Nuclear prominence in ellipsis: Evidence from aggressively non-D-linked phrases

Abstract

This paper investigates the reason why aggressively non-D-linked items such as wh-the-hell (WTH) are allowed in swiping, but not in sluicing. Investigating the potential syntactic, semantic and prosodic licensors of WTH in sluicing and swiping in the British English variety, we conclude that syntactic or semantic constraints cannot be the source of the difference. Instead, we propose a novel prosodic account in which the WTH must satisfy the prosodic licensing condition that it cannot bear nuclear accent. We show that this is satisfied in swiping, but not in sluicing contexts. On the basis of the novel findings of an acceptability rating study of swiping, which reveal that both ‘given’ and ‘new’ prepositions are equally acceptable for British English speakers, we argue that the preposition is accentuated in this elliptical construction because it is structurally the deepest element. The licensing condition on WTHs in sluicing and swiping is therefore not mediated directly by the conditions on ellipsis, but by the particular prosodic distribution that a WTH happens to have in sluicing and swiping. We extend the account to similar constructions in Dutch.

Aggressively non-D-linked construction and ellipsis: A Direct Interpretation approach

“…The claimed contrast in the literature has been that unlike normal wh-phrases, the wh-the-hell phrase only permits Swiping, but not pied-piping Sluicing. Consider similar data again: The ungrammaticality of pied-piping Sluicing examples in (85b) could be attributed to a phonological constraint, as suggested by Sprouse (2006) and Güneş & Lipták (2021). They argue that these ellipsis phenomena must end with an accent-bearing material but the emotive expression the hell cannot have an accent.…”

“…This then accounts for examples like (84)-( 85), but as noted earlier, corpus data contain a great deal of matrix and embedded Sluicing examples with the wh-the-hell phrase. The present analysis would license the wh-the-hell phrase in Sluicing environments, but could block examples like (85b) by placing an additional prosodic licensing condition on the construction, as do Güneş & Lipták (2021).…”

“…21 For instance, the examples in (56) allow us to infer that the addressee should not call anyone and Kim should not need anything. Even in information-seeking examples like (59), discussed by Güneş & Lipták (2021), there is a negative inference:…”

“…For instance, the examples in (56) allow us to infer that the addressee should not call anyone and Kim should not need anything. Even in information-seeking examples like (59), discussed by Güneş & Lipták (2021), there is a negative inference:The speaker B wonders about a value for the wh -expression (‘I wonder who he has seen’), but at the same time has a negative attitude (unexpected surprise) or rhetorical question such as ‘he shouldn’t have seen anyone’.…”

“…However, as in the Swiping example in (4c), this ungrammaticality can be saved by having a preposition after the emotive phrase. These three elliptical constructions have been often argued to involve movement as well as clausal ellipsis while attributing the illegitimate presence of the wh-the-hell phrase in ellipsis to a phonological constraint such that the rightmost expression needs to be given stress (Merchant 2001(Merchant , 2002Hartman & Ai 2009;Güneş & Lipták 2021).…”