Intervention Effects in the Corrective But Construction
Intervention Effects in the Corrective But Construction

초록

The corrective but construction in English can be classified into two types (McCawley 1991): the anchored form (e.g., John doesn’t eat chard but spinach) and the basic form (e.g., John eats not chard but spinach). This paper discusses a certain asymmetric behavior of the two types with respect to intervention effects (Beck 1996, 2006, Pesetsky 2000): While the anchored form does not exhibit an intervention effect, the basic form does (with negation functioning as an intervener). We argue that the intervention effect in the anchored form can be evaded, because the DP containing the in-situ wh-phrase can undergo covert partial wh-movement across negation inside the coordination island (cf. Kotek 2014). In contrast, the same evasion strategy is not available in the basic form because only the largest DP containing both negation and the in-situ wh-phrase can be targeted by covert pied-piping, triggered by covert wh-movement (cf. Kotek and Erlewine 2016)

키워드

corrective but constructionintervention effectcoordinationcovert pied-pipingellipsismultiple wh-question
제목
Intervention Effects in the Corrective But Construction
제목 (타언어)
Intervention Effects in the Corrective But Construction
저자
박범식Philip Yoongoo Jung오세랑
DOI
10.20865/202410602
발행일
2024-11
저널명
언어와언어학
106
페이지
27 ~ 49