Scrambling and Quantifiers : An Agreement-based Analysis
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The main goal of this paper is to provide an agreement-based analysis of scrambling that occurs with quantifiers. This paper argues that the probe-goal agreement analysis has advantages over the traditional Binding Theory. With respect to clause-internal scrambling, after QR, an operator c-commands its bindee at LF and it allows reconstruction. In the case of clause-external scrambling, a QP does not c-command its bindee at PF and after QR, an operator c-commands its bindee at LF. In addition, clause-external scrambling allows reconstruction. With regard to clausal scrambling, a QP does not c-command its bindee at PF and after QR, an operator c-commands its bindee at LF. In addition, clausal scrambling allows reconstruction. In this paper, the possibility of eliminating reconstruction in A’-binding has been explored. In order to eliminate reconstruction, we propose the A’-binding principle that an anaphor A or a pronoun P is licensed by an operator O only if the operator O or its trace c-commands A or P at LF. There are tangible reasons to argue for this claim
Abstract
The main goal of this paper is to provide an agreement-based analysis of scrambling that occurs with quantifiers. This paper argues that the probe-goal agreement analysis has advantages over the traditional Binding Theory. With respect to clause-internal scrambling, after QR, an operator c-commands its bindee at LF and it allows reconstruction. In the case of clause-external scrambling, a QP does not c-command its bindee at PF and after QR, an operator c-commands its bindee at LF. In addition, clause-external scrambling allows reconstruction. With regard to clausal scrambling, a QP does not c-command its bindee at PF and after QR, an operator c-commands its bindee at LF. In addition, clausal scrambling allows reconstruction. In this paper, the possibility of eliminating reconstruction in A’-binding has been explored. In order to eliminate reconstruction, we propose the A’-binding principle that an anaphor A or a pronoun P is licensed by an operator O only if the operator O or its trace c-commands A or P at LF. There are tangible reasons to argue for this claim
참고문헌 (16)
- Aguero-Bautista, Calixto, "Team Weak Crossover", Linguistic Inquiry, 43, pp.1~41 (2012)
- Barker, Chris, "Quantificational Binding does not Require C-command", Linguistic Inquiry, 43(4), pp.614~633 (2012)
- Bass, A, "Chains and Anaphoric Dependence", Doctor, pp.1986
- Chomsky, N, "The Minimalist Program" (1995), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N, "Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax In Honor of Howard Lasnik", pp.89~156 (2000), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N, "Ken Hale: A Life in Language", pp.1~52 (2001), MIT Press
- Hoji, H., "Weak Crossover and Move-α in Japanese", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1, pp.245~259 (1983)
- Jenks, P, "Quantifier Raising: A Historical Precis", ms, pp.2013
- 강남길, "The Reason why Ku 'he' cannot be A'-dependent: An Agree-based Approach", 영어영문학연구, 39(3), pp.109~130 (2013), 대한영어영문학회[DOI]
- Ko, H-j., "Scrambling in Korean Syntax", ms, pp.2017
- 권기양, "Notes on {XP, YP} Problem at a Root Clause", 새한영어영문학, 59(4), pp.243~260 (2017), 새한영어영문학회[DOI]
- 권기양, "Notes on the Symmetry-Breaking Algorithm", 새한영어영문학, 60(4), pp.225~244 (2018), 새한영어영문학회[DOI]
- 권기양, "Notes on the MERGE-Based System", 새한영어영문학, 61(3), pp.131~153 (2019), 새한영어영문학회[DOI]
- Lebeaux, D, "Relative Clauses, Licensing, and the Nature of Derivation", NELS, 20(2), pp.318~332 (1990)
- May, R, "Logical Form" (1985), MIT Press
- Ueyama, A., "Two Types of Dependency", Doctor, pp.1998