Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.78-98
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Mar 2018
Received Jan 2018 Revised Feb 2018 Accepted Mar 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.18.1.201803.78

So Do 구문의 도출에 관한 연구

김연승
공주대학교, Tel: 041) 850-8362 yskim@kongju.ac.kr
No I-to-C Movement in the So Do Construction
Yeon-Seung Kim

Abstract

Yeon-Seung Kim. 2018. No I-to-C Movement in the So Do Construction. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 22-1, 78-98. This paper investigates how the so do construction is derived. Contrary to most scholars’ argument that I-to-C movement applies in the derivation of the so do construction, we argue that there is no I-to-C movement in the construction. So is a proform derived by means of VP-preposing and so-replacement, occupying TopP-Spec. On the contrary, neither is a negative focus element occupying FocP-Spec. We propose that the subject-auxiliary inversion shown in both the so do construction and the neither construction results from a different operation: subject postposing in the former, and I-to-Foc movement in the latter.

Keywords:

focalization, I-to-Foc movement, so-replacement, subject postposing, topicalization, VP-deletion, VP-preposing

Acknowledgments

본 논문은 2017년 공주대학교 학술연구지원사업의 연구비 지원에 의하여 연구되었음. 좋은 논평을 통해 논문의 완성도를 높이는데 도움을 주신 익명의 심사자들에게 깊은 감사들드린다

참고문헌

  • 김선웅(Kim, S-W.). 2011. 영어의 so-도치구문 소고(A note on the so-inversion in English). 《생성문법연구》(Studies in Generative Grammar) 21, 255-264.
  • 김연승(Kim, Y-S.). 2014. 도치된 처소 PP의 이동위치(On the position of an inverted locative PP). 《언어연구》(Studies in Language) 30, 67-89.
  • Baltin, M. 2002. Movement to the higher V is remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 653-659. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902762731808]
  • Bresnan, J. 1994. Locative inversion and the architecture of universal grammar. Language 70, 72-131. [https://doi.org/10.2307/416741]
  • Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti, ed., Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, 104-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Collins, C. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Culicover, P. W. 1991. Polarity, inversion, and focus in English. ESCOL 91, 46-68.
  • Culicover, P. W. and R. Levine. 2001. Stylistic inversion in English: A reconsideration. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 283-310. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010646417840]
  • Culicover, P. W. and S. Winkler. 2008. English focus inversion. Journal of Linguistics 44, 625-658. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226708005343]
  • Haegeman, L. and J. Guéron. 1999. English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
  • Hatakeyama, Y., K. Honda and K. Tanaka. 2010. The so-inversion construction revisited. The Linguistic Review 27, 25-36. [https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2010.002]
  • Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530]
  • Johnson, K. 2009. Gapping is not (VP-)ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 289-328. [https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.289]
  • Kim, Sun-Woong. 2016. Do it, do so, and VP-ellipsis. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 16, 469-491. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.16.3.201609.469]
  • Kim, Yeon-Seung. 2017. Why-stripping and the articulated CP structure. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 17, 235-254. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.17.2.201706.235]
  • Lasnik. H. 2014. Multiple sluicing in English? Syntax 17, 1-20. [https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12009]
  • Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  • Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman, ed., Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7]
  • Rizzi, L. 2001. On the position "int(errogative)" in the left periphery of the clause. In G. Cinque and G. Salvi, eds., Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 267-296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Rizzi, L. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In A. Belletti, ed., Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Vol. 3, 223-251. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Rizzi, L. 2007. On some properties of criterial freezing. CISCL Working Papers, 145-158.
  • Rizzi, L. and U. Shlonsky. 2006. Satisfying the subject criterion by a non subject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. In M. Frascarelli, ed., Phases of Interpretation, 341-361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Shonlsky, U. and G. Soare. 2011. Where’s ‘why’? Linguistic Inquiry 42, 651-669. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00064]
  • Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of phrase structure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
  • Stroik, T. 2001. On the light verb hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 362-369. [https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2001.32.2.362]
  • Toda, T. 2007. So-inversion revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 188-195. [https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.1.188]