On the Syntactic Differences between Locative Inversion and Quotative Inversion
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Arano (2014) presents different syntactic analyses to Locaive Inversion (LI) and Quotative Inversion (QI) constructions on the basis of three empirical facts. They are about how pronouns are realized in tag questions, whether post-nominal alone can modify post-verbal DPs, and how sensitive LI and QI are to experiencer arguments selected by raising verbs. Although this paper agrees to Arao’s position that the syntactic disparities between LI and QI can be accounted for by focusing on the syntactic status of post-verbal DPs in these constructions, it is argued that Arano’s (2014) proposal of covert DP-movement in QI should be abandoned. Instead, on the basis of a few empirical facts, this paper argues that post-verbal DPs in QI have subject properties and move overtly to [Spec, TP]. With this revision, the three empirical facts in question, which reveal the syntactic disparities between LI and QI, are successfully accounted for under the modified feature inheritance mechanism. The empirical data showing that QI is unacceptable with quantifier floating do not counterexemplify this paper’s proposal of overt subject-raising in QI because they are independently accounted for under Takami’s (1998) analysis, in which floated quantifiers are considered as secondary subjects.
Abstract
Arano (2014) presents different syntactic analyses to Locaive Inversion (LI) and Quotative Inversion (QI) constructions on the basis of three empirical facts. They are about how pronouns are realized in tag questions, whether post-nominal alone can modify post-verbal DPs, and how sensitive LI and QI are to experiencer arguments selected by raising verbs. Although this paper agrees to Arao’s position that the syntactic disparities between LI and QI can be accounted for by focusing on the syntactic status of post-verbal DPs in these constructions, it is argued that Arano’s (2014) proposal of covert DP-movement in QI should be abandoned. Instead, on the basis of a few empirical facts, this paper argues that post-verbal DPs in QI have subject properties and move overtly to [Spec, TP]. With this revision, the three empirical facts in question, which reveal the syntactic disparities between LI and QI, are successfully accounted for under the modified feature inheritance mechanism. The empirical data showing that QI is unacceptable with quantifier floating do not counterexemplify this paper’s proposal of overt subject-raising in QI because they are independently accounted for under Takami’s (1998) analysis, in which floated quantifiers are considered as secondary subjects.
참고문헌 (27)
- Arano, Akihiko, "Two types of main verb inversion", English Linguistics, 31, pp.22~44 (2014)
- Boeckx, Cedric, "Aspects of the syntax of agreement" (2008), Routledge
- Bošković, Željko, "On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory", Linguistic Inquiry, 38, pp.589~644 (2007)
- Bowers, John, "On surface structural grammatical relations and the structure-preserving hypothesis", Linguistic Analysis, 2, pp.225~242 (1976)
- Collins, Chris, "Local economy" (1997), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "The minimalist program" (1995), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik", pp.89~155 (2000), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud", pp.89~155 (2008), MIT Press
- Culicover, Peter W., "English tag questions in universal grammar", Lingua, 88, pp.193~226 (1992)
- Gyoda, Isamu, "On the quotative construction in English : A minimalist account", English Linguistics, 16, pp.275~302 (1999)
- Hornstein, Norbert, "Perception and causative structures in English and European Portuguese: φ-feature agreement and the distribution of bare and prepositional infinitives", Syntax, 11, pp.198~222 (2008)
- 이창수, "The Syntactic Status of Resultatives and the Direct Object Restriction", 영어영문학연구, 58(3), pp.335~355 (2016), 한국중앙영어영문학회[DOI]
- 이창수, "Unpassivizability and Binding Condition A", 영어영문학연구, 59(3), pp.281~302 (2017), 한국중앙영어영문학회[DOI]
- Lobeck, Anne, "Functional heads as proper governors", NELS, 20, pp.348~362 (1990)
- McCawley, James D., "The syntactic phenomena of English" (1998), The University of Chicago Press
- Mason, Bobbie A., "Patchwork: A Bobbie Ann Mason reader" (2018), University Press of Kentucky
- Postal, Paul M., "On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications" (1974), MIT Press
- Postal, Paul M., "About a ‘non-argument’ for raising", Linguistic Inquiry, 8, pp.141~155 (1977)
- Rizzi, Luigi, "Relativized minimality" (1990), MIT Press
- Rizzi, Luigi, "Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax", pp.281~337 (1997), Kluwer
- Sportiche, Dominique, "A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure", Linguistic Inquiry, 19, pp.425~449 (1988)
- Starke, Michal, "Move dissolves into merge: A theory of locality", pp.2001
- Takami, Ken-ichi, "Passivization, tough-movement and quantifier float: A functional analysis based on predication relation", English Linguistics, 15, pp.139~166 (1998)
- van Riemsdijk, Henk, "Unity in diversity: Papers presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th birthday", pp.229~241 (1990), Foris
- Walker, Alice, "The Alice Walker collection: Fiction" (2013), Hachette UK
- Wu, Hsiao-hung Iris, "Generalized inversion and the theory of Agree", pp.2008
- Wurmbrand, Susi., "Tense and aspect in English infinitives", ms, pp.2012