An NP Matching Analysis for Tough Constructions in English
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Pitting three possible accounts for tough constructions, this paper advocates an NP matching analysis for them. Considering parasitic gap licensing, prohibited movement of the first object with double objects, and illegitimate extraction out of VP in tough infinitives leads to rejecting the traditional A-movement analysis for the construction at issue. (Anti-)reconstruction effects on anaphors, bound variable pronouns, idioms, R-expressions, and quantifiers provide testing grounds in comparing NP sub-extraction and NP matching analyses of tough constructions, eventually arguing that the latter is a valid one. The impossibility of extraposing tough infinitives is shown to follow from the clitic property of an Acc Case-bearing null operator rather than to argue for the NP sub-extraction analysis for tough constructions.
Abstract
Pitting three possible accounts for tough constructions, this paper advocates an NP matching analysis for them. Considering parasitic gap licensing, prohibited movement of the first object with double objects, and illegitimate extraction out of VP in tough infinitives leads to rejecting the traditional A-movement analysis for the construction at issue. (Anti-)reconstruction effects on anaphors, bound variable pronouns, idioms, R-expressions, and quantifiers provide testing grounds in comparing NP sub-extraction and NP matching analyses of tough constructions, eventually arguing that the latter is a valid one. The impossibility of extraposing tough infinitives is shown to follow from the clitic property of an Acc Case-bearing null operator rather than to argue for the NP sub-extraction analysis for tough constructions.
참고문헌 (27)
- Akmajian, A., "Getting ‘Tough’", Linguistic Inquiry, 3, pp.373~377 (1972)
- Bošković, Ž., "On the Distribution of Null Complementizers", Linguistic Inquiry, 34, pp.527~546 (2002)
- Brody, M., "θ-theory and Arguments", Linguistic Inquiry, 24, pp.1~23 (1993)
- "Two-step Tough Movement?" (2012)[URL]
- Chomsky, N., "Formal syntax", pp.77~132 (1977), Academic Press
- Chomsky, N., "Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding" (1982), MIT Press
- Edmonds, J., "The Blackwell Companion in Syntax", pp.73~145 (2006), Blackwell Publishing
- Fiengo, R., "Indices and Identity" (1994), MIT Press
- Hackl, M., "A Modal ‘for’-infinitival Relative Clauses", Natural Language Semantics, 20(1), pp.59~81 (2012)
- Heycock, C., "Layers of Predication" (1994), Garland
- Hicks, G., "‘Tough’-constructions and Their Derivation", Linguistic Inquiry, 40, pp.535~566 (2009)
- Hornstein, N., "Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal" (2001), Blackwell Publishing
- Hulsey, S., "Sorting Out Relative Clauses", Natural Language Semantics, 14, pp.111~137 (2006)
- Larson, R., "On the Double Object Construction", Linguistic Inquiry, 19, pp.335~391 (1988)
- Lasnik, H., "Move α : Conditions on Its Application and Output" (1992), MIT Press
- Marantz, A., "Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar", pp.113~150 (1993), CSLI Publications
- Merchant, J., "Topics in Ellipsis", pp.132~153 (2008), Cambridge University Press
- Messick, T. G, "Ellipsis and Reconstruction in ‘tough’ Infinitives", ms, pp.2013
- Lasnik, H., "Complement Object Deletion", Linguistic Inquiry, 5, pp.535~571 (1974)
- Pesetsky, D., "Diagnosing Syntax", pp.123~157 (2013), Oxford University Press
- Poole, E., "More on (the lack of)Reconstruction in English ‘tough’-constructions", Linguistic Inquiry
- Postal, P. M., "Cross-over Phenomena" (1971), Holt, Rinehart and Winston
- Postal, P. M., "On Raising" (1974), MIT Press
- Rosenbaum, P. S., "The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions" (1967), MIT Press
- Sauerland, U., "The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures", pp.205~226 (2003), John Benjamins
- Schachter, P., "Lovely to Look At", Linguistic Analysis, 8, pp.431~448 (1981)
- Sportiche, D., "NP Movement: How to Merge and Move in Toughconstructions", ms, pp.2006