Constraints on feature checking
Constraints on feature checking
复制标题
特征检查的限制
DOI:
--
复制
发表时间:
1999
期刊:
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
M. Ochi
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
M. Ochi
ly, the situation is identical to the superraising case in English (42). Here, too, the matrix INFL has a strong EPP-feature and fails to attract John, since it is closer. (42) __ seems [it was told John that .....] On the other hand, covert movement of the genitive phrase is triggered by the N head for Case reasons. Suppose that attraction for Case searches for the closest visible Case feature, where Case becomes invisible once it is checked off (see Ura 1999: 248). Then, as shown below, when the N attracts the closest visible Case 19 Ura (1994, 1996b) argues that Japanese allows superraising, based on dative subject constructions. As shown in (i), when the subject is marked with dative, the object can be marked with nominative, but not with accusative. Ura then provides (ii), claiming that the embedded object can be marked with accusative in this case. Ura argues that the accusative Case is available in the matrix clause in (ii) (from the verb omou ‘think’), and the accusative Case of eigo ‘English’ can be checked after it has moved into the higher clause in LF, crossing the dative subject. (i) John-ni eigo-ga/*o dekiru John-Dat English-Nom/*Acc can ‘John can speak English’ (ii) Boku-wa [John-ni eigo-ga/o dekiru to] omou I-Top John-Dat English-Nom/Acc can that think ‘I think that John can speak English’ Although the grammatical status of (ii) with accusative object is not very clear to me, Ura’s claim and my proposal in the text share one important feature in common: Japanese allows superraising in covert syntax.
DOI:
--
发表时间:
2005
期刊:
Theoretical Approaches to Natural Language
影响因子:
--
作者:
MITO;Hiroshi
通讯作者:
Hiroshi
DOI:
--
发表时间:
2021
期刊:
影响因子:
--
作者:
Yamane;N.;Shinya;M.;Teaman;B.;and Fujimori;A;Masako Maeda;Masako Maeda
通讯作者:
Masako Maeda