Tallerman (1997) : Différence entre versions

De Arbres
Aller à : navigation, rechercher
 
(4 révisions intermédiaires par le même utilisateur non affichées)
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
* Tallerman, M. 1997. ‘Infinitival clauses in Breton.’, ''Canadian Journal of Linguistics, Special issue: Topics in Celtic Syntax'', 205-233.
+
* Tallerman, M. 1997. 'Infinitival clauses in Breton', ''Canadian Journal of Linguistics, Special issue: Topics in Celtic Syntax'', 205-233.
  
  
 
   '''Abstract''':
 
   '''Abstract''':
   "This article proposes an account of Breton infinitival clauses within  
+
   "This article proposes an account of Breton infinitival clauses within a [[generative]] framework, utilizing the "split-Infl" analysis found in much recent work in the [[Principle and Parameters]] model, for instance in the [[Minimalist Program]] as outlined by [[Chomsky (1993)]], [[Chomsky and Lasnik (1993)]].
  a generative framework, utilizing the "split-Infl" analysis found in  
 
  much recent work in the Principle and Parameters model, for instance in  
 
  the Minimalist Program as outlined by Chomsky (1993), Chomsky and Lasnik  
 
  (1993).
 
 
    
 
    
   The goal of the article is to develop an analysis which accounts for the  
+
   The goal of the article is to develop an analysis which accounts for the availability of [[lexical]] subjects in infinitival clauses, and for the position and role of the various functional [[morphemes]] occuring in such clauses.  
  availability of lexical subjects in infinitival clauses, and for the  
 
  position and role of the various functional morphemes occuring in such  
 
  clauses.  
 
 
    
 
    
   Breton, like other Celtic languages, has both infinitival clauses with  
+
   Breton, like other Celtic languages, has both infinitival clauses with lexical subjects and infinitival clauses which are superficially subjectless. Whilst in finite clauses overt subjects are of course expected, their appearance in infinitival clauses is less common cross-linguistically. In the [[Principles and Parameters]] model, all [[lexical]] [[filtre sur le Cas|noun phrases must be licensed by having abstract Case]]. The availability of lexical subjects in finite clauses essentially follows from the fact that they co-occur with a finite verb: the Case licensing of subjects is then associated with finiteness. Since infinitival clauses have no finite verb, their lexical subjects are typically Case-licensed in some other manner.  
  lexical subjects and infinitival clauses which are superficially  
 
  subjectless. Whilst in finite clauses overt subjects are of course  
 
  expected, their appearance in infinitival clauses is less common cross-
 
  linguistically. In the Prinicple and Parameters model, all lexical noun  
 
  phrases must be licensed by having abstract Case. The availability of  
 
  lexical subjects in finite clauses essentially follows from the fact that  
 
  they co-occur with a finite verb: the Case licensing of subjects is then  
 
  associated with finiteness. Since infinitival clauses have no finite verb,  
 
  their lexical subjects are typically Case-licensed in some other manner.
 
 
 
  However, in this article I will argue that the obvert subjects of Breton
 
  infinitival clauses are generally licensed in the same way as the subject
 
  of finite clauses. What makes this possible is that in Breton both finite
 
  and infinitival clauses exhibit subject agreement, and it is this property
 
  which is crucially involved in the Case-licensing of their subjects.
 
 
    
 
    
 +
  However, in this article I will argue that the overt subjects of Breton infinitival clauses are generally licensed in the same way as the subject of finite clauses. What makes this possible is that in Breton both finite and infinitival clauses exhibit subject agreement, and it is this property which is crucially involved in the Case-licensing of their subjects.
 
   [...]
 
   [...]
 
    
 
    
   The article is organized as follows. Section 2 examines in detail the main  
+
   The article is organized as follows. Section 2 examines in detail the main previous analysis of Breton infinitival clauses in a generative framework, that of [[Hendrick (1988)]]. Various problems with this analysis are discussed, utilizing some arguments from [[Stephens (1990)]]. Clauses containing ''[[da]]'' form a major part of the data adduced by both authors. Both analyses treat ''[[da]]'' as a prepositional [[complementizer]], but their views on its role in infinitival clauses differ; an important issue is whether ''da'' is a Case assigner or not. Section 3 proposes an alternative analysis of Breton in which a single I° node is replaced by separate functional projections of T° and AgrS; I argue that the pre-subject ''[[da]]'' heads AgrS, and thus bears agreement, whilst pre-verbal ''da'' is an infinitival marker in T°. Section 4 is the conclusion."
  previous analysis of Breton infinitival clauses in a generative framework,  
 
  that of [[Hendrick (1988)]]. Various problems with this analysis are  
 
  discussed, utiliszing some arguments from [[Stephens (1990)]]. Clauses  
 
  containing ''da'' form a major part of the data adduced by both authors.
 
  Both analyses treat ''da'' as a prepostional complementizer, but their views  
 
  on its role in infinitival clauses differ; an important issue is whether ''da''  
 
  is a Case assigner or not.  
 
  Section 3 proposes an alternative analysis of Breton in which a single I° node  
 
  is replaced by separate functional projections of T° and AgrS; I argue that the  
 
  pre-subject ''da'' heads AgrS, and thus bears agreement, whist pre-verbal ''da''  
 
  is an infinitival marker in T°. Section 4 is the conclusion."
 
  
  
  
 
[[Category:ouvrages de recherche|Categories]]
 
[[Category:ouvrages de recherche|Categories]]

Version actuelle datée du 31 juillet 2021 à 14:03

  • Tallerman, M. 1997. 'Infinitival clauses in Breton', Canadian Journal of Linguistics, Special issue: Topics in Celtic Syntax, 205-233.


 Abstract:
 "This article proposes an account of Breton infinitival clauses within a generative framework, utilizing the "split-Infl" analysis found in much recent work in the Principle and Parameters model, for instance in the Minimalist Program as outlined by Chomsky (1993), Chomsky and Lasnik (1993).
 
 The goal of the article is to develop an analysis which accounts for the availability of lexical subjects in infinitival clauses, and for the position and role of the various functional morphemes occuring in such clauses. 
 
 Breton, like other Celtic languages, has both infinitival clauses with lexical subjects and infinitival clauses which are superficially subjectless. Whilst in finite clauses overt subjects are of course expected, their appearance in infinitival clauses is less common cross-linguistically. In the Principles and Parameters model, all lexical noun phrases must be licensed by having abstract Case. The availability of lexical subjects in finite clauses essentially follows from the fact that they co-occur with a finite verb: the Case licensing of subjects is then associated with finiteness. Since infinitival clauses have no finite verb, their lexical subjects are typically Case-licensed in some other manner. 
 
 However, in this article I will argue that the overt subjects of Breton infinitival clauses are generally licensed in the same way as the subject of finite clauses. What makes this possible is that in Breton both finite and infinitival clauses exhibit subject agreement, and it is this property which is crucially involved in the Case-licensing of their subjects.
 [...]
 
 The article is organized as follows. Section 2 examines in detail the main previous analysis of Breton infinitival clauses in a generative framework, that of Hendrick (1988). Various problems with this analysis are discussed, utilizing some arguments from Stephens (1990). Clauses containing da form a major part of the data adduced by both authors. Both analyses treat da as a prepositional complementizer, but their views on its role in infinitival clauses differ; an important issue is whether da is a Case assigner or not. Section 3 proposes an alternative analysis of Breton in which a single I° node is replaced by separate functional projections of T° and AgrS; I argue that the pre-subject da heads AgrS, and thus bears agreement, whilst pre-verbal da is an infinitival marker in T°. Section 4 is the conclusion."