Control and the Linking Theory
2
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this paper is to show how PRO is licensed within the system of the Linking Theory and to show that in English controllers can be determined by thematic roles. Section II is devoted to the semantic properties of PRO that have been raised in the literature: first, PRO can be interpreted as an arbitrary individual unless it is controlled, whereas pro has a specific reading. Second, PRO is covariant, while pronouns are both covariant and invariant. Third, we put PRO in English on the direct side, and ordinary personal pronouns on the indirect side. In sections III and IV, we have examined the previous approaches to control, and provided some cases discussed in the past literature where the previous analyses have difficulty in accounting for control. In section V, our discussion has focused on applying the Linking Theory to control. It is worth mentioning that linking under the Linking Theory expresses information about controllers that other approaches do not, and that differences between the Linking Theory and other approaches are empirical rather than purely notational. In section VI, we have shown that in English controllers can be determined by thematic roles. The central idea of our analysis is that in the case of subject control, the subject of infinitive complements with PRO is controlled by the external agent or experiencer of main clause predicates. Another central idea of our analysis is that in the case of object control, the subject of infinitive complements with PRO is controlled by the theme, experiencer, or agent of main clause predicates. Finally, we have contended that PRO can induce an event reading if infinitive clauses with PRO are not θ-marked by the relevant predicates in question.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to show how PRO is licensed within the system of the Linking Theory and to show that in English controllers can be determined by thematic roles. Section II is devoted to the semantic properties of PRO that have been raised in the literature: first, PRO can be interpreted as an arbitrary individual unless it is controlled, whereas pro has a specific reading. Second, PRO is covariant, while pronouns are both covariant and invariant. Third, we put PRO in English on the direct side, and ordinary personal pronouns on the indirect side. In sections III and IV, we have examined the previous approaches to control, and provided some cases discussed in the past literature where the previous analyses have difficulty in accounting for control. In section V, our discussion has focused on applying the Linking Theory to control. It is worth mentioning that linking under the Linking Theory expresses information about controllers that other approaches do not, and that differences between the Linking Theory and other approaches are empirical rather than purely notational. In section VI, we have shown that in English controllers can be determined by thematic roles. The central idea of our analysis is that in the case of subject control, the subject of infinitive complements with PRO is controlled by the external agent or experiencer of main clause predicates. Another central idea of our analysis is that in the case of object control, the subject of infinitive complements with PRO is controlled by the theme, experiencer, or agent of main clause predicates. Finally, we have contended that PRO can induce an event reading if infinitive clauses with PRO are not θ-marked by the relevant predicates in question.
참고문헌 (26)
- Abe,J, "Binding Conditions and Scrambling without A", A' Distinction, University of Connecticut, 1994
- Baltin,M..R, "Floating Quantifiers, PRO, and Prediction", Linguistic Inquiry, 2, pp.199~248 (1995)
- Boeckx, Cerdric, "Reply to Control is not Movement", Linguistic Inquiry, 34, pp.269~280 (2010)
- Chomsky,N, "Language and Problems of Knowledge, In The Managua Lectures" (1988), MIT Press
- Chomsky,N, "The Minimalist Program" (1995), MIT Press
- Chomsky,N, "Minimalist Inquires: The framework, In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik", pp.89~155 (2000), MIT Press
- Chomsky,N, "Derivation by Phase, In K. Hale: A Life in Language", pp.1~52 (2001), MIT Press
- Higginbotham,J, "Logical Form, Binding, and Nominals", Linguistic Inquiry, 16, pp.547~593 (1983)
- Higginbotham,J, "On Semantics", Linguistic Inquiry, 16(4), pp.547~594 (1985)
- Higginbotham,J, "On the Varieties of Cross-Reference, In GLOW X Proceedings, Annali di Ca' Foscari", pp.123~142 (1987)
- Higginbotham,J, "Reference and Control", Rivista di Linguistica, 1(2), pp.301~326 (1989)
- Higginbotham,J, "Anaphoric Reference and Common Reference", 석사, pp.1992
- Jackendoff,R, "Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar" (1972), MIT Press
- 강남길, "Coindexation-Based Binding Theory and Linking Theory", 영어영문학연구, 32(2), pp.187~206 (2006), 대한영어영문학회
- Kim,K-S, "Control, Repair-by-Ellipsis, and Default Case", Proceedings of WCCFL, 28 (2010)
- Hoji,H, "Demonstrative Binding and Principle B", NELS, 25, pp.255~271 (1995)
- Hoji,H, "Sloppy Identity and Principle B, In Atomism and Binding", pp.205~235 (1997), Foris Publications
- Manzini,M.R, "On Control and Control Theory", Linguistic Inquiry, 14, pp.421~446 (1983)
- Monahan,P.J, "Backward Object Control in Korean", WCCFL, 22, pp.356~369 (2003)
- Polinsky,M, "Object Control in Korean: Obligatory vs. Non-obligatory Control", ZAS Papers on Linguistics, 47, pp.197~217 (2007)
- Radford,A, "Syntactic Theory and their Structure of English" (1997), Cambridge University Press
- Radford,A, "English Syntax" (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Rizzi,L, "Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro", Linguistic Inquiry, 17, pp.501~557 (1986)
- Roeper,T, "Implicit Arguments and the Head-complement Relation", Linguistic Inquiry, 18, pp.267~310 (1987)
- Saeed,John, "Semantics" (1997), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
- Williams,E, "PRO and the Subject of NP", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, pp.297~315 (1985)