http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Howard Lasnik (검색결과 4 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
On the Extended Projection Principle
Howard Lasnik 현대문법학회 2003 현대문법연구 Vol.31 No.-
The Extended Projection Principle (EPP) has been a pervasive topic of research and a pervasive mystery since it was first formulated by Chomsky (1981). That initial formulation is not precise, but its intention is clear enough: The EPP (here called by Chomsky principle P ) is the structural requirement that certain configurations … must have subjects … [p.27] Over the years since, its existence as an independent constraint has often been called into question, on the grounds that it is redundant with other principles, especially those concerning Case (by Fukui and Speas (1986) for example), or that it is literally unformulable given other theoretical desiderata (Epstein and Seely (1999)). I will review those arguments. I will also survey a range of phenomena involving infinitival constructions that provide strong empirical evidence for the EPP. In particular, I will show that in ECM constructions, while the ECM subject sometimes raises overtly to a canonical Case position (Spec of AgrO), it also sometimes remains in embedded subject position, a position that it is in solely to satisfy the EPP (Lasnik (2001b)). The next question is just how the EPP is to be formulated. Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) argue that there are actually two different kinds of languages with respect to the EPP, those (like Greek) where Xo movement suffices versus those where only an XP can satisfy the EPP. I will examine English, a language of the second type, with an eye towards determining whether EPP is a matter of strong feature checking, as in Chomsky (1995), or the requirement that certain functional heads require a specifier, as in Chomsky s original version and the more recent one in Chomsky (2000). This question turns out to be surprisingly intricate, with arguments for the strong feature version(Merchant (2001), and against it (Lasnik (2001a)).
-
Howard Lasnik 현대문법학회 2003 현대문법연구 Vol.31 No.-
The `Extended Projection Principle` (EPP) has been a pervasive topic of research and a pervasive mystery since it was first formulated by Chomsky (1981). That initial formulation is not precise, but its intention is clear enough: The EPP (here called by Chomsky `principle P`) "is the structural requirement that certain configurations … must have subjects …" [p.27] Over the years since, its existence as an independent constraint has often been called into question, on the grounds that it is redundant with other principles, especially those concerning Case (by Fukui and Speas (1986) for example), or that it is literally unformulable given other theoretical desiderata (Epstein and Seely (1999)). I will review those arguments. I will also survey a range of phenomena involving infinitival constructions that provide strong empriical evidence for the EPP. In particular, I will show that in ECM constructions, while the ECM subject sometimes raises overtly to a canonical Case positon (Spec of AgrO), it also sometimes remains in embedded subject position, a position that it is in solely to satisfy the EPP (Lasnik (2001b)). The next question is just how the EPP is to be formulated. Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) argue that there are actually two different kinds of languages with respect to the EPP, those (like Greek) where X˚movement suffices versus those where only an XP can satisfy the EPP. I will examine English, a matter of strong feature checking, as in Chomsky (1995), or the requirement that certain functional heads require a specifier, as in Chomsky`s original version and the more recent one in Chomsky (2000). This question turns out to be surprisingly intricate, with arguments for the strong feature version (Merchant 92001), and against it (Lasnik (2001a)).
-
Howard Lasnik 한국어학회 2003 한국어학 Vol.18 No.-
이른바 ‘clause-mete’제약은 이미 1960년대와 1970년대 초기의 생성문법 이론에서부터 가정 되었다. 수동화(passivization)와 재귀화(raflexivization), 상호사 표지(reciprocal marking)등의 절차에서 두 명사구, 그 가운데서도 주어와 목적어 위치의 명사구는 하나의 절 내에서 특정한 관계를 가진다는 것이다. 최근의 통사론 연구에서는 주목하지 않는 이들 제약에 관하여 새롭게 고찰하여, 비시제절(infinite)의 주어가 인상하는 현상을 설명해 주는 강력한 증거를 찾아보고, 그에 수반하는 통사적 관계에 있어서의 ‘clause-mate conditions’을 규명하는 것이 본고의 목적이다
-
On Exceptional Case Marking Constructions
Howard Lasnik 한국어학회 2003 한국어학 Vol.18 No.-
"예외적 격표시(ECM)가 어떤 환경에서 허가되는가?" 하는 것은 오래된 문제이지만 지금도 여전히 중대하고 어려운 문제이다. 그 해답에 있어서 초기 연구에서의 통찰이 유망한 방향을 제시한다. 본고에서는 시제(tense)가 예외적 격표시(ECM) 및 예외적 격표시와 통제(control)간의 구별에 관련된다는 Brecht의 통찰과, 이러한 통찰에 대해 지배-결속 체계의 관점에서 독립적으로 진술한 Stowell에 주목한다. 과거의 연구에 대한 주의 깊은 고려는 미래로 나아가는 방법에 있어서 좋은 지침이 될 수 있다.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
