Thematic Relation and Feature-Checking in the Pseudo-Raising Construction
| Jazyk: | japonština |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2008 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | 大阪教育大学紀要. I, 人文科学. 57(1):1-18 |
| ISSN: | 0389-3448 |
| Popis: | いわゆる繰り上げ動詞が,as if等の連結語に導かれる節を選択する場合と,that節を選択する場合とで,異なるふるまいをすることが知られている。that節とは異なり,as if節の場合には,主節の主語に結びつく代名詞が従属節内に現れ,多重の虚辞主語thereの生起を許す。このような違いを生み出すのは,両表現に含まれる主題役割付与であることを確認し,それでも説明できない虚辞の生起の違いを,主節の機能範疇と従属節内の不定名詞句との間の統語的操作に影響する連結語の素性の違いから導く。* So-called raising verbs such as seem, sound, and look can be followed by more than one type of connective. When followed by as if or like, the raising verb requires a pronoun which is coreferential with the matrix subject (e.g. John seems as if he is happy.). Since the pronoun looks as if it were the copy created by raising the subject, this construction is referred to as a pseudo-raising construction (Rooryck (2000)). This construction allows for multiple occurrences of the expletive there, e.g. there seem as if there are problems. By contrast, the corresponding seem that construction does not allow for pseudo-raising, e.g., *John seems that he is happy. Nor does it allow for the doubling of expletives, e.g., *there seem that there are a lot of people outside. In the first half of this paper, I have shown that these differences between the two constructions are partly explainable by taking into consideration the thematic relations involved. The raising verb seem and the as if clause, when combined, can assign a thematic role to the subject position, where an argument is licensed, whereas the combination of seem and a that-clause do not yield a thematic subject position, where only a non-argument expression can be inserted. The thematic relation in the seem as if construction relates to the binding/aboutness relation between the subject and its embedded pronoun. However, this thematic account does not tell us anything about the reason why the multiple expletive construction (MEC) is acceptable only in the seem as if construction. To answer this question, I have claimed toward the end of this paper that as if and like, unlike that, are complementizers lacking features that intervene between a probe (feature-checking head) and its goal (matching features). This analysis, if it is on the right track, can provide an argument in favor of the author's top-down derivation of the MEC. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|