to be 소절과 [±strong voiceP]
to be Small Clause and [±strong voiceP]
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper puts weight on why double interpretation turns up to be small clause(SC) in English and what characteristics to be has in SC. The driving forces by matrix verb clause and matching & checking processes in the internal structure of SC presenting [±strong voiceP: ±SVP] will be explained. In the case of to be SC with [-SVP] feature sharing [-tense], the phase becomes invisible according to Gallego (2010)’s phase sliding that v*P phase ‘moves upward’ to TsP and this verbal movement results in the extension of checking domains. In terms of this theoretical background, this paper demonstrates how feature checking of SC’s components is carried out in the extended phase. In the same vein, this argument also can be accounted for why [+SVP] feature occurs and how feature checking proceeds in SC that to be is invisible. Eventually, the differences between to be SC and non-to be SC will be classified. On top of that the reason why double interpretation is possible in to be SC will be analyzed semantically and syntactically.
Abstract
This paper puts weight on why double interpretation turns up to be small clause(SC) in English and what characteristics to be has in SC. The driving forces by matrix verb clause and matching & checking processes in the internal structure of SC presenting [±strong voiceP: ±SVP] will be explained. In the case of to be SC with [-SVP] feature sharing [-tense], the phase becomes invisible according to Gallego (2010)’s phase sliding that v*P phase ‘moves upward’ to TsP and this verbal movement results in the extension of checking domains. In terms of this theoretical background, this paper demonstrates how feature checking of SC’s components is carried out in the extended phase. In the same vein, this argument also can be accounted for why [+SVP] feature occurs and how feature checking proceeds in SC that to be is invisible. Eventually, the differences between to be SC and non-to be SC will be classified. On top of that the reason why double interpretation is possible in to be SC will be analyzed semantically and syntactically.
참고문헌 (18)
- Alhorais, N, "The Categorial Status of the small clause Node: A minimalist approach", Newcastle and Durhum Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, pp.96~108 (2007)
- Baker, Mark C., "On the Distribution between Adjectives and Verbs", ms, pp.1997
- Basilico, David, "The Topic of small Clauses", Linguistic Inquiry, 34, pp.1~35 (2003)
- Bowers, John, "The Syntax of Predication", Linguistic Inquiry, 24, pp.591~656 (1993)
- Bowers, John, "The Handbook of Contemporary Syntatic Theory", pp.299~333 (2001), Blackwell
- Chomsky. N., "Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik", pp.89~155 (2000), MIT
- Contreras, H, "Syntax and Semantics 28: Small Clauses", pp.135~152 (1995), Academic Press
- den Dikken, M., "Phase Extension. Contours of a Theory of the Roleof Head Movement in Phrasal Extraction" (2007), CUNY Graduate Center
- den Dikken, M., "Small Clause, Phases and Phase Extension" (2008), CUNY Graduate Center
- Hiraiwa, K., "Multipul Agree and Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese", MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 43, pp.64~80 (2000)
- Gallego, A., "Phase Theory" (2010), John Benjamins P
- Kitagawa, Y, "Small but Clausal", Papers from the 21st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 21, pp.210~220 (1985)
- 소미형, "이동현상에서의 국면 가장자리자질과 격 표지자", 박사, pp.2017
- 와 격 표지자, "영어영문학연구", 2019, 307~324, pp.대한영어영문학회, 10.21559[DOI]
- Sportiche, D, "A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure", Linguistic Inquiry, 19, pp.425~449 (1988)
- Stowell, T., "Origins of Phrase Structure", PhD, pp.1981
- Vicente, L., "The Suntax of Head and Phrase. A study of verb(phrase) Fronting", PhD, pp.2007
- Yokogoshi, A., "The Structure of Small Clauses in Englisj", ms, pp.2007