ISSN 1226-8682

´ëÇÑ¿µ¾î¿µ¹®ÇÐȸ ÀüÀÚÀú³Î

´ëÇÑ¿µ¾î¿µ¹®ÇÐȸ ÀüÀÚÀú³Î

´ëÇÑ¿µ¾î¿µ¹®ÇÐȸ

48±Ç 2È£ (2022³â 5¿ù)

to be ¼ÒÀý°ú [¡¾strong voiceP]

¼Ò¹ÌÇü

Pages : 185-202

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.21559/aellk.2022.48.2.010

PDFº¸±â

¸®½ºÆ®

Abstract

So, Mi Hyoung. ¡°to be Small Clause and [¡¾strong voiceP].¡± Studies in English Language & Literature 48.2 (2022): 185-202. This paper puts weight on why double interpretation turns up to be small clause(SC) in English and what characteristics to be has in SC. The driving forces by matrix verb clause and matching & checking processes in the internal structure of SC presenting [¡¾strong voiceP: ¡¾SVP] will be explained. In the case of to be SC with [-SVP] feature sharing [-tense], the phase becomes invisible according to Gallego (2010)¡¯s phase sliding that v*P phase ¡®moves upward¡¯ to TsP and this verbal movement results in the extension of checking domains. In terms of this theoretical background, this paper demonstrates how feature checking of SC¡¯s components is carried out in the extended phase. In the same vein, this argument also can be accounted for why [+SVP] feature occurs and how feature checking proceeds in SC that to be is invisible. Eventually, the differences between to be SC and non-to be SC will be classified. On top of that the reason why double interpretation is possible in to be SC will be analyzed semantically and syntactically. (Chonbuk National University)

Keywords

# small clause # edge-feature # feature checking # phase extending # double interpretation

References

  • Alhorais, N. ¡°The Categorial Status of the small clause Node: A minimalist approach¡±. Newcastle and Durhum Working Papers in Linguistics 13, 96-108. 2007.
  • Baker, Mark C. On the Distribution between Adjectives and Verbs, ms., McGill Uni. Rutgers Uni. 1997.
  • Basilico, David. ¡°The Topic of small Clauses,¡± Linguistic Inquiry 34. 1-35. 2003.
  • Bowers, John. ¡° The Syntax of Predication,¡± Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591-656. 1993.
  • Bowers, John. Predication. In M. Baltin and C. Collins ed. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntatic Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. 299-333. 2001.
  • Chomsky. N. ¡°Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework¡±. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. 89-155. Cambridge MA.: MIT. 2000.
  • Contreras, H. ¡°Small Clauses and Complex Predicates,¡± Syntax and Semantics 28: Small Clauses, ed. by Anna Cardinaletti and Maria Teresa Guasti, 135-152, Academic Press, New York. 1995.
  • den Dikken, M. ¡°Phase Extension. Contours of a Theory of the Roleof Head Movement in Phrasal Extraction¡±. MA.; CUNY Graduate Center. 2007.
  • ______. ¡°Small Clause, Phases and Phase Extension¡±. MA: CUNY Graduate Center. 2008.
  • Hiraiwa, K. ¡°Multipul Agree and Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese¡±. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43, 64-80. 2000.
  • Gallego, A. Phase Theory. John Benjamins P. 2010.
  • Kitagawa, Y. ¡°Small but Clausal¡±. Papers from the 21st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 21, 210-220. 1985.
  • So, Mi Hyoung. ¡°Phase Edge Feature and Case Markers in Movement¡± Chonbuk U. PhD. 2017. [¼Ò¹ÌÇü. 「À̵¿Çö»ó¿¡¼­ÀÇ ±¹¸é °¡ÀåÀÚ¸®ÀÚÁú°ú °Ý Ç¥ÁöÀÚ」 ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³. ¡º¹Ú»çÇÐÀ§³í¹®¡» (2017).]
  • ______. ¡°[¡¾voiceP] and a case marker in Scrambling¡± Studies in English Language & Literature 45.2. 307-324. 2019. [¼Ò¹ÌÇü. 「¾î¼ø¼¯±â Çö»ó¿¡¼­ [¡¾voiceP]¿Í °Ý Ç¥ÁöÀÚ」 ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³. ¡º´ëÇÑ¿µ¾î¿µ¹®Çпܡ» (2019):307-324.]
  • Sportiche, D. ¡°A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure¡±. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 425-449. 1988.
  • Stowell, T. ¡°Origins of Phrase Structure¡±. MIT. PhD. 1981.
  • Vicente, L. ¡°The Suntax of Head and Phrase. A study of verb(phrase) Fronting. Leiden U. PhD. 2007.
  • Yokogoshi, A. ¡°The Structure of Small Clauses in Englisj,¡± ms. Nagoya U. 2007.