Specificity Condition Revisited
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper aims to explain the well-known asymmetry of extractability between specific and non-specific NPs. This paper starts with a short review of the previous studies regarding the Specificity Condition from both theoretical and empirical point of view. With the criticism that the condition is nothing but a descriptive generalization which must be deductively derived from deeper principles, this paper explains it in terms of phasehood and its role in the possible domain of extraction. Assuming the dynamic definition of phases (den Dikken 2006, 2007 and Bošković 2012a, 2012b), this paper shows that the ban on extraction from specific NPs is due to violation of the cooperative requirement of the PIC and the Anti-locality. This paper extends the solution to further counterexamples of the Specificity Condition. To be specific, Grimshaw's (1990) notion of event participants are shown to be operative in building additional XPs inside nominals and this addition will change the dynamics of interacting syntactic principles including the PIC and the Anti-locality thereby explaining the counterexamples.
Abstract
This paper aims to explain the well-known asymmetry of extractability between specific and non-specific NPs. This paper starts with a short review of the previous studies regarding the Specificity Condition from both theoretical and empirical point of view. With the criticism that the condition is nothing but a descriptive generalization which must be deductively derived from deeper principles, this paper explains it in terms of phasehood and its role in the possible domain of extraction. Assuming the dynamic definition of phases (den Dikken 2006, 2007 and Bošković 2012a, 2012b), this paper shows that the ban on extraction from specific NPs is due to violation of the cooperative requirement of the PIC and the Anti-locality. This paper extends the solution to further counterexamples of the Specificity Condition. To be specific, Grimshaw's (1990) notion of event participants are shown to be operative in building additional XPs inside nominals and this addition will change the dynamics of interacting syntactic principles including the PIC and the Anti-locality thereby explaining the counterexamples.
참고문헌 (20)
- Abels, Klaus, "Phase, cyclicity, and stranding", Handout given at the EPP Workshop, MIT, Cambridge, Mass (2003)
- Bach, Emmon, "Remarks on “Conditions on Transformations”", Linguistic Inquiry, 7, pp.265~361 (1976)
- Bošković , Željko, "On NPs and clauses", 석사, pp.2012
- Bošković , Željko, "Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis", 석사, pp.2012
- Chomsky, Noam, "Remarks on nominalization, In Readings in English transformational grammar", pp.184~221 (1970), Ginn and Co
- Chomsky, Noam, "Barriers" (1986), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "The minimalist program" (1995), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Derivation by phase, In Ken Hale: A life in language", pp.1~52 (2001), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "On phases, In 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)
- den Dikken, Marcel, "Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas" (2006), MIT Press
- 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)
- Diesing, Molly, "Indefinites" (1992), MIT Press
- Fiengo, R., "Opacity in NP", Linguistic Analysis, 7, pp.395~421 (1981)
- Gallego, Angel, "Phase Theory" (2010), John Benjamins
- Grimshaw, Jane, "Argument Structure" (1990), MIT Press
- Grohmann, Kleanthes K., "Prolific Domains. On the Anti-locality of Movement Dependencies" (2003), John Benjamins
- Kim, Sun-Woong, "On the syntax of noun phrases in English", 박사, pp.1991
- Sag, Ivan, "Deletion and logical form", 박사, pp.1976
- Williams, Davies, "On extraction from NPs", NLLT, 21, pp.1~37 (2003)