User:Kathryndyck/sandbox

SLUICING

In syntax, sluicing is a type of ellipsis that occurs in both direct and indirect interrogative clauses. The ellipsis is introduced by a wh-expression, whereby in most cases, everything except the wh-expression is elided from the clause. Sluicing has been studied in detail in recent years and is therefore a relatively well understood type of ellipsis. Sluicing occurs in many languages.

Contents

 * 1Basic examples
 * 2Case-marking in sluicing
 * 3Preposition-stranding in sluicing
 * 4Multiple sluicing
 * 5Islands in sluicing
 * 6Theoretical analyses
 * 7Notes
 * 8References
 * 9See also

Basic examples[edit]
Sluicing is illustrated with the following examples. In each case, an embedded question is understood though only a question word or phrase is pronounced. (The intended interpretations of the question-denoting elliptical clause are given in parentheses; parts of these are anaphoric to the boldface material in the antecedent.)


 * Phoebe ate something, but she doesn't know what. (=what she ate)
 * Jon doesn't like the lentils, but he doesn't know why. (=why he doesn't like the lentils)
 * Someone has eaten the soup. Unfortunately, I don't know who. (=who has eaten the soup)

Sluicing in these examples occurs in indirect questions. It is also frequent in direct questions across speakers, e.g.


 * Somebody is coming for dinner tonight. - Who? (=Who is coming for dinner tonight)?
 * They put something in the mailbox. - What? (=What did they put in the mailbox)?

The examples of sluicing above have the sluiced material following its antecedent. This material can also precede its antecedent, e.g.

Zayd rāḥ, lakǝn ma-adri mita /wein. Zayd left.3MS but NEG-know.1S when/where  ‘Zayd left, but I don’t know when/where.’ The second type refers to a correlate in the antecedent clause that is indefinite. This is shown in the above example about someone eating the soup, with ‘someone’ being the indefinite correlate of ‘who’. The third type of sluicing construction refers to when the wh-word is not referring to a term in the antecedent but is referring to an object that corresponds to the preceding verb. An example from Algryani (2019) shows this: Fatema təqra, lakǝn ma-ʕaraf eiš. Fatema read.3FS but NEG-know.1S what  ‘Fatema is reading, but I don’t know what.’ The final type of sluicing construction occurs when the elided material correspondent contrasts that of what is in the antecedent. An example from Algryani (2019) shows this: Zayd ʕand-ah walad, lakǝn ma-adri kam bent. Zayd has.3MS son but NEG-know.1S how many daughter  ‘Zayd has a son, but I don’t know how many daughters.’
 * I don't know why, but the pictures have been moved. (=why the pictures have been moved)
 * When and how is unclear, but somebody should say something. (=when and how somebody should say something)
 * Merchant (2001) states that these and other examples of sluicing can be categorized into four types of sluicing constructions. These types include sluices with adjunct wh-phrases, sluices with overt correlates, sluices with implicit arguments and contrast sluices. The first type refers to when the wh-phrase does not have an elided copy of the antecedent but is an adjunct. An example from Algryani (2019) shows this:

Theoretical Approaches to Sluicing
There are two theoretical approaches that have been proposed for how sluicing occurs in languages. Ross (1969) is the first examination of sluicing; he argued that sluicing involves regular wh-fronting followed by deletion of the sister constituent of the wh-phrase. This analysis has been expanded in greater detail in Merchant (2001), the most comprehensive treatise on sluicing to date. A second kind of analysis is represented by Ginzburg and Sag (2000) and Culicover and Jackendoff (2005), both of which present nonstructural analyses of ellipsis, and do not posit unpronounced elliptical material. Yet another account of sluicing builds on the catena unit; the elided material is a catena. The movement and non-movement approaches will be expanded upon further below.

Movement Approach
The movement approach states that sluicing is a product of the syntactic derivation in which an embedded clause is built in the syntax and then the wh-phrase within the embedded clause moves outside of the constituent to the position of SpecCP (specifier to the complementizer phrase). These steps are then followed by the deletion (and therefore non-pronunciation) of the tense phrase node that contains the rest of the clause. Evidence for this approach is seen in the connectivity effects of case marking, binding and preposition stranding as outlined in Merchant (2001).

Case-marking in sluicing[edit]
Interrogative phrases in languages with morphological case-marking show the case appropriate to the understood verb (as Ross 1969 and Merchant 2001 document), illustrated here with the German verb "schmeicheln" (to flatter), which governs the dative case on its object.


 * Er hat jemandem geschmeichelt, aber ich weiß nicht, wem.
 * he has someone.DAT flattered but I know not who.DAT
 * "He flattered someone, but I don't know who."

Preposition-stranding in sluicing[edit]
Languages that forbid preposition-stranding in question formation also forbid it in sluicing (Merchant 2001), as in the following example from German:


 * Er hat mit jemandem gesprochen, aber ich weiß nicht, *(mit) wem.
 * he has with someone spoken but I know not with who
 * "He spoke with someone, but I don't know (with) who."

Non-Movement Approach
There are also several theoretical approaches to sluicing that do not involve the movement of the wh-phrase out of the embedded clause. These approaches include PF deletion and LF copying. PF deletion as proposed in Lasnik (2007) states that the TP within the embedded clause is null and has syntactic structure within it that is elided following a wh-movement operation. The other approach, LF copying, is a process proposed by Lobeck (1995) in which the original structure of a sluicing phrase is one in which the wh-word originates in the SpecCP position of the embedded clause and a null phrase marker (marked e) occupies the position of the tense phrase of the embedded clause. This is the extent of the syntactic derivation. After this structure is derived, it is sent off for semantic interpretation, to a place called logical form, in which the implied material in the tense phrase is then present for our full understanding of the sentence. The evidence for this approach is that it is able to account for islands in sluicing as is discussed below.

Multiple sluicing[edit]
In some languages, sluicing can leave behind more than one wh-phrase (multiple remnant sluicing):


 * Someone wants to eat something. ?I wish I knew who what. (=who wants to eat what)
 * ?Something is causing someone big problems, although it's not clear what who. (=what is causing who big problems)

Sentences like these are considered acceptable in languages like German, Japanese, Chinese, Turkish, Russian, and others, although in English, their acceptability seems marginal (but see Bolinger 1978, Merchant 2001, and Richards 2010 for examples). Lasnik 2014 discusses the fact that the wh-phrase remnants in multiple sluicing must be clausemates:


 * *Someone told me that something broke, but I don't remember who what. (≠who told me that what broke)

Islands in sluicing[edit]
Sluicing has garnered considerable attention because it appears, as Ross 1969 first discussed, to allow wh-fronting to violate the island conditions he discovered:


 * They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don't remember which one. (=*which one they want to hire someone who speaks)

Issues of the different approaches
Only the catena-based approach handles multiple sluicing without further elaboration. The structural movement analysis must rely on some other type of movement to evacuate the noninitial wh-phrase from the ellipsis site; proposals for this additional movement include extraposition or shifting and need to be able to account for islands in sluicing. The nonstructural analysis must add phrase-structure rules to allow an interrogative clause to consist of multiple wh-phrases and be able to account for connectivity effects. The catena-based approach, however, does not account for the locality facts; since catenae can span multiple clauses, the fact that multiply-sluiced wh-phrases must be clausemates is a mystery.

Omani Arabic
Sluicing has also been analyzed in Omani Arabi as is shown in Algryani (2019). All four of the above stated sluicing constructions outlined by Merchant (2001) are accounted for in Omani Arabic.

Algryani (2019) displays the different constructions in the following examples:

Sluices with Adjunct Wh-Phrases

Zayd rāḥ, lakǝn ma-adri mita /wein.

Zayd left.3MS but NEG-know.1S when/where

‘Zayd left, but I don’t know when/where.’

Sluices with Overt Correlates

Zaid qabǝl ḥad, lakǝn ma-aʕraf mi:n.

Zaid met.3MS someone but NEG-know.1S. who

‘Zaid met someone, but I don’t know who.’

Sluices with Implicit Arguments

Fatema təqra, lakǝn ma-ʕaraf eiš.

Fatema read.3FS but NEG-know.1S what

‘Fatema is reading, but I don’t know what.’

Contrast Sluices

Zayd ʕand-ah walad, lakǝn ma-adri kam bent.

Zayd has.3MS son but NEG-know.1S how many daughter

‘Zayd has a son, but I don’t know how many daughters.’

Notes[edit]

 * 1) ^ See for instance Ross (1969), Chung et al. (1995), and Merchant (2001).
 * 2) ^ See Merchant's (2001) extensive account of sluicing; it includes examples from numerous languages.
 * 3) ^ Concerning the catena unit as a basis for accounts of sluicing and of ellipsis in general, see Osborne et al. (2012) and Osborne (to appear).
 * 4) ^ See Merchant (2001) for an account in terms of scrambling and Lasnik (2014) for an account in terms of shifting.

References[edit]

 * Bolinger, Dwight. 1978. Asking more than one thing at a time. In Henry Hiz (ed.), Questions, 107-150. Reidel: Dordrecht.
 * Chiu, Liching. 2007. A Focus Movement Account on Multiple Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese Nanzan Linguistics. Special Issue Vol. 1. P.23-31.
 * Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and Logical Form. Natural Language Semantics 3, 239-282.
 * Culicover, Peter and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
 * Ginzburg, Jonathan and Ivan Sag. 2000. Interrogative Investigations. CSLI Publications: Stanford, Calif.
 * Lasnik, Howard. 2014. Multiple sluicing in English? Syntax 17, 1, 1-20.
 * Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, identity, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
 * Osborne, Timothy, Michael Putnam, and Thomas Groß 2013. Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15, 4, 354-396.
 * Osborne, Timothy (to appear). Dependency grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press.
 * Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.
 * Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? in CLS 5: Papers from the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. Robert Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia Green, and Jerry Morgan, 252–286. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistic Society.