A Unified Account of Anaphoric Relations in English
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
There are various kinds of "anaphoric" relations between referentially dependent nominal elements (i.e., anaphors, NP-trace, PRO, and anaphoric pronouns) and their antecedents in English. It is well known that the GB-theory postulates an independent principle or rule for the interpretation of each element: the Binding Principle A for anaphors, the theory of A-movement for NP-traces, construal rules for PROs, and the "disjoint" reference rule for anaphoric pronouns. The Minimalist Program initiated by Chomsky (1993, 1995), which no longer assumes theory-internal levels like D-structure and S-structure, has led grammarians to reexamine the way that describes the referential dependencies of these nominal expressions. In the present paper we will attempt to present a unified account of these anaphoric relations, following Hornstein (2001, 2003) in which he proposes that PRO and reflexives be derived via A-movement just like an NP-trace, and Kayne (2002) in which he proposes that the coreferential relation between an anaphoric pronoun and its antecedent be established via A-movement out of a doubling constituent that consists of the pronoun as head and its antecedent as Spec: [antecedent pronoun]. I will present the problem of representing the doubling constituent in Kayne`s system, and suggest that an empty category be the realization of a copy yielded by overt A-movement, and that, in the case of reflexives and anaphoric pronouns, actual lexical items head their respective doubling constituents. We will also see that there are a number of examples that defy "conventional" analyses and require some ad hoc assumptions, and that the issues we have considered here need a great deal of research before we provide any unified account of anaphoric relations in English.
Abstract
There are various kinds of "anaphoric" relations between referentially dependent nominal elements (i.e., anaphors, NP-trace, PRO, and anaphoric pronouns) and their antecedents in English. It is well known that the GB-theory postulates an independent principle or rule for the interpretation of each element: the Binding Principle A for anaphors, the theory of A-movement for NP-traces, construal rules for PROs, and the "disjoint" reference rule for anaphoric pronouns. The Minimalist Program initiated by Chomsky (1993, 1995), which no longer assumes theory-internal levels like D-structure and S-structure, has led grammarians to reexamine the way that describes the referential dependencies of these nominal expressions. In the present paper we will attempt to present a unified account of these anaphoric relations, following Hornstein (2001, 2003) in which he proposes that PRO and reflexives be derived via A-movement just like an NP-trace, and Kayne (2002) in which he proposes that the coreferential relation between an anaphoric pronoun and its antecedent be established via A-movement out of a doubling constituent that consists of the pronoun as head and its antecedent as Spec: [antecedent pronoun]. I will present the problem of representing the doubling constituent in Kayne`s system, and suggest that an empty category be the realization of a copy yielded by overt A-movement, and that, in the case of reflexives and anaphoric pronouns, actual lexical items head their respective doubling constituents. We will also see that there are a number of examples that defy "conventional" analyses and require some ad hoc assumptions, and that the issues we have considered here need a great deal of research before we provide any unified account of anaphoric relations in English.
참고문헌 (21)
- Boskovic, C., "D-structure, Theta-criterion, and Movement into Theta-positions", Linguistic Analysis, 24, pp.247~286 (1994)
- Brody, M., "Lexico-logical Form：a Radically Minimalist Theory" (1995), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N., "Lectures on Government and Binding" (1981), Foris
- Chomsky, N., "Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding" (1982), MIT Press
- 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. in: Step by Step：Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik" (2000), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N., "Derivation by phase. in: Ken Hale：A Life in Language" (2001), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N., "Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. in: Structures and Beyond―The Cartography if Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3", pp.104~131 (2004), Oxford
- Chomsky, N., "The Theory of Principles and Parameters. in: The Minimalist Program" (1995), MIT Press
- Hornstein, N., "Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal" (2001), Blackwell Publishers Ltd
- Hornstein, N., "On control. in: Minimalist Syntax" (2003), Blackwell Publishers Ltd
- Kayne, R., "Pronouns and their Antecedents. in: Derivations and Explanation in the Minimalist Program" (2002), Blackwell Publishers Ltd
- Lasnik, H., "Remark on Coreference", Linguistic Analysis, 2, pp.1~22 (1976)
- Lasnik, H., "Last Resort. in: Minimalism and Linguisitic Theory" (1995), Hituzi Syobo
- Lasnik, H., "Last Resort and Attract F", Proceedings of FLSM. Bloomington (1995), Indiana University Linguistics Club
- Nunes, J., "Sideward Movement", Linguistic Inquiry, 32, pp.303~344 (2001)
- O'Neil, J., "Out of Control", Proceedings of NELS, 통권 : 25, pp.361~371 (1995), GLSA, University of Massachusetts
- Rizzi, L., "Relativized Minimality" (1990), MIT Press
- Uriagereka, J., "Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance", Linguistic Inquiry, 26, pp.79~123 (1995)
- Zwart, J-W., "Issues Relating to a Derivational Theory of Binding. in: Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program" (2002), Blackwell Publishers Ltd