There is only one way to agree
There is only one way to agree
复制标题
只有一种方法可以达成一致
DOI：
10.1515/tlr-2012-0017
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
H. Zeijlstra
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Zeijlstra
当前的极简主义采用语法操作Agree和Move，由底层的特征检查需求触发（Chomsky 1995，2000，2001，Pesetsky & Torrego 2004）。这个同意/移动的标准版本至少有五个问题：（i）它不能解释反向同意的存在;（ii）它不能解释多重同意的存在;（iii）它不能解释协和现象的行为;（iv）它不能解释连续循环运动中中间步骤的触发;以及（v）[EPP]特征本身仍然没有动机。此外，我认为，最近的两个建议（Pesetsky & Torrego 2007，Boskovic 2007）解决了一些，但不是所有这些问题。最后，我认为，所有这些问题消失后，一个更简单的版本，同意通过不可解释的功能只能检查，如果他们是C-命令的匹配可解释的功能，而不是相反。
Current minimalism takes syntactic operations Agree and Move to be triggered by underlying feature checking requirements (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001, Pesetsky & Torrego 2004). This standard version of Agree/Move suffers from at least five problems: (i) it does not explain the existence of Reverse Agree; (ii) it does not explain the existence of Multiple Agree; (iii) it does not explain the behavior of Concord phenomena; (iv) it does not explain the triggering of intermediate steps in successive cyclic movement; and (v) the [EPP]-feature itself remains unmotivated. Moreover, I argue that two recent proposals (Pesetsky & Torrego 2007, Boskovic 2007) solve some, but not all of these problems. Finally, I argue that all these problems disappear once a simpler version of Agree is adopted where uninterpretable features can only be checked if they are c-commanded by a matching interpretable feature and not the other way round.