Résumés
Abstract
Chomsky 1993, 1995, 2000, 2001a, 2001b, following Hale and Keyser 1993, assumes that θ-roles are assigned in a certain structural configuration at logical form (LF), to be referred to as the configurational theory of θ-role licensing (CTTL). This approach eliminates the relevance of argument (θ-) structure within narrow syntax (NS), thus rendering D-structure superfluous. This study examines how argument (θ-) structure and other base properties (traditionally associated with D-structure) are captured, without D-structure, in minimalism. While Chomsky advocates the CTTL, θ-theory appears to covertly play a crucial role in NS: the properties associated with D-structure are not fully subsumed under LF. Hence, the base properties cannot be fully assumed by the conceptual-intentional interface.
Résumé
Chomsky 1993, 1995, 2000, 2001a, 2001b, suivant Hale et Keyser 1993, présume que les rôles θ sont assignés en forme logique (FL) en fonction de la configuration structurale, ce qui est appelé ici théorie configurationnelle de la légitimation thématique (TCLT). Cette approche élimine la nécessité de la structure argumentale (θ) dans la syntaxe pure (SP), rendant ainsi la structure D superflue. La présente étude examine comment la structure argumentale (θ) et d’autres propriétés de base (associées traditionnellement à la structure D) peuvent être saisies en minimalisme, sans postuler la structure D. Bien que Chomsky adhère à la TCLT, la théorie θ continue de jouer implicitement un rôle prépondérant en SP : les propriétés associées à la structure D ne sont pas strictement du domaine de la FL, et donc ne peuvent pas être pleinement assumées par l’interface conceptuelle-intentionnelle.
Parties annexes
References
- Bošković, Ž. 1994. “D-structure, θ-Criterion, and movement into θ-positions”, Linguistic Analysis 24: 247-286.
- Brody, M. 1995 Lexico-logical Form: A Radically Minimalist Theory, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press.
- Chomsky, N. 1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press.
- Chomsky, N. 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, Foris.
- Chomsky, N. 1991 “Some notes on economy of derivation and representation”, in R. Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press, p. 414-454. Reprinted in Chomsky 1995.
- Chomsky, N. 1993 “A Minimalist program for linguistic theory”, in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press, p. 1-52. Reprinted in Chomsky 1995.
- Chomsky, N. 1995 The Minimalist Program, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press.
- Chomsky, N. 2000 “Minimalist Inquiry”, in R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays in honor of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press, p. 89-155.
- Chomsky, N. 2001a “Derivation by phase”, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press.
- Chomsky, N. 2001b “Beyond explanatory adequacy”, ms., Cambridge (Mass.), MIT.
- Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik. 1993 “The theory of principles and parameters”, in J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, and T. Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, p. 506-569. Reprinted in Chomsky 1995.
- Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser. 1993 “On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations”, in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press, p. 53-109.
- Hornstein, N. 1999 “Movement and control”, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-96.
- Hornstein, N. 2001 Move!: A Minimalist Theory of Construal, Oxford, Blackwell.
- Jackendoff, R. 1997 The Architecture of the Language Faculty, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press.
- Jones, C. F. 1985 Syntax and Thematics of Infinitival Adjuncts, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
- Kawai, M. 1992 Missing Object Constructions and Null Operator Predication, Doctoral dissertation, Storrs, University of Connecticut.
- Kawai, M. 1999 “A-movement and θ-theory”, talk presented at the 3rd annual bilingual workshop Kingston, Queen’s University.
- Kawai, M. 2000 “Reflexives and A-movement”, in N. M. Antrim, G. Goodall, M. Shulte-Nafeh, and V. Samiian (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 1999), Fresno, Department of Linguistics, California State University.
- Kawai, M. 2002a “Reflexive and reflexivization”, in R. Rapp (ed.), Linguistics on the Way into the Third Millennium: Proceedings of the 34th Linguistic Colloquium, Germersheim 1999, Frankfurt, Peter Lang.
- Kawai, M. 2002b “Tough subjects are thematic”, talk presented at the 2002 annual meeting of Canadian Linguistic Association. To appear in The Proceedings of 2002 Canadian Linguistic Association Meeting.
- Kiparsky, P. 1997 “Remarks on denominal verbs”, in A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, and P. Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates, Stanford University: CSLI Publications.
- Lasnik, H. 1995 “Note on pseudogapping”, in R. Pensalfini and H. Ura (eds.), Papers on Minimalist Syntax, MITWPL 27: 143-163. Reprinted in H. Lasnik. 1999 Minimalist Syntax, London, Blackwell.
- Lasnik, H. 1999 “Chains of argument”, in S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (eds.), Working Minimalism, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press, p.189-215.
- Lasnik, H. 2003 “On the Extended Projection Principle”, Studies in Modern Grammar 31: 1-23.
- Lasnik, H. and R. Fiengo. 1974 “Complement object deletion”, Linguistic Inquiry 5: 535-571. Reprinted in H. Lasnik. 1989 Essays on Anaphora, Dordrecht, Kluwer.
- Manzini, M. R. and A. Roussou. 2000 “A minimalist theory of A-movement and control”, Lingua 110: 409-447.
- Muysken, P. 1982 “Parametrizing the notion Head”, Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 57-75.
- Uriagereka, J. 2000 “In defense of D-structure”, ms., College Park, University of Maryland.
- Wunderlich, D. 1997 “Cause and structure of verbs”, Linguistic Inquiry 28: 27-68.