Abstract

This paper argues that phrasal Temporal Adverbial Constructions (TACs; Kim left [before Bill]) are most amenable to a Stripping-like treatment. What I refer to as TAC-Stripping is low-adjunction of a TAC containing a truncated complement, viz. an extended vP. A single remnant is A-moved to a focus position outside the elided vP (Pancheva 2009, Weir 2014). The remainder of the paper adapts Takahashi 2008 to account for the sensitivity of TAC-Stripping to familiar constraints against embedding the antecedent or ellipsis site, which are not observed with VP-Ellipsis.

Highlights

  • Temporal Adverbial Constructions (TACs) introduced by the connectives before and after come in both full clausal (1a) and reduced phrasal (1b) forms.(1) a

  • This paper has argued that phrasal TACs can be derived by an ellipsis operation that targets the truncated complement in a low-adjoined beforeP or afterP

  • The single remnant in a phrasal TAC is generated by A-movement to a focus position outside the elided vP

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Temporal Adverbial Constructions (TACs) introduced by the connectives before and after come in both full clausal (1a) and reduced phrasal (1b) forms. Postal (1993) catalogs a significant amout of evidence that ATB-extraction is not possible in subordination structures and, that only nominal constituents can license parasitic gaps These facts seem to preclude a VP-extraction analysis of any kind for generating the representation for phrasal TACs that is being proposed. An analysis that is sensitive to the architecture of a TAC’s left periphery will not obviously help us make sense of embedding constraints on phrasal TACs. The temporal connectives before and after are not optional, suggesting that they are not a factor in the possibility of ellipsis. The effect is the introduction of a temporal variable in the root clause that creates a possible antecedent constituent for the ellipsis site Incorporating these pieces into our account of phrasal TACs gives the representation in (35). This example is repeated in (38) along with its proposed representation

Sue left
VP was met Tom
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.