid: CSIC. Google Scholar
  72. Ordoñez, Francisco. 2000. The clausal structure of Spanish: a comparative perspective. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  73. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1986. Some parameters in the grammar of Basque. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Revised version published as Ortiz de Urbina 1989. Google Scholar
  74. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1989. Parameters in the grammar of Basque: a GB approach to Basque syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  75. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1993. Feature percolation and clausal pied-piping. In Generative studies in Basque linguistics, eds. José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 189–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  76. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1995. Residual verb second and verb first in Basque. In Discourse configurational languages, ed. Katalin É. Kiss, 99–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  77. Perpiñán, Silvia, and Silvina Montrul. 2006. On binding asymmetries in dative alternation constructions in L2 Spanish. In Selected proceedings of the 7th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second languages, eds. Carol A. Klee and Timothy L. Face, 135–148. Somerville: Cascadilla. Google Scholar
  78. Quilis, Antonio. 1993. Tratado de fonología y fonética españolas. Madrid: Gredos. Google Scholar
  79. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–557. Google Scholar
  80. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: handbook in generative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  81. Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information Structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Ohio State University working papers in linguistics 49: papers in semantics, eds. Jae Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol, 91–136. Columbus: Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  82. Rodrigues, Cilene, Andew Nevins, and Luis Vicente. 2009. Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and P-stranding. In Romance languages and linguistic theory 2006: selected papers from “Going Romance”, Amsterdam, 7–9 December 2006, eds. Danièle Torck and W. Leo Wetzels, 175–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  83. Romero, Maribel. 1997a. The correlation between scope reconstruction and connectivity effects. In Proceedings of the XVI west coast conference in formal linguistics, eds. Emily Curtis, James Lyle, and Gabriel Webster, 351–365. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  84. Romero, Maribel. 1997b. Recoverability conditions for sluicing. In Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics: selected papers from the colloque de syntaxe et sémantique de Paris 1995, eds. Francis Corblin, Danièle Godard, and Jean-Marie Marandin, 193–216. Berlin: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
  85. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  86. Rooth, Mats. 1992a. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgarter ellipsis workshop, eds. Steve Berman and Arild Hestvik. Number 29 in Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340. Universität Stuttgart and Universität Tübingen. Google Scholar
  87. Rooth, Mats. 1992b. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rooth, Mats. 1996. Focus. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. Shalom Lappin, 271–297. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  89. Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Google Scholar
  90. Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? In Papers from the 5th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. Robert Binnick, Alice Davidson, Georgia Green, and Jerry Morgan, 252–286. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago. Google Scholar
  91. Ross, John R. 1972. Act. In Semantics of natural language, eds. Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, 70–126. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
  92. Saab, Andrés. 2005. Hacia una teoría de la identidad en la elipsis. In Actas de las II Jornadas de Jóvenes Investigadores. Buenos Aires: Instituto Ezequiel Martínez Estrada. Google Scholar
  93. Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Google Scholar
  94. Sauerland, Uli, and Paul Elbourne. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF-movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 157–214. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Schwarz, Bernhard. 1999. On the syntax of either … or. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17: 339–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John A. Goldsmith, 550–569. Cambridge: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  99. Sharvit, Yael. 1999. Connectivity in specificational sentences. Natural Language Semantics 7: 299–341. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sosa, Juan Manuel. 2003. Wh-questions in Spanish: meanings and configurational variability. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 2: 229–247. Google Scholar
  101. Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6: 391–434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Suñer, Margarita. 1994. V-movement and the licensing of argumental wh-phrases in Spanish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12: 335–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Takahashi, Soichi. 2004. Pseudogapping and cyclic linearization. In NELS 34: Proceedings of the thirty-fourth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, eds. Moulton, Keir and Matthew Wolf, 571–585. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  104. Torrego, Esther. 1984. On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 103–129. Google Scholar
  105. Torrego, Esther. 1998. The dependencies of objects. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  106. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, and Anikó Lipták. 2008. On the interaction between verb movement and ellipsis: new evidence from Hungarian. In Proceedings of the 26th west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie, 138–146. Somerville: Cascadilla. Google Scholar
  107. van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: the binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Peter De Ridder. Google Scholar
  108. Vicente, Luis. 2006. Short negative replies in Spanish. Linguistics in the Netherlands 23: 199–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Vicente, Luis. 2008. Syntactic isomorphism and non-isomorphism under ellipsis. Manuscript, University of California, Santa Cruz. Google Scholar
  110. Zagona, Karen. 1988. Proper government of antecedentless VP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6: 95–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Syntactic properties of sentential negation: a comparative study of Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Google Scholar
  112. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1984. Orphan prepositions in French and the concept of ‘null pronoun’. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, Indiana University. Google Scholar
  113. Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations