Rivero (2000) : Différence entre versions

De Arbres
Aller à : Navigation, rechercher
(Page créée avec « * Rivero, M.L. 2000. 'Finiteness and Second Position in Long Verb Movement Languages: Breton and Slavic.', ''The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories'', R. Borsley,... »)
 
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
* Rivero, M.L. 2000. 'Finiteness and Second Position in Long Verb Movement Languages: Breton and Slavic.', ''The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories'', R. Borsley, éd., Academic Press, N.Y., 295-323.
+
* Rivero, M.L. 2000. 'Finiteness and Second Position in Long Verb Movement Languages: Breton and Slavic.', R. Borsley (éd.), ''The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories'', ''Syntax and Semantics'' 32, Academic Press, N.Y., 295-323.
  
  

Version du 15 septembre 2019 à 12:14

  • Rivero, M.L. 2000. 'Finiteness and Second Position in Long Verb Movement Languages: Breton and Slavic.', R. Borsley (éd.), The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, Syntax and Semantics 32, Academic Press, N.Y., 295-323.


 Introduction:
 
 "In this chapter, I argue that Long Verb Movement (LVM) languages are characterized by (a) a PF interface condition on Tense (T) that mentions a Head-Complement configuration, and (b) a LVM process that fronts a nonfinite verb, and applies in PF to satisfy this condition. This has two typological consequences. The first is that unrelated languages such as Breton and Bulgarian share identical second-position effects for tensed Auxiliaries (Aux), and LVM constructions with an untensed V preceding the tensed Aux. The second is that LVM and Verb Second (V2) languages can both be said to exhibit second-position effects in main clauses, but nevertheless differ. The received view is that V2 involves two fronting operations that are syntactic and hence check features. I propose that LVM is a hierarchical fronting process of the PF branch that satisfies an interface condition on T (or a stylistic rule), and not a checking or syntactic operation."