This dissertation investigates the syntax and distribution of Gapping and Fragments, as well as the movements involved in ellipsis contexts in general. In the first part, it is argued that the... Show moreThis dissertation investigates the syntax and distribution of Gapping and Fragments, as well as the movements involved in ellipsis contexts in general. In the first part, it is argued that the syntax of Gapping and Fragments is identical. In the second part it is argued that the licensing condition on ellipsis holds at the discourse component and that, from a discourse perspective, the distribution of Gapping and Fragments is identical. The main claim of this study, then, is that Gapping and Fragments should not be formally distinguished in a theory of ellipsis. The final part of this dissertation is concerned with the movements of the remnant elements of ellipsis. Answers are provided to questions such as why these movements are often impossible in non-elliptical contexts and what it is that triggers these movements Show less
This dissertation provides a novel perspective on the interaction between quantifier scope and ellipsis. It presents a detailed investigation of the scopal interaction between English negative... Show moreThis dissertation provides a novel perspective on the interaction between quantifier scope and ellipsis. It presents a detailed investigation of the scopal interaction between English negative indefinites, modals, and quantified phrases in ellipsis. One of the crucial observations is that a negative indefinite in object position cannot scope out of a verbal ellipsis site, while Quantifier Raising (QR) of a quantificational object can escape a verbal ellipsis site. This dissertation presents a unified account of this state of affairs in the context of multidominance. It is argued that both English negative indefinites and quantificational determiners decompose into two independent elements. Their formation is the result of a morphological process, Fusion Under Adjacency. The locality/adjacency required for fusion is established under remerge (multidominance), in combination with cyclic Spell-Out/linearization. The main claim of this dissertation is that the PF-process of ellipsis can block this morphological process. It is proposed that the timing of Fusion Under Adjacency and (derivational) ellipsis plays a crucial role: Fusion Under Adjacency has to take place before the ellipsis licensor is merged. The lack of a blocking effect of ellipsis in QR is accounted for by the fact that QR always has a landing site below the ellipsis licensor. In addition to providing an account for the scopal behavior of quantificational elements under ellipsis, this dissertation also sheds new light on the syntax-to-PF mapping. It contributes to our understanding of how multidominant phrase markers are transferred to PF for (non-)pronunciation in a cyclic model of the grammar. This study is of relevance to scholars interested in the nature of ellipsis and quantifier scope, and the syntax-PF connection, as well as to a general syntactic readership. Show less
This dissertation investigates A’-dependencies where the dislocated constituent is not transformationally related to the position where it is interpreted. The analysis is carried out within the... Show moreThis dissertation investigates A’-dependencies where the dislocated constituent is not transformationally related to the position where it is interpreted. The analysis is carried out within the Principles & Parameters framework. The first two chapters address relative clauses. Based on a detailed examination of reconstruction, it is argued that German restrictive relatives should be given a Matching Analysis. Chapter three analyzes an alternative to long-distance relativization in German and Dutch where the relative pronoun is governed by the preposition von/van ‘of’ and a resumptive appears instead of a gap in the complement clause. The construction has the hallmarks of an indirect A’-dependency: The external head is interpreted inside the complement clause but cannot be transformationally related to that position. The paradox is resolved by postulating short A’-movement in the matrix clause, operator movement in the complement clause and an ellipsis operation that links the chains. Chapter four analyzes relative clauses in Zurich German. While local relativization is shown to be largely parallel to Standard German, long-distance relativization is reanalyzed in terms of Resumptive Prolepsis. This study is of interest to anyone interested in the syntax of relative clauses, reconstruction, resumption or in the syntax of Standard German, Zurich German and Dutch. Show less
