A Raising-to-Object Analysis of English ECM Constructions
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper aims to account for Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) constructions in English in terms of the raising to object (RTO) analysis. First, I propose that the complement subject of English ECM constructions is not actually ECMed but raised to the matrix Spec-VP by RTO. A variety of data are provided to support the claim that the position of the complement subject is actually higher than the embedded clause. Second, I claim that the driving force (Probe) for RTO is the V-Agree feature inherited by v and the position for RTO is the matrix Spec-VP. I especially demonstrate why the position must be the Spec-VP, not the Spec-vP. Third, I claim that RTO is not optional but obligatory, satisfying the Last Resort Principle. The subject object asymmetry with regard to extraction in ECM constructions is also argued to fall under our analysis as evidence supporting the obligatoriness of RTO. Fourth, I suggest that the ECM verbs select C or T for categorial(c-) selection cross-linguistically, though they uniformly select a proposition for semantic(s-) selection: The English ECM verbs select T while the Korean ECM verbs select C. The crosslinguistic differences thus come from lexical properties of ECM verbs, not from differences in universal principles of derivations. Thus the RTO analysis of English ECM constructions satisfies the Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT), producing the optimal derivation for sentences to converge.
Abstract
This paper aims to account for Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) constructions in English in terms of the raising to object (RTO) analysis. First, I propose that the complement subject of English ECM constructions is not actually ECMed but raised to the matrix Spec-VP by RTO. A variety of data are provided to support the claim that the position of the complement subject is actually higher than the embedded clause. Second, I claim that the driving force (Probe) for RTO is the V-Agree feature inherited by v and the position for RTO is the matrix Spec-VP. I especially demonstrate why the position must be the Spec-VP, not the Spec-vP. Third, I claim that RTO is not optional but obligatory, satisfying the Last Resort Principle. The subject object asymmetry with regard to extraction in ECM constructions is also argued to fall under our analysis as evidence supporting the obligatoriness of RTO. Fourth, I suggest that the ECM verbs select C or T for categorial(c-) selection cross-linguistically, though they uniformly select a proposition for semantic(s-) selection: The English ECM verbs select T while the Korean ECM verbs select C. The crosslinguistic differences thus come from lexical properties of ECM verbs, not from differences in universal principles of derivations. Thus the RTO analysis of English ECM constructions satisfies the Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT), producing the optimal derivation for sentences to converge.
참고문헌 (49)
- Adger David, "Core syntax: A minimalist approach" (2003), Oxford University Press
- Bach, Emmon, "Syntactic theory" (1974)
- Bach, Emmon, "Review article on Postal, On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications" (1977)
- Bokovi, elico, "The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach" (1997), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- Bokovi, elico, "A-movement and the EPP", 5(3), pp.167~218 (2002), Blackwell
- Bresnan, Joan, "Theory of complementation in English Syntax" (1972)
- Bresnan, Joan, "Nonarguments for raising" (1976)
- Bruening, Benjamin, "Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy" (2001)
- Chomsky, Noam, "Conditions on transformations" (1973)
- Chomsky, Noam, "On wh-movement" (1977)
- Chomsky, Noam, "Lectures on government and binding" (1993)
- Chomsky, Noam, "Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use" (1986)
- Chomsky, Noam, "The minimalist program" (1995), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Minimalist inquiries: The framework", pp.89~155 (2000), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Derivation by phase", pp.1~52 (2001), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "On phases" (2005), ms., MIT, Mass.: Cambridge
- Chomsky, Noam, "Approaching UG from below" (2006), ms., MIT, Mass: Cambridge
- Chomsky, Noam, "The theory of principled parameters" (1993)
- Davies, William, "The grammar of raising and control" (2004), Blackwell
- Epstein, Samuel D, "Derivation in Minimalism: Exploring the elimination of A-chains and the EPP" (2006), Cambridge: Cambridge University press
- Grimshaw, Jane, "Form, function, and the language acquisition device" (1981)
- Hong, Sungshim, "Raising of objects in small clauses", 30, pp.89~108 (2002)
- Johnson, Kyle, "Object positions" (1991)
- Jung, Yeun-Jin, "Multiple Case marking and its PF interpretation", 26, pp.239~268 (2001)
- Kawai, Michiya, "Raising to object in Japanese: A small clause analysis", 37, pp.329~339 (2006)
- Kim, Dongseok, "Korean ECM constructions and the theory of phase", 33, pp.47~77 (2003)
- Koizmi, Masatoshi, "Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis" (1993)
- Koizmi, Masatoshi, "Phrase structure in minimalist syntax" (1995)
- Langacker, Ronald W, "On pronominalization and the chain of command" (1969)
- Lasnik, Howard, "Chains of arguments", pp.189~215 (1999), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
- Lasnik, Howard, "On the subject of infinitives. In Papers from the Twenty-seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society" (1991)
- Lee, Doo-Won, "Structural Case-driven object shift of ECMed nominals out of the CP", 15, pp.39~63 (2007)
- Lee, Hyeran, "A raising-to-object analysis of Korean ECM constructions", 17, pp.361~396 (2007)
- Massam, Diane, "Case theory and the projection principle" (1985)
- McCloseky, James, "Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English", 31, pp.57~84 (2000)
- Ormazabal, Javier, "The syntax of complementation: On the connection between syntactic structure and selection" (1995)
- Pesetsky, David, "Paths and categories" (1982)
- Postal, Paul M, "On Raising" (1974)
- Rosenbaum, Peter, "The grammar of English predicate complement constructions" (1967)
- Runner, Jeffrey, "Noun phrase licensing and interpretation" (1995), Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts
- Runner, Jeffrey, "Lingering challenges to the raising-to-object and object-control constructions", 9, pp.193~213 (2006)
- Safir, Kenneth J, "Binominal Each" (1988)
- Schtze, "INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, Case and licensing" (1997)
- Szczegielniak, Adam, "Multiple spell-out", pp.251~282 (1999), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
- Tanaka, Hidekazu, "Raising to object out of CP", 33, pp.637~652 (2002)
- Yang Dong-Whee, "Optionality, output effects, and the EPP", 32, pp.43~68 (2003)
- Yoon, Hang-Jin, "ECM in Korean", 37, pp.27~57 (2004)
- Yoon, Jeong-Me, "ECM and multiple subject constructions in Korean" (1989)
- Yoon, Jong-Yurl, "Korea syntax and generalized X-bar theory" (1990)