동명사의 국면단위 격점검
Phasal Case Licensing in Clausal Gerunds
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this paper is to propose that the Case licensing by TP analysis on Clausal Gerund(CG) is more powerful than that of CP analysis. In TP analysis, if the T in CG checks the remnant [F] on v/T in the matrix clause, the T in CG can check its own uCase as well as that of CG's subject. But this approach has some defects. First, this analysis is limited to only English. Second, -ingGER feature in Romanian language raises to C, thus CG should be considered as CP. Third, it is against the general principle of minimalist program that the analysis considers the φ-role as a feature. Since a lexical subject can occur in non-finite clauses in some languages, it is a phasal head not tense or φ-feature that licenses Case. In such languages Case valuation is determined by feature specification in a phase, and null expletive as a probe plays an important role in Case valuation of non-finite clauses. Applying this approach to English CG, a null D head (including affixial and uCase feature) selects non-verbal C because of sharing requirement condition on merged heads. The non-finite C will transfer its uD feature to the proxy T. This feature probes for a DP, ensuring that the subject enters an A-chain with the results of an Accusative or Nominative value. Clause -typing is satisfied by Merge of the GER/PART feature in C and the C-T relationship is guaranteed by the affixial nature of -ing which surfaces on the lexical verbs. However, there remains some problems to be solved
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to propose that the Case licensing by TP analysis on Clausal Gerund(CG) is more powerful than that of CP analysis. In TP analysis, if the T in CG checks the remnant [F] on v/T in the matrix clause, the T in CG can check its own uCase as well as that of CG's subject. But this approach has some defects. First, this analysis is limited to only English. Second, -ingGER feature in Romanian language raises to C, thus CG should be considered as CP. Third, it is against the general principle of minimalist program that the analysis considers the φ-role as a feature. Since a lexical subject can occur in non-finite clauses in some languages, it is a phasal head not tense or φ-feature that licenses Case. In such languages Case valuation is determined by feature specification in a phase, and null expletive as a probe plays an important role in Case valuation of non-finite clauses. Applying this approach to English CG, a null D head (including affixial and uCase feature) selects non-verbal C because of sharing requirement condition on merged heads. The non-finite C will transfer its uD feature to the proxy T. This feature probes for a DP, ensuring that the subject enters an A-chain with the results of an Accusative or Nominative value. Clause -typing is satisfied by Merge of the GER/PART feature in C and the C-T relationship is guaranteed by the affixial nature of -ing which surfaces on the lexical verbs. However, there remains some problems to be solved
참고문헌 (25)
- Abney,S., "The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect", 박사, pp.1987
- Alboui,G, "Are we in Agreement? In : Cedric Boeckx", pp.13~39 (2006), John Benjamins
- Alboiu,G., "Feature inheritance and Case valuation in nominative -accusative systems" (2007), Ms.York University
- Binnick,R., "Time and the Verb" (1991), Oxford University Press
- Cardinaletti,A., "Toward a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol.2 ed", pp.115~166 (2004), Oxford University Press
- Chomsky,N, "Derivation by phase", MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 18 (1999)
- Chomsky,N., "Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik", pp.89~147 (2000), MIT press
- Chomsky.N., "On phases" (2005), Ms, MIT
- Chomaky,N., "Approaching UG from below" (2006), Ms, MIT
- Cowper,E., "English participal constructions", Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 40, pp.1~38 (1995)
- Horn,L., "On the nonsentential nature of the POSS-ING construction", Linguistic Analysis, 14, pp.333~387 (1975)
- Kenesei, I., "On the role of the agreement morpheme in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 36: 109-120. Marantz, A. 2000. Case and licensing. In Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio's Generalization", pp.11~30 (2000), John Benjamins
- Pesetsky,D., "T-to-C movement: causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language", pp.355~426 (2001), MIT Press
- Pesetsky,D., "The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features" (2004), Ms. MIT website
- Pires,A., "The syntax of gerunds and infinitives: subjects, Case, and control", 박사, pp.2001
- Reuland,E.J., "Governing -ing", Linguistic Inquiry, 14, pp.101~136 (1983)
- Rivero,M.L., "The structure of the clause and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, pp.63~120 (1994)
- Rizzi, L., "On the status of subject clitics in Romance. In Studies in Romance Linguistics", pp.137~152 (1986), Foris
- Roberts,I., "phrases and incorporation. Paper presented at the Conference on Interface Legibility at the Edge" (2006), University of Bucharest, Roma
- Schutze,C.T., "INFL in child and adult language", 박사, pp.1997
- Stowell,T., "The tense of infinitives", Linguistic Inquiry, 13, pp.561~570 (1982)
- Svenonius,P., "Case and event structure" (2001), ZASPIL
- Szabolcsi,A., "The posessor that ran away from home", The Linguistic review, 3, pp.89~102 (1983)
- Watanabe,E., "Agr-based Case theory and its interaction with the A-bar system", 박사, pp.1993
- Williams,E., "Small clauses in English. In J. Kimball" (1975), Academic Press