Earticle

초록

영어

Fragments in English are derived by focus fronting of the answer constituent to the left periphery of the clause followed by TP-ellipsis. Fragment answers should be in Spec-FP of the clause, which is what fragments in Korean show, except that not TP-ellipsis, but CP-ellipsis is followed. The fragment answer in the bi-clausal structure receives the same “move-and-delete” analysis as that in the simplex clause. To get a legitimate MFA, Bae & Park (2014) argue that the MFA should be derived from the same clause (i.e., the same matrix clause). In fact, however, an embedded subject disjointed with the matrix argument is a barrier only when one or more remnant(s) in the embedded clause and the other(s) in the matrix clause undergo movement to a matrix left peripheral position. Thoms (2014) argues that the second remnant cannot escape an ECM infinitive or finite clause. However, the two factors are extraneous. It has been shown that our proposal that the embedded remnant cannot escape the embedded subject disjointed with the matrix argument is more persuasive than Thoms’ (2014) one since only the embedded subject disjointed with the matrix subject is pivotal in preventing the second remnant from undergoing movement out of the embedded clause in English and Korean cross-linguistically.

목차

I. Introduction
 II. Previous Research
  2.1 Bae & Park (2014)
  2.2 Critical Review on Bae & Park (2014)
 III. Proposed Analysis
 IV. Extension to English
  4.1 Thoms(2014)
  4.2 Application
 V. Concluding Remarks
 Works Cited
 Abstract

키워드

동일절 조건 생략 삽입절 주어 초점 조각 좌변 다조각 답변 CMC ellipsis embedded subject focus fragment left periphery MFA

저자

• Lee, Doo-Won [ 이두원 | Korea National University of Transportation ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물