영어의 S 이동에 관하여

Abstract

지배-결속이론(=GB)에서는 ??가 격(Case)을 받지 않으며 그때문에 ??는 이동하지 않는다. ??의 이동이 허용되지도 않고, 격도 지니지 않는다는 이러한 가정으로 인하여 생기는 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 ??도 격을 지닌다는 새로운 가설이 제시된 바 있다. 그러나 이 가설도 몇가지 심각한 문제를 안고 있다.

본 논문에서는 GB의 문제점과 ??의 격표시 가설이 지니는 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 주어의 의무성(obligatory presence of subject)이란 원칙-즉 S→NP INFL VP-을 이용하여 ??의 이동현상을 격이론과 별개의 현상으로 독립시키므로서 simple하고도 GB 이론체계에 좀더 충실한 대안을 제시하였고, 결론 부분에서는 ?? 이동과 관련하여 GB 이론이 안고있는 문제점을 지적하였다.

According to the theory of Case presented in GB, only NPs are Case-marked. ??s do not undergo movements to be Case-marked. Faced with some problems, which cannot be accounted for by such an assumption, Li(1982) and Koh(1983) argue that Case should be assigned to ?? as well as Nps. This argument, however, creates some serious problems in the GB-framework. In this paper, it is argued that ?? movements can be explained in terms of an independently motivated parameter of UG, i.e., the obligatory presence of subject in English. S→NP INEL VP. This approach seems to be better than those presented in Li(1982) and Koh(1983). This paper also points out a problem in the GB-framework, which is related with the ?? movement and subject sentences.

According to the theory of Case presented in GB, only NPs are Case-marked. ??s do not undergo movements to be Case-marked. Faced with some problems, which cannot be accounted for by such an assumption, Li(1982) and Koh(1983) argue that Case should be assigned to ?? as well as Nps. This argument, however, creates some serious problems in the GB-framework. In this paper, it is argued that ?? movements can be explained in terms of an independently motivated parameter of UG, i.e., the obligatory presence of subject in English. S→NP INEL VP. This approach seems to be better than those presented in Li(1982) and Koh(1983). This paper also points out a problem in the GB-framework, which is related with the ?? movement and subject sentences.