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. 2, pp.219-238
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2018
Received 30 Apr 2018 Revised 10 Jun 2018 Accepted 25 Jun 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.18.2.201806.219

확대투사원리: 협의의 통사부 조건

김연승
공주대학교 32588 충남 공주시 공주대학로 56, Tel: 041) 850-8362 yskim@kongju.ac.kr
The EPP: A condition in narrow syntax
Kim, Yeon-Seung

Abstract

Kim, Yeon-Seung. 2018. The EPP: A condition in narrow syntax. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 18-2, 219-238. The purpose of this paper is to make it clear that the EPP is a condition in narrow syntax. Against the argument that the EPP is a PF condition, three pieces of evidence are presented: anaphor binding, scope with regard to negative elements, and nominative Case checking. This paper has shown that all the pieces of evidence exploited for the PF condition analysis of the EPP can be reanalyzed and can be in full accord with the argument that the EPP is a condition in narrow syntax. Finally, we have illustrated that island repair in sluicing constructions cannot be crucial evidence for the PF condition analysis of the EPP, because the island repair can be solved in many other ways without resort to the PF condition analysis of the EPP.

Keywords:

the EPP, island repair, MaxElide, sluicing, the subject condition, VP-ellipsis

참고문헌

  • 김연승(Kim, Y-S.). 2002. 확대투사원리와 격점검(The extended projection principle and case checking). 《언어연구》(Studies in Language) 18(2), 21-42.
  • Abe, J. 2012. What differentiates VP ellipsis from sluicing in island repair. Ms.
  • Abe, J. 2015. The EPP and subject extraction. Lingua 159, 1-17. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.03.001]
  • Bosˇkovic', Ž. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 589-644.
  • 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. Beyond explanatory adequacy. Ms., MIT.
  • Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in the design of language. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1-22. [https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655]
  • Chung, S., W. Ladusaw and J. McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3, 239-282. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01248819]
  • Chung, S., W. Ladusaw and J. McCloskey. 2011. Sluicing(:) Between structure and inference. In R. Gutierrez-Bravo, L. Mikkelsen, and E. Potsdam, eds., Representing Language: Essays in Honor of Judith Aissen, 31-50. Santa Cruz, CA.: Linguistics Research Center.
  • Corver, N. 2006. Freezing effects. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 383-406. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch28]
  • Craenenbroeck, J. van. 2010. Invisible last resort: A note on clefts as the underlying source for sluicing. Lingua 120, 1714-1726. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.002]
  • Craenenbroeck, J. van and M. den Dikken. 2006. Ellipsis and EPP repair. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 653-662. [https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.653]
  • Culicover, P. W. and S. Winkler 2010. Freezing: A conspiracy. Ms.
  • Dikken, M. den. 1995. Binding, expletives, and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 347-354.
  • Dikken, M. den, A. Meinunger and C. Wilder. 2000. Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54, 41-89. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00050]
  • Fox, D. and H. Lasnik. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: The difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 143-154. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903763255959]
  • Hazout, I. 2004. Long-distance agreement and the syntax of for-to infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 338-343. [https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2004.35.2.338]
  • Holmberg, A. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 445-483. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554406]
  • Landau, I. 2007. EPP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 485-523. [https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.485]
  • Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Lasnik, H. 2001a. A note on the EPP. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 356-362. [https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2001.32.2.356]
  • Lasnik, H. 2001b. Subjects, objects, and the EPP. In W. D. Davies and S. Dubinsky, eds., Objects and Other Subjects: Grammatical Functions, Functional Categories, and Configurationality, 103-121. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0991-1_5]
  • Lasnik, H. 2001c. When can you save a structure by destroying it? NELS 31, 301-320.
  • Lasnik, H. and Myung-Kwan Park. 2003. The EPP and the subject condition under sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 649-660. [https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2003.34.4.649]
  • Lobeck, A. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Merchant, J. 2007. Sluicing. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax IV. 271-291, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Merchant, J. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In K. Johnson, ed., Topics in Ellipsis, 132-153. Cambridge University Press.
  • 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. 2007. On some properties of criterial freezing. CISCL Working Papers. 145-158.