Agrobject is not Agrparticiple
Agrobject is not Agrparticiple
复制标题
Agrobject 不是 Agr 分词
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Tal Siloni
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Marc;Tal Siloni
基于罗曼语和闪米特语的经验数据，本文表明，与普遍的假设相反，分词一致性和宾语一致性（宾格检查）的轨迹不可能相同。在基于农业的方法下，这意味着必须假设两个不同的协议预测。该论文进一步认为，Agr o P 的位置取决于容易以复杂时态出现的分词的素质。数据范式是直接解释的，并且在极简主义方法下不存在过度生成的问题。关于主动分词和被动分词之间的结构差异、宾语附着词和代词的行为以及某些历时变化和方言变化，会产生某些后果
On the basis of empirical data from Romance and Semitic languages, this paper shows that contrary to widespread assumptions, the locus of participle agreement and that of object agreement (accusative Case checking) cannot be identical. Under an Agr-based approach, this means that two distinct agreement projections must be postuled. The paper further argues that the position of Agr o P is contingent upon the diathesis of the participle liable to appear in complex tenses. The paradigm of data is accounted for straightforwardly and without problems of overgeneration under a minimalist approach. Certain consequences fall out regarding the structural difference between active and passive participles, the behavior of object clitics and pronouns, and certain diachronic changes and dialectal variation