Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Basic examples  





2 Theoretical approaches to sluicing  





3 Movement approach  





4 Case-marking in sluicing  





5 Preposition-stranding in sluicing  





6 Binding  





7 Non-movement approach  





8 Islands in sluicing  





9 Multiple sluicing  





10 Issues with different approaches to sluicing  





11 Sluicing in other languages  



11.1  Omani Arabic  





11.2  Danish  





11.3  German  





11.4  Japanese  





11.5  Korean  







12 See also  





13 Notes  





14 References  














Sluicing







Slovenščina
 

Edit links
 









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Cite this page
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
Wikidata item
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Insyntax, 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 the early 21st century and it is therefore a relatively well-understood type of ellipsis.[1] Sluicing occurs in many languages.[2]

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.

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 states that these and other examples of sluicing can be organized into four categories of sluicing constructions.[3] 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.

Zayd

Zayd

rāḥ,

left.3MS

lakǝn

but

ma-adri

NEG-know.1S

mita/wein.

when/where

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."[4]

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.

Fatema

Fatema

təqra,

read.3FS

lakǝn

but

ma-ʕaraf

NEG-know.1S

eiš.

what

Fatema təqra, lakǝn ma-ʕaraf eiš.

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

"Fatema is reading, but I don’t know what."[4]

The final type of sluicing construction occurs when the elided material correspondent contrasts that of what is in the antecedent.

Zayd

Zayd

ʕand-ah

has.3MS

walad,

son

lakǝn

but

ma-adri

NEG-know.1S

kam

how.many

bent.

daughter

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."[4]


Theoretical approaches to sluicing

[edit]

There are two theoretical approaches that have been proposed for how sluicing occurs in languages. John R. Ross 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.[5] This analysis has been expanded in greater detail by Jason Merchant, the most comprehensive treatise on sluicing to date.[3] A second kind of analysis presents nonstructural analyses of ellipsis and does not posit unpronounced elliptical material.[6][7] Yet another account of sluicing builds on the catena unit; the elided material is a catena.

Movement approach

[edit]

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 by Merchant [3]

Case-marking in sluicing

[edit]

Interrogative phrases in languages with morphological case-marking show the case appropriate to the understood verb as Ross and Merchant illustrated here with the German verb "schmeicheln" (to flatter), which governs the dative case on its object.[5][3]

Er

he

hat

has

jemandem

someone.DAT

geschmeichelt,

flattered

aber

but

ich

I

weiß

know

nicht,

not

wem.

who.DAT

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."

The sluiced wh-phrase must bear the same case that its counterpart in a non-elided structure would bear.[3]

Preposition-stranding in sluicing

[edit]

It has been concluded that languages that forbid preposition-stranding in question formation also forbid it in sluicing, as the following German example shows:[3][8]

Er

he

hat

has

mit

with

jemandem

someone

gesprochen,

spoken

aber

but

ich

I

weiß

know

nicht,

not

*(mit)

with

wem.

who

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."

Examples of languages in which p-stranding does not occur are Greek, German, and Russian.

Much research has been done to determine if sluicing can allow for preposition-stranding in a non-preposition-stranding language. Stjepanović conducted research on whether that is possible in Serbo-Croatian, a non-preposition-stranding language.[8] She concluded that there is not enough evidence to contradict the initial claim made by Ross. However, she found that a preposition may be lost or removed from a sentence under sluicing in Serbo-Croatian. More research is to be conducted to confirm the official cause of the loss of preposition.

Petar

Petar

je

is

sakrio

hidden

igradku

toy

ispod

under

jedne

one

stolice

chair.GEN

i

and

pored

beside

jednog

one

zida,

wall.GEN

ali

but

ne

not

znam

I.know

(ispod)

under

koje

which

stolice

chair.GEN

i

and

(pored)

beside

kojeg

which

zida.

wall.GEN

Petar je sakrio igradku ispod jedne stolice i pored jednog zida, ali ne znam (ispod) koje stolice i (pored) kojeg zida.

Petar is hidden toy under one chair.GEN and beside one wall.GEN but not I.know under which chair.GEN and beside which wall.GEN

Petar hid the toy under a chair and beside a wall, but I don't know which chair and which wall.'[8]

Binding

[edit]

Jason Merchant demonstrates that binding supports the movement approach using the following sentence:

Every linguist1  criticized some of his1 work, but I’m not sure how much of his1 work [every linguist1 criticized t][9]

In order for the second “his work” to refer to “every linguist” in the above example, it must be c-commanded by its antecedent within its local domain. Here, “his work” could not be coreferential with the subject: “every linguist” at the beginning of the sentence because it is outside of its local domain. This provides evidence that “his work” originally started off in the elided constituent where it could be c-commanded and in the local domain of that “every linguist” before it moved out of the clause.

Non-movement approach

[edit]

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 by Howard Lasnik states that the TP within the embedded clause is null and has syntactic structure within it that is elided following a wh-movement operation.[10] The other approach, LF copying, is a process proposed by Anne Lobeck 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.[11] This is the extent of the syntactic derivation. After this structure is derived, it is sent off for semantic interpretation, to 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.

Islands in sluicing

[edit]

Sluicing has garnered considerable attention because it appears, as John R. Ross 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)[5]

Sluicing allows a sentence that contains an island to retain its meaning and remain grammatical. As mentioned by Klaus Abels, there is an ongoing debate on whether this can happen in all situations or if it is island dependent.[12]

A biography of one of the Marx brothers will be published later this year, guess which (of the Marx brothers) [a biography of which of the Marx brothers] will be published later this year.
A biography of one of the Marx brothers will be published later this year, guess which.

The first example is ungrammatical because the island prevents us from moving anything out of the subject constituent (shown in square brackets). The second example is saved through sluicing as the island is sluiced and the meaning can be inferred from the context of the sentence, therefore maintaining the meaning and remaining grammatical.

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.[13] Lasnik 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)[14]

Issues with different approaches to sluicing

[edit]

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 extrapositionorshifting 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.

Sluicing in other languages

[edit]

Omani Arabic

[edit]

Sluicing has also been analyzed in Omani Arabic.[4] All four of the above stated sluicing constructions outlined by Merchant are accounted for in Omani Arabic.[3]

Sluices with Adjunct Wh-Phrases

1.

Zayd

Zayd

rāḥ,

left.3MS

lakǝn

but

ma-adri

NEG-know.1S

mita/wein.

when/where

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

2.

Zaid

Zaid

qabǝl

met.3MS

ḥad,

someone

lakǝn

but

ma-aʕraf

NEG-know.1S

mi:n.

who

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

3.

Fatema

Fatema

təqra,

read.3FS

lakǝn

but

ma-ʕaraf

NEG-know.1S

eiš.

what

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

4.

Zayd

Zayd

ʕand-ah

has.3MS

walad,

son

lakǝn

but

ma-adri

NEG-know.1S

kam

how.many

bent.

daughter

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."

Danish

[edit]

The following example displays sluicing in Danish:[9]

Peter

Peter

har

has

snakket

talked

med

with

en

one

eller

or

anden,

another

men

but

jeg

I

ved

know

ikke

not

hvem.

who.

Peter har snakket med en eller anden, men jeg ved ikke hvem.

Peter has talked with one or another but I know not who.

"Peter has talked with someone, but I don't know who."

German

[edit]

The following example displays sluicing in German:[12]

Hans

Hans

will

wants

jemandem

someone

helfen,

help

aber

but

ich

I

weiß

know

nicht

not

wem.

whom.

Hans will jemandem helfen, aber ich weiß nicht wem.

Hans wants someone help but I know not whom.

"Hans wants to help someone, but I don't know whom."

Japanese

[edit]

The following example from displays sluicing in Japanese.[9]

Abby-ga

Abby-NOM

dareka-o

someone-ACC

mi-ta

see-PAST

ga,

but

watashi-wa

I-TOP

dare

who

ka

Q

wakaranai.

know.not

Abby-ga dareka-o mi-ta ga, watashi-wa dare ka wakaranai.

Abby-NOM someone-ACC see-PAST but I-TOP who Q know.not

"Abby saw someone, but I don’t know who."

Korean

[edit]

The following example displays sluicing in Korean:[15]

Mimi-ka

Mimi-NOM

khu-n

big-MOD

cha-lul

car-ACC

sa-ss-nuntey,

buy-PAST-but

elmana

how

khu-nci

big-Q.COMP

molukeyssta

not.know

Mimi-ka khu-n cha-lul sa-ss-nuntey, elmana khu-nci molukeyssta

Mimi-NOM big-MOD car-ACC buy-PAST-but how big-Q.COMP not.know

Mimi bought a big car, but I don’t know how big.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  • ^ See extensive account of sluicing by Merchant (2001); it includes examples from numerous languages.
  • ^ a b c d e f g Merchant 2001.
  • ^ a b c d Algryani 2019.
  • ^ a b c Ross 1969.
  • ^ Ginzburg & Sag 2000.
  • ^ Culicover & Jackendoff 2005.
  • ^ a b c Stjepanović 2008.
  • ^ a b c Merchant 2003.
  • ^ Lasnik 2007.
  • ^ Lobeck 1995.
  • ^ a b Abels 2018.
  • ^ But see Bolinger (1978), Merchant (2001), and Richards (2010) for examples.
  • ^ Lasnik 2014.
  • ^ Kim & Sells 2013.
  • References

    [edit]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sluicing&oldid=1214801151"

    Categories: 
    Syntactic entities
    Syntactic transformation
    Hidden categories: 
    Articles with short description
    Short description matches Wikidata
    Pages with interlinear glosses using more than three unnamed parameters
    Articles with ambiguous glossing abbreviations
     



    This page was last edited on 21 March 2024, at 07:10 (UTC).

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki