|
Ellipsis Identity and Malagasy Sluicing Eric Potsdam University of Florida
It is widely recognized that there is an identification requirement on ellipsis: an elided constituent E must be isomorphic to an antecedent A. Most researchers assume syntactic isomorphism (e.g. Fiengo and May 1994), under which there must be morphosyntactic identity between E and A. Merchant 2001 develops and defends a semantic isomorphism approach in which the identity requirement between E and A is semantic. This paper presents an argument for semantic isomorphism and against syntactic isomorphism from sluicing (IP ellipsis) in Malagasy, a VOS Austronesian language of Madagascar. (1) illustrates sluicing in Malagasy. Malagasy syntax is governed by two well-known restrictions (Keenan 1976 and others):
(A) only subjects may move (B) subjects must be specific
Consequently, Malagasy makes wide use of morphosyntactic alternations (glossed passive below) to promote various arguments to the clause-final subject position. When (A) and (B) are combined with an assumption of syntactic isomorphism, (X), they yield the incorrect result that sluicing should be impossible.
(X) ellipsis of an IP E requires morphosyntactic identity with an antecedent IP A
To see this, consider three possible derivations for (1): In the derivation in (2), (A) is violated in the sluiced clause but the sentence is in fact grammatical. In the derivation in (3), (A) is satisfied but syntactic isomorphism, (X), is not. Finally, in the derivation in (4), (B) is not satisfied (thus the first clause is ungrammatical). Assuming (A, B) are correct, it must be (X) that is a wrong assumption. The correct derivation for Malagasy sluicing is (3), in which there is no syntactic isomorphism. There is however semantic isomorphism given Merchant’s (2001:31) semantic identity requirement. The paper argues against an alternative analysis that maintains syntactic isomorphism. Ross 1969 first noted that sluicing apparently violates islands and other syntactic conditions. For Malagasy, a strawman hypothesis is that the derivation in (2), in which there is syntactic isomorphism but extraction of an object in violation of (A), is the correct derivation and deletion of the struckthrough material somehow allows the illicit movement. There are two arguments against this alternative however. First, If (2) were the correct derivation, we predict that the wh-phrase will show up in the accusative. It does not, (5), suggesting that the wh-phrase really is being extracted from subject position in accordance with (A) and the non-syntactic isomorphic derivation in (3). Second, preposition stranding is impossible in Malagasy, (6), but there are sluices that would require P˚-stranding if syntactic isomorphism were enforced, (7). Merchant 2001 shows that sluicing does not rescue P˚-stranding violations cross-linguistically. Instead, the correct derivation is (7) with only semantic isomorphism. I conclude then that syntactic isomorphism cannot be maintained. Language-internal syntactic restrictions and sluicing in Malagasy thus support the view that the identity requirement on the recovery of elided material is semantic, not syntactic. The paper also shows that the argument goes through regardless of what clause structure is assumed for Malagasy VOS word order (Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis 1992, MacLaughlin 1995, Paul 2000, Pearson 2001).
(1) nanasa olona Rabe
ka nanontany aho
hoe iza
(2) nanasa olona
Rabe ka nanontany aho
hoe iza1
(3) nanasa olona
Rabe ka
(4) *nosasan-dRabe
olona ka
(5) *nanasa olona Rabe
ka nanontany aho hoe
an’iza
(6) a. *inona1
no namono ny akoho
tamin t1 i Rasoa
(7) namono ny
akoho tamin-javatra maranitra i Rasoa
fa
References: Fiengo, Robert and Robert May. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge: MIT Press. Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 375-414. Keenan, Edward L. 1976. “Remarkable Subjects in Malagasy”. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 247-301. MacLaughlin, Dawn. 1995. Wh-movement in Malagasy: An extraction asymmetry. In A. Akinlabi (ed.). Theoretical Approaches to African Linguistics. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 117-128. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The Syntax of Silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paul, Ileana. 2000. Malagasy Clause Structure. McGill University Ph.D dissertation. Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The Clause Structure of Malagasy. UCLA Ph.D dissertation Ross, John R. 1969. “Guess Who?”. In R. Binnick, A. Davison, G. Green, and J. Morgan (eds.), Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 252-286.
|