PRO vs. Equi-DP
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this paper is to analyze how the established control sentences can be explained by Equi-DP analysis. For the Equi-DP analysis, three motivations are provided. Firstly, sentences are derived in a bottom-up fashion. Therefore, if we consider control sentences under minimalist syntax, a look-ahead problem arises since the pronominal PRO appears prior to its antecedent in the higher phrase. Secondly, unlike finite T, infinitival T has no tense feature, which means it cannot check any case. Finally, infinitval T doesn’t have EPP feature, so that a DP in the Spec-VP doesn’t move to Spec-TP. Under those assumptions, when a DP is merged in the embedded Spec-VP, this DP gets its thematic role by the embedded predicate. However, since infinitival T has neither tense nor EPP feature, the DP remains in the embedded Spec-VP but cannot check its case feature. Following Stroik’s Survive Principle, since the DP still needs its case feature checked, it survives in the numeration and ready for further syntactic operations. The same DP, so-called Equi-DP is remerged when the case-checking element appears in the derivation. When the derivation is complete and transfers to PF and LF interfaces, the DP gets its phonetic interpretation at its case-checking position and semantic interpretation at its thematic role checking position. Hence, under Equi-DP analysis, ad hoc explanation on control with PRO and null case is not required anymore.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to analyze how the established control sentences can be explained by Equi-DP analysis. For the Equi-DP analysis, three motivations are provided. Firstly, sentences are derived in a bottom-up fashion. Therefore, if we consider control sentences under minimalist syntax, a look-ahead problem arises since the pronominal PRO appears prior to its antecedent in the higher phrase. Secondly, unlike finite T, infinitival T has no tense feature, which means it cannot check any case. Finally, infinitval T doesn’t have EPP feature, so that a DP in the Spec-VP doesn’t move to Spec-TP. Under those assumptions, when a DP is merged in the embedded Spec-VP, this DP gets its thematic role by the embedded predicate. However, since infinitival T has neither tense nor EPP feature, the DP remains in the embedded Spec-VP but cannot check its case feature. Following Stroik’s Survive Principle, since the DP still needs its case feature checked, it survives in the numeration and ready for further syntactic operations. The same DP, so-called Equi-DP is remerged when the case-checking element appears in the derivation. When the derivation is complete and transfers to PF and LF interfaces, the DP gets its phonetic interpretation at its case-checking position and semantic interpretation at its thematic role checking position. Hence, under Equi-DP analysis, ad hoc explanation on control with PRO and null case is not required anymore.
참고문헌 (16)
- Chomsky, N, "Lectures on Government and Binding" (1981), Foris
- Chomsky, N, "Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding" (1982), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N, "The Minimalist Program" (1995), MIT Press
- Chomsky,N, "Minimalist Inquires: the framework. in Step by Step: Essay on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik", pp.89~155 (2000), MIT Press
- Chomsky,N, "Derivation by Phase in Ken Hale: A Life in Language" (2001), MIT Press
- Grohmann, K. K, "No More EPP’, WCCFL 19 Proceedings. in Somerville", pp.153~166 (2000), Cascadilla Press
- Hornstein,N, "Movement and Control", Linguistic Inquiry, 30, pp.69~96 (1999)
- Hornstein,N, "On Control, in Minimal Syntax", pp.6~81 (2003), Blackwell
- Lasnik,H, "A Note on the EPP", Linguistic Inquiry, 32, pp.356~361 (2001)
- Martin,R, "Null case and the distribution of PRO", Linguistic Inquiry, 32, pp.141~166 (2001)
- Miyagawa S, "Why Agree? Why Move?" (2009), MIT Press
- Radford, A, "Syntax: a Minimalist Introduction" (1997), Cambridge University Press
- Radford, A, "Minimalist Syntax" (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Stowell,T, "The tense of infinitives", Linguistic Inquiry, 13, pp.561~570 (1982)
- Stroik. T. S, "Locality in Minimalist Syntax" (2009), MIT Press
- Wurmbrand,S, "Infinitives are Tenseless", U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, pp.1~14 (2007)