Small Clause Predication and the Event Argument
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The SCs selected by consider-type verbs and those selected by want-type verbs show different syntactic behaviors with respect to Binding Condition C, passivization, and topicalization. This fact naturally leads us to conclude that they should be treated as having different syntactic structures. This paper proposes proper syntactic structures for the two types of SCs on the basis of Basilico’s (1997) finding that consider-type verbs select SCs involving ILPs while want-type verbs select SCs involving SLPs. Especially, extending Diesing’s (1992) claim, which is that an SLP has an event argument, this paper argues that SCs with an SLP involve an event argument whereas SCs with an ILP do not. This point is crucially exploited in explaining the syntactic differences of the SCs selected by the two types of verbs in question. There is a potential counter-example to this paper’s proposal. It is the case that perception verbs, which select SCs containing an SLP, allow passivization of SC subjects. But it is not problematic if we adopt Higginbotham’s (1985) theta binding.
Abstract
The SCs selected by consider-type verbs and those selected by want-type verbs show different syntactic behaviors with respect to Binding Condition C, passivization, and topicalization. This fact naturally leads us to conclude that they should be treated as having different syntactic structures. This paper proposes proper syntactic structures for the two types of SCs on the basis of Basilico’s (1997) finding that consider-type verbs select SCs involving ILPs while want-type verbs select SCs involving SLPs. Especially, extending Diesing’s (1992) claim, which is that an SLP has an event argument, this paper argues that SCs with an SLP involve an event argument whereas SCs with an ILP do not. This point is crucially exploited in explaining the syntactic differences of the SCs selected by the two types of verbs in question. There is a potential counter-example to this paper’s proposal. It is the case that perception verbs, which select SCs containing an SLP, allow passivization of SC subjects. But it is not problematic if we adopt Higginbotham’s (1985) theta binding.
참고문헌 (20)
- Baker,Mark, "On the distribution between adjectives and verbs", 석사, Rutgers University, 1997
- Basilico,David, "The topic is ‘there’", Studia Linguistica, 51, pp.278~316 (1997)
- Basilico,David, "The topic of small clauses", Linguistic Inquiry, 34, pp.1~35 (2003)
- Bowers, John, "The syntax of predication", Linguistic Inquiry, 24, pp.591~656 (1993)
- Carlson, Gregory, "Reference to kinds of English", 박사, pp.1977
- Chomsky, Noam, "On phases", 석사, pp.2005
- Diesing,Molly, "Indefinites" (1992), MIT Press
- Felser,Glaudia, "Verbal complement clauses" (1999), John Benjamins
- Higginbotham,James, "On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry", 16, pp.547~594 (1985)
- 신명희, "영어교육에 있어서 문화교육의 중요성 연구: 토익 L. C.에 나타난 한미 문화차이 고찰", 언어연구, 25(1), pp.103~122 (2009), 한국현대언어학회
- Kratzer,Angelika, "Stage-level and individual-level predicates, In The generic book", pp.125~223 (1995), Chicago Press
- Lasnik,Howard, "Minimalist investigations in linguistic theory" (2004), Routledge
- Lasnik, Howard, "On the subject of infinitives", CLS, 27, pp.324~343 (1991)
- 이창수, "Against the PF Movement Approach to Rightward Movement", 영어영문학연구, 51(3), pp.325~343 (2009), 한국중앙영어영문학회
- Postal,Paul, "On raising" (1974), MIT Press
- Sportiche,Dominique, "A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure", Linguistic Inquiry, 19, pp.425~449 (1988)
- Starke,Michel, "On the format for small clauses", Syntax and Semantics, 28, pp.237~269 (1995)
- Stowell,Tim, "Subjects across categories", The Linguistic Review, 2, pp.285~312 (1983)
- Svenonius,Peter, "Dependent nexus: Subordinate predication structures in English and the Scandinavian languages", 박사, pp.1994
- Yokogoshi,Azusa, "The structure of small clause predication: The textual functions of their heads", HERSTEC, pp.173~189 (2007), Nagoya University