Labeling Infinitives
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this paper is to examine the infinitive sentences, control in particular, in terms of the labeling algorithm proposed in Chomsky 2013 with slight modification. To achieve this goal, Alboiu’s (2007) argument that non-finite C has no uninterpretable phi-features to transmit to T has also been assumed in this paper. Chomsky particularly claims two strategies in labeling when SO is in the form of {XP, YP}: one is to modify SO and the other is to find prominent features that both XP and YP share. There are, however, some questions raised regarding Chomsky’s feature inheritance mechanism. Since he takes feature inheritance as copying when phase head transmits its uninterpretable features to the proxy head, the same uninterpretable features are left on the phase head as well. Applying the assumptions discussed above to control sentences, SO {DP, v*P} that we would get when the derivation reaches v*P can be labelled as PhiP, thus frozen as such since both related heads share phi-features. Although the non-finite C is merged at the next phase level, EA in the PhiP doesn’t need to be raised since non-finite C has no uninterpretable phi-features.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the infinitive sentences, control in particular, in terms of the labeling algorithm proposed in Chomsky 2013 with slight modification. To achieve this goal, Alboiu’s (2007) argument that non-finite C has no uninterpretable phi-features to transmit to T has also been assumed in this paper. Chomsky particularly claims two strategies in labeling when SO is in the form of {XP, YP}: one is to modify SO and the other is to find prominent features that both XP and YP share. There are, however, some questions raised regarding Chomsky’s feature inheritance mechanism. Since he takes feature inheritance as copying when phase head transmits its uninterpretable features to the proxy head, the same uninterpretable features are left on the phase head as well. Applying the assumptions discussed above to control sentences, SO {DP, v*P} that we would get when the derivation reaches v*P can be labelled as PhiP, thus frozen as such since both related heads share phi-features. Although the non-finite C is merged at the next phase level, EA in the PhiP doesn’t need to be raised since non-finite C has no uninterpretable phi-features.
참고문헌 (14)
- Alboiu, G., "Feature Inheritance and Case Values in Nominative- Accusative Systems" (2007), Ms, University of York
- Brandi, L., "Two Italian Dialects and the Null Subject Parameter", pp.111~142 (1989), Springer Netherlands
- "Head Movement in Problems of Projection" (2014)[URL]
- Chomsky, N, "Step by Step: Essay on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik", pp.89~155 (2000), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N., "Ken Hale: A Life in Language" (2001), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N., "Approaching UG from below. In Interface +Recursion=Language?" (2007), Mouton de Gruyter
- Chomsky, N., "On Phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory", pp.133~166 (2008), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N, "Problems of projection", Lingua, 130, pp.33~49 (2013)
- Epstein, S. D., "by Minimal Search: Implications for Successive-Cyclic A-Movement and the Conception of the Postulate “Phase.”", Linguistic Inquiry, 45, pp.463~481 (2014)
- 김성해, "PRO vs. Equi-DP", 영어영문학연구, 52(4), pp.115~132 (2010), 한국중앙영어영문학회
- Rizzi, L, "On the Status of Subject Clitics in Romance", Studies in Romance Linguistics, 24, pp.391~419 (1986)
- Rizzi, L., "The complementizer phase: Subjects and operators", pp.17~32 (2010), Oxford University Press
- Roberts, I., "Clitics, Phases and Incorporation", Conference on Interface Legibility at the Edge, University of Bucharest, Romania (2006)
- Stroik. T. S., "Locality in Minimalist Syntax" (2009), MIT Press