On the Surface Position of an ECM Subject
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this paper is to argue that an ECM subject is in the adjoined position to the matrix VP in its surface string. There have been two main approaches to the ECM subject position: covert raising and overt raising. Each approach has some problems. Considering those problems, I conclude that the overt raising approach is the better one. It will be illustrated why an ECM subject overtly raises into the matrix clause and how Case checking is done for the satisfaction of two conditions: adjacency and c-command. These accounts make it possible for Case to be checked uniformly via Agree, making SHA unnecessary. I have tried to justify these accounts by illustrating the difference in Case checking between normal ECM constructions and there constructions.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to argue that an ECM subject is in the adjoined position to the matrix VP in its surface string. There have been two main approaches to the ECM subject position: covert raising and overt raising. Each approach has some problems. Considering those problems, I conclude that the overt raising approach is the better one. It will be illustrated why an ECM subject overtly raises into the matrix clause and how Case checking is done for the satisfaction of two conditions: adjacency and c-command. These accounts make it possible for Case to be checked uniformly via Agree, making SHA unnecessary. I have tried to justify these accounts by illustrating the difference in Case checking between normal ECM constructions and there constructions.
참고문헌 (22)
- Bošković,Ž, "The syntax of non-finite complementation: An economy approach" (1997), MIT Press
- Bošković,Ž, "A-movement and the EPP", 석사, pp.2001
- Bošković,Ž, "On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory", Linguistic Inquiry, 38, pp.589~644 (2007)
- Chomsky,N, "A minimalist program for linguistic theory In The view from building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger" (1993), MIT Press
- Chomsky,N, "The minimalist program" (1995), MIT Press
- Chomsky,N, "Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik", pp.89~155 (2000), MIT Press
- Chomsky,N, "Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language", pp.1~52 (2001), MIT Press
- Chomsky,N, "On phases", 석사, pp.2005
- Chomsky,N, "Approaching UG from below", 석사, pp.2006
- Collins,C, "Local economy" (1997), MIT Press
- Hazout,I, "Long-distance agreement and the syntax of for-to infinitives", Linguistic Inquiry, 35, pp.338~343 (2004)
- Johnson,K, "Object positions", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, pp.577~636 (1991)
- 김연승, "On Case Checking in There-Constructions*", 생성문법연구, 14(4), pp.453~468 (2004), 한국생성문법학회
- Kim,Yeon-Seung, "Why does a Case feature move in there constructions", Studies in Generative Grammar, 18, pp.311~324 (2008)
- Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis, "Koizumi,M", MIT, 99~148 (1993)
- Lasnik,H, "Case and expletives: Notes toward a parametric account", Linguistic Inquiry, 23, pp.381~405 (1992)
- Lasnik,H, "Last Resort. In Minimalism and linguistic theory", pp.1~32 (1995), Hituzi Syobo
- Lasnik,H, "Minimalist analysis" (1999), Blackwell Publishers
- Lasnik, H, "On the subject of infinitives", CLS, pp.324~343 (1991)
- Runner,J, "Lingering challenges to the raising-to-object and object-control constructions", Syntax, 9, pp.193~213 (2006)
- Richards,M, "Deriving the edge: What's in a phase", Syntax, 14, pp.74~95 (2011)
- On feature-checking for wh-traces, "Ura,H", MIT, 243~280 (1993)