On the Peculiarities of Subject-Aux Inversion in Counterfactuals
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Subject-Aux Inversion or T-to-C movement takes place in counterfactuals when if is not present. The inverted counterfactuals have two interesting constraints: (i) do-insertion is not permitted and (ii) not all auxiliaries can be inverted. This article argues that these constraints originate from the fact that the counterfactual C, just like the interrogative C, has an uninterpretable tense feature, while it c-selects a Counterfactual Phrase as its complement. In this article I claim that the counterfactual morpheme projects its own maximal projection independently of TP: that is, the INFL is split into CounterP and TP in counterfactuals, so that the counterfactual clause roughly looks like [CP C [CounterP ...[TP ...]]. This article shows that this split structure enables us to provide a principled account for why Subject-Aux Inversion is more constrained in counterfactuals than in interrogatives. (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies)
Abstract
Subject-Aux Inversion or T-to-C movement takes place in counterfactuals when if is not present. The inverted counterfactuals have two interesting constraints: (i) do-insertion is not permitted and (ii) not all auxiliaries can be inverted. This article argues that these constraints originate from the fact that the counterfactual C, just like the interrogative C, has an uninterpretable tense feature, while it c-selects a Counterfactual Phrase as its complement. In this article I claim that the counterfactual morpheme projects its own maximal projection independently of TP: that is, the INFL is split into CounterP and TP in counterfactuals, so that the counterfactual clause roughly looks like [CP C [CounterP ...[TP ...]]. This article shows that this split structure enables us to provide a principled account for why Subject-Aux Inversion is more constrained in counterfactuals than in interrogatives. (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies)
참고문헌 (19)
- Chomsky, N, "Syntactic Structures" (1957), Mouton
- Chomsky, N., "Lectures on Government and Binding" (1981), Foris
- Chomsky, N, "The Minimalist Program" (1995), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N, "Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud", pp.133~166 (2008), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N, "Problems of Projection", Lingua, 130, pp.33~49 (2013)
- Cinque, G, "The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis", pp.51~65 (2010), Oxford University Press
- Enc, M, "On the Absence of Present Tense in English" (1991), Ms. University of Wisconsin
- Hornstein, N, "Movement and Control", Linguistic Inquiry, 30, pp.69~96 (1999)
- Hornstein, N, "Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal" (2000), Blackwell
- Hornstein, N, "A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar" (2008), Cambridge University Press
- Huddleston, R, "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" (2002), Cambridge University Press
- Jackendoff, R, "The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory", Linguistic Inquiry, 18, pp.369~412 (1987)
- Lasnik, H., "Syntactic Structures Revisited" (2000), MIT Press
- "The Earliness Principle" (1989)[URL]
- Pesetsky, D, "Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge", pp.356~426 (2001), MIT Press
- Pollock, "Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP", Linguistic Inquiry, 20, pp.365~424 (1989)
- Radford, A, "Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English" (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Rizzi, L, "Elements of Grammar", pp.281~337 (1997), Kluwer
- Stowell, T, "The Tense of Infinitives", Linguistic Inquiry, 13, pp.561~570 (1982)