Cover not available
Part of
Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference
Edited by Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi and Éva Dékány
[Approaches to Hungarian 14] 2015
► pp. 187–207

Relative pronouns as sluicing remnants

This paper demonstrates on the basis of novel data from Hungarian that contrary to received opinion, sluicing is possible inside relative clauses. It shows that sluicing can affect a relative clause to the exclusion of its relative pronoun in headless or headed relatives that can be considered non-canonical free choice expressions. In sluicing, the relative pronoun that gets stranded in the ellipsis process furthermore bears the major stress associated with the relative clause, a cross-linguistically rare possibility in languages. The findings throw a new light on theories concerned with the syntactic licensing of sluicing and ellipsis in general, pointing at the crucial role of prosody.
Published online: 3 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.14.08lip
References
Beghelli, Filippo & Tim Stowell
1997 Distributivity and negation. In Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of scope taking, 71–107. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouton, Lawrence F.
1970 Antecedent-contained proforms. In Mary Ann Campbell, et al. (eds), Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society 6, 154–167. University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano
2003 Free Not to Ask: On the Semantics of Free Relatives with Wh-Words Cross-linguistically. PhD dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Citko, Barbara
2004 On Headed, Headless, and Light-Headed Relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 95–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craenebroeck, Jeroen van
2010 The syntax of ellipsis. Evidence from Dutch dialects. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van and Anikó Lipták
2006 The cross-linguistic syntax of sluicing: evidence from Hungarian relatives. Syntax 9. 248–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 What Sluicing Can do, What it Can’t, and in Which Language: on the cross-linguistic syntax of ellipsis. In L.L. Cheng and Norbert Corver (eds), Diagnosing Syntax. Oxford University Press. 502–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta
1997 Free choice and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In Aaron Lawson (ed), Proceedings of SALT 7, 99–116. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai
2000 Whatever. In Brendan Jackson and Tanya Matthews (eds), Proceedings of SALT 10, 27–40. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Hackl, Martin. et al.
2012 Quantification and ACD. Journal of Semantics 29. 145–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hardt, Daniel
1993 Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Hoyt, Frederik and Alexandra Teodorescu
2012 How many kinds of sluicing, and why? Single and multiple sluicing in Romanian, English and Japanese. In Kyle Johnson & Jason Merchant (eds), Sluicing: a cross-linguistic perspective, 83–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline
1995 On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In. Emond Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara Partee (eds), Quantification in natural language. 451–486. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kálmán, László and Ádám Nádasdy
1994 A hangsúly. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed), Stukturális Magyar Nyelvtan II. Fonológia, 393–467. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kántor, G.
2008 On Hungarian Relative Operators. In László Varga (ed.), The Even Yearbook 8. ELTE SEAS Working Papers in Linguistics ELTE Budapest. Available online at: [URL] (accessed on 14.7.2014).
Kenesei, István
1992 Az alárendelt mondatok szerkezete. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.) Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1. Mondattan, 529–713. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris
1997 Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 662–688.Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó & Enoch Aboh
2013 Sluicing inside relatives: the case of Gungbe. In Suzanne Aalberse and Anita Auer (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013, 102–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, Anne C.
1995 Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2000 ACD in negative polarity items. Syntax 3. 144–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 The syntax of silence. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002 Swiping in Germanic. In C. Jan-Wouter Zwart and Werner Abraham (eds), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, 289–315. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riemsijk, Henk van
1978 A case study in syntactic markedness: the binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Cilene, Andrew Nevins and Luis Vicente
2009 Cleaving the Interactions between Sluicing and Preposition Stranding. In Leo Wetzels and Jeroen van der Weijer (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2006, 175-198 Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert
1967 Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
1969 Guess who. In Fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Robert I. Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia M. Green and Jerry L. Morgan, 252–286.Google Scholar
Sáez, Luis
2011 Peninsular Spanish prenominal possessives in ellipsis contexts: A phase-based account. In Julia Herschensohn (ed.), Romance Linguistics 2010: selected papers from the 40th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), 155–176. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
2004 The prosodic structure of function words. In John J. McCarthy (ed.) Optimality theory in phonology. A reader, 464–482. Malden / Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon
2006 The Accent Projection Principle: Why the hell not? In Aviad Eilam, Tatjana Scheffler and Joshua Tauberer (eds), Proceedings of the 29th Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 12.1. 349–359. Pennsynvania: Penn Graduate Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Surányi, Balázs, Shinichiro Ishihara & Fabian Shubö
2012 Syntax-prosody mapping, topic-comment structure and stress-focus correspondence in Hungarian. In Gorka Elordieta and Pila Prieto (eds), Prosody and meaning, 35–71. Göttingen: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hidekazu
2011 Remarks on Antecedent Contained Sluicing. Ms. York University.
Thoms, Gary
2013 Lexical mismatches and the identity condition. In Stefan Keine and Shayne Sloggett (eds), NELS 42 Proceedings, 559–572. Amherst: GSLA.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Masaya & Ángel J. Gallego
2012 Phases and Ellipsis. In Artemis Alexiadou, Tibor Kiss and Gereon Müller (eds.), Local Modeling of Non-Local Dependencies in Syntax, 353–370. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Masaya
2010 “Antecedent Contained” Sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 348–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varga, László
2002 Intonation and Stress: Evidence from Hungarian. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Cinque, Guglielmo
2020. The Syntax of Relative Clauses, DOI logo
Šimík, Radek
2020. Doubling unconditionals and relative sluicing. Natural Language Semantics 28:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.