On (Anti-)that-trace Effects
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
A fair amount of attention has been paid in previous literature to the asymmetry of the appearance of complementizer ‘that’ in subordinate clauses. In this paper, we will begin with critical reviews on the recent previous literature that attempts to account for the so-called that-trace and anti-that-trace effects. Appealing to the Split C-domain, Spec-to-Spec Anti-locality, and Dynamic Phases, the previous analyses were able to capture why ‘that’ cannot appear when a wh-operator moves from subject position of the complement clause, but the complementizer must appear in subject relative clauses. However, they were unable to account for why anti-that-trace effects are not observed when wh-operators extract out of the object position in both types of clauses. To be more specific, they fail to explain why ‘that’ can be optional in object relative clauses. To explain the lack of anti-thattrace effects, I argue that a phrase that is contained within a phase is still active and can be probed by a higher head. That is, the case feature of object wh-operator in phase edge position is checked but still active, and establishes an Agree relation with C (Pesetsky and Torrego 2001). This triggers the case feature on the C head to be checked by the operator DP, which, in turn, bans on T-to-C movement. Consequently, it leads to no overt complementizer in object relatives.
Abstract
A fair amount of attention has been paid in previous literature to the asymmetry of the appearance of complementizer ‘that’ in subordinate clauses. In this paper, we will begin with critical reviews on the recent previous literature that attempts to account for the so-called that-trace and anti-that-trace effects. Appealing to the Split C-domain, Spec-to-Spec Anti-locality, and Dynamic Phases, the previous analyses were able to capture why ‘that’ cannot appear when a wh-operator moves from subject position of the complement clause, but the complementizer must appear in subject relative clauses. However, they were unable to account for why anti-that-trace effects are not observed when wh-operators extract out of the object position in both types of clauses. To be more specific, they fail to explain why ‘that’ can be optional in object relative clauses. To explain the lack of anti-thattrace effects, I argue that a phrase that is contained within a phase is still active and can be probed by a higher head. That is, the case feature of object wh-operator in phase edge position is checked but still active, and establishes an Agree relation with C (Pesetsky and Torrego 2001). This triggers the case feature on the C head to be checked by the operator DP, which, in turn, bans on T-to-C movement. Consequently, it leads to no overt complementizer in object relatives.
참고문헌 (25)
- Bošković, Željko, "On the timing of labeling : Deducing comp-trace effects, the subject condition, the adjunct condition, and tucking in from labeling", The Linguistic Review, 33, pp.17~66 (2016)
- Branigan, Philip, "Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation", pp.25~39 (1996), John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Chomsky, Noam, "A minimalist program for linguistic theory", MIT occasional papers in linguistics, pp.1~67 (1993)
- Chomsky, Noam, "Ken Hale: A Life in Language", pp.1~52 (2001), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:Essays in Honor of Jean Roger Vergnaud", pp.133~166 (2008), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Problems of Projection", Lingua, 130, pp.33~49 (2013)
- Chomsky, Noam, "Structures, Strategies and Beyond", pp.1~16 (2015), John Benjamins
- Deal, Amy Rose, "Cyclicity and connectivity in Nez Perce relative clauses", Linguistic Inquiry, 47, pp.427~470 (2016)
- den Dikken, Marcel, "Phase extension : Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction", Theoretical Linguistics, 33, pp.1~41 (2007)
- Douglas, Jamie, "Unifying the that-trace and anti-that-trace effects", Glossa, 2, pp.1~28 (2017)
- Earlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, "Anti-locality and subject extraction", Glassa, 5, pp.84~122 (2020)
- Gallego, Angel, "Phase Theory" (2010), John Benjamins
- Giorgi, Alessandra, "Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax" (1996), Oxford University Press
- Hornstein, Norbert, "Understanding Minimalism" (2005), Cambridge University Press
- Hornstein, Norbert, "A Theory of Syntax" (2009), Cambridge University Press
- Martinović, Martina, "Feature geometry and head-splitting: Evidence from the morphosyntax of the Wolof clausal periphery", Doctor, pp.2015
- Kruger, William, "Free merge, agree, and phase-cancellation: An account of (anti-)that-trace effects", Proceedings of the 47th Meeting of the Northeast Linguistics Society (2017)
- Perlmutter, David, "Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax", Doctor, pp.1968
- Perlmutter, David, "Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax" (1971), Holt, Rinehart and Winston
- Pesetsky, David, "Blackwell Companion to Syntax" (2017)
- Pesetsky, David, "Ken Hale: A Life in Language", pp.355~426 (2001), MIT Press
- Pesetsky, David, "The Syntax of Time", pp.495~537 (2004), MIT Press
- Rizzi, Luigi, "Elements of Grammar", pp.281~337 (1997), Kluwer
- Rizzi, Luigi, "Wh-movement: Moving on", pp.97~134 (2006), MIT Press
- Sobin, Nicholas, "The comp-trace effect, the adverb effect and minimal CP", Journal of Linguistics, 38, pp.527~560 (2002)