earticle

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.