Subject Raising vs. Non-Subject Raising
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
As far as the complement episodic predicate is concerned, there is a preference for the complement unaccusative predicate to be more salient than the unergative and transitive predicate, when the genuine subject undergoes RTO: that is, only the unaccusative and habitual unergative or transitive predicates are allowed in the embedded clause of the typical RTO construction. However such a restriction on genuine subject raising disappears in the case of non-subject raising. At this point, what is crucial is that the element in question, whether it is a genuine subject or non-subject, undergoes raising to the non-theta position of the upstairs clause, when RTO takes place. It has been newly shown that the complement indirect and direct objects can undergo RTO more freely than the complement genuine subjects. We have concluded that the peculiarities of non-subject raising are as follows. First, like the genuine subjects, the non-subjects such as initial DP on the possession-type MNC, adverbials, and indirect and direct objects can undergo raising from the complement sentence-medial position to the upstairs clause. Second, there doesn’t always arise Case alternation from nominative to accusative, when a non-subject undergoes RTO. Third, unlike the genuine subject raising, the non-subject raising is allowed even in the episodic predicate of the complement, when RTO takes place.
Abstract
As far as the complement episodic predicate is concerned, there is a preference for the complement unaccusative predicate to be more salient than the unergative and transitive predicate, when the genuine subject undergoes RTO: that is, only the unaccusative and habitual unergative or transitive predicates are allowed in the embedded clause of the typical RTO construction. However such a restriction on genuine subject raising disappears in the case of non-subject raising. At this point, what is crucial is that the element in question, whether it is a genuine subject or non-subject, undergoes raising to the non-theta position of the upstairs clause, when RTO takes place. It has been newly shown that the complement indirect and direct objects can undergo RTO more freely than the complement genuine subjects. We have concluded that the peculiarities of non-subject raising are as follows. First, like the genuine subjects, the non-subjects such as initial DP on the possession-type MNC, adverbials, and indirect and direct objects can undergo raising from the complement sentence-medial position to the upstairs clause. Second, there doesn’t always arise Case alternation from nominative to accusative, when a non-subject undergoes RTO. Third, unlike the genuine subject raising, the non-subject raising is allowed even in the episodic predicate of the complement, when RTO takes place.
참고문헌 (27)
- Basilico, D., "The Topic of Small Clauses", Linguistic Inquiry, 34, pp.1~35 (2003)
- Bošković, Ž., "The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach" (1997), MIT Press
- Bošković, Ž., "A-Movement and the EPP", Syntax, 5, pp.167~218 (2002), Blackwell
- Bresnan, J., "Theory of complementation in English Syntax", 박사, pp.1972
- 최영식, "Case Alternation in Korean: Case and Beyond", 현대문법연구, 54(54), pp.105~122 (2008), 현대문법학회
- Chomsky, N., "Conditions on Transformations in : A Festschrift for Morris Halle", pp.232~286 (1973), Reinhart and Winston
- Chomsky, N., "Lectures on Government and Binding" (1981), Foris
- Chomsky, N., "The Minimalist Program" (1995), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N., "On Phases", 석사, pp.2005
- Diesing. M., "Indefinites" (1992), MIT Press
- Hong, K.-S., "Subject-to-Object Raising in Korean in : Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective", pp.215~225 (1990), CSLI
- Hong, K.-S., "Subject-to-Object Raising Construction in English and Korean", Language Research, 33(3), pp.409~434 (1997)
- Johnson. K., "Object positions", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, pp.577~636 (1991)
- Kim, D., "Korean ECM Constructions and the Theory of Phase", Studies in Modern Grammar, 33, pp.47~77 (2003)
- Lasnik, H., "On the Subject of Infinitives", CLS, 27, pp.324~343 (1991), Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago
- 이두원, "목적어인상구문의 주변자질 이동:숙어를 이루는 주어의 목적어인상을 중심으로", 언어연구, 25(3), pp.65~81 (2008), 언어정보연구소
- Lee, J.-S., "Case Alternation in Korean: Case Minimality", 박사, pp.1992
- Massam, D., "Case theory and the projection principle", 박사, pp.1985
- Postal, P., "On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and its Theoretical Implications" (1974), MIT Press
- Runner, J., "Noun phrase licensing and interpretation", 박사, pp.1995
- Schütze, T. C., "On Korean “Case Stacking”: The Varied Functions of the Particles ka and lul", Linguistic Review, 18, pp.193~232 (2001)
- Yang, D.-W., "Edge Feature and the Non-Determinate Theory of Movement", 박사, pp.2009
- Yoon, H.-J., "ECM in Korean", Studies in Modern Grammar, 37, pp.27~58 (2004)
- Yoon, J., "Some Queries Concerning the Syntax of Multiple Subject Constructions in Korean", Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 2, pp.138~162 (1987)
- Yoon, J., "Raising Specifiers: A Macroparametric Account of Subject-to-Object Raising in Some Altaic Languages", 석사, pp.2004
- Yoon, J., "Raising of Major Arguments in Korean and Japanese", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, pp.615~653 (2007)
- Yoon, J.-M., "The Syntax of A-Chains: A Typological Study of ECM and Scrambling", 박사, pp.1991