Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar

by Hiroyuki Ura

Overview

Ura demonstrates that his theory of multiple feature-checking, an extension of Chomsky's Agr-less checking theory, gives a natural explanation for a wide range of data drawn from a variety of languages in a very consistent way with a limited set of parameters.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780195118391
Publisher:	Oxford University Press
Publication date:	01/06/2000
Series:	Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax
Pages:	336
Product dimensions:	6.10(w) x 9.20(h) x 0.90(d)

About the Author

Osaka University

Table of Contents

	Abbreviations	xvii
1.	Introduction	3
1.1.	Grammatical Function Splitting	5
1.1.1.	Grammatical Functions and Grammatical Relations	5
1.1.2.	Grammatical Function Splitting Phenomena	6
1.2.	A Minimalist Theory of Grammatical Functions	11
1.2.1.	Grammatical Relations/Functions in the PP-approach	11
1.2.2.	A Theory of GFs in the Minimalist Framework	12
1.3.	Theory of Multiple Feature Checking	14
1.3.1.	Minimalist Assumptions	14
1.3.2.	Theory of Multiple Feature Checking	20
1.3.3.	Multiple Feature Checking and GF-Splitting Phenomena	24
1.4.	Preview of Major Proposals	25
1.4.1.	Strong Features and Violability of Procrastinate	25
1.4.2.	Syntactic Mapping of Argument Structure	28
1.4.3.	What is SUBJ/OBJ?	30
1.4.4.	Multiple Specs, Equidistance, and DP-Movement over DP	31
1.4.5.	Optionality	32
1.4.6.	Feature Checking as a Syntactic Operation	35
1.4.7.	Some Parameters	36
1.4.8.	Definition of [[plus or minus] Construable]-Features	38
1.5.	Organization	39
2.	Active/Inverse Voice Alternation	40
2.1.	Bantu Inverse Voice	41
2.1.1.	Basic Properties of Bantu Inverse System	41
2.1.2.	Mechanism of the Active/Inverse Alternation in Bantu	45
2.1.3.	Deriving the Parametric Differences	53
2.1.4.	Summary: Bantu Inverse Voice	54
2.2.	Apachean Inverse Voice	55
2.2.1.	Basic Properties of Apachean Inverse System	55
2.2.2.	Mechanism of the Active/Inverse Alternation in Apachean	58
2.2.3.	Animacy Hierarchy and the Deletion of Infl's EPP-feature	60
2.2.4.	Subjecthood of SUBJ in Navajo Inverse Voice	62
2.3.	Summary	63
Appendix A	English Quotative Inversion	64
Appendix B	Inversion and Local Economy	68
3.	Anti-Impersonal Passives	70
3.1.	Anti-Impersonal Passive in Lango	71
3.1.1.	Basic Properties of "Long Object Shift" in Lango	71
3.1.2.	Wither Does OBJ Go by LOS?	74
3.1.3.	Derivation of Anti-Impersonal Passive in Lango	79
3.1.4.	Grammatical Function Splitting by LOS	82
3.1.5.	Summary for Lango Anti-Impersonal Passive	83
3.2.	Anti-Impersonal Passive in Imbabura Quechua	83
3.2.1.	Basic Properties of Imbabura Quechua Passive	83
3.2.2.	Grammatical Function Splitting	86
3.2.3.	Explanation	87
3.2.4.	Parametric Variations	91
3.2.5.	Summary for Imbabura Quechua Anti-Impersonal Passive	92
3.3.	Summary	93
Appendix	A Very Short Note on Impersonal Passives	93
4.	Dative Subject Constructions	95
4.1.	Japanese (and Korean)	96
4.1.1.	Basic Facts	96
4.1.2.	Proposals	103
4.1.3.	Analysis	104
4.1.4.	Explanation	105
4.1.5.	Supporting Evidence	112
4.1.6.	Summary and Problems	116
4.2.	Tamil	117
4.2.1.	DAT-ACC Pattern	117
4.2.2.	DAT-NOM Pattern	120
4.2.3.	Analysis	121
4.2.4.	Evidence for the Difference between Dat-Acc and Dat-Nom	124
4.2.5.	Summary and Dative Subjects in Kannada	125
4.3.	Icelandic	126
4.3.1.	Data	126
4.3.2.	Analysis	129
4.3.3.	Passive and Dative Subjects in Germanic	133
4.3.4.	Experiencer and Inversion in Dutch	139
4.4.	Theoretical Implications of DOC	141
4.4.1.	Inversion in Germanic and Local Economy	141
4.4.2.	Icelandic and Bantu Inverse	142
4.5.	Summary	145
Appendix A	Old English and Historical Change	146
Appendix B	DSCs (QSCs) in Other Languages	149
1.	Russian and Polish	149
2.	Hindi (and Other Indo-Aryan)	151
3.	Italian (and Spanish)	151
4.	Accusative Subjects in Quechua	152
5.	Georgian	154
5.	Locative Inversion	156
5.1.	Bantu Locative Inversion	156
5.1.1.	Basic Facts	156
5.1.2.	Explanation	160
5.1.3.	GF-Splitting by Bantu Locative Inversion	164
5.1.4.	Deriving the Parametric Variation	165
5.1.5.	Lexical/Syntactic Restriction on Locative Inversion	165
5.1.6.	Implications	167
5.2.	Locative Inversion in Japanese	171
5.2.1.	Basic Facts	171
5.2.2.	Deriving Japanese Locative Inversion	174
5.2.3.	Supporting Evidence	177
5.3.	Summary	179
6.	Ergativity and Its Typological Variation	180
6.1.	Introduction: Ergativity	181
6.1.1.	Morphological Ergativity	181
6.1.2.	Syntactic Ergativity	183
6.1.3.	Split-Ergativity	187
6.2.	Problems of Ergativity	191
6.2.1.	Problems of Morphological Ergativity	192
6.2.2.	Problems of Syntactic/Shallow Ergativity	194
6.2.3.	Problems of Split-Ergativity	195
6.2.4.	Ergativity and GF-Splitting	196
6.2.5.	Prospect under the Theory of Multiple Feature Checking	197
6.3.	Approaches to Ergativity	198
6.3.1.	Marantz (1981, 1984) and B. Levin (1983)	198
6.3.2.	Other Pre-Minimalist Approaches	199
6.3.3.	Two Minimalist Approaches	200
6.4.	Theory of Ergativity and Multiple Feature Checking	205
6.4.1.	Parameter for the Ergative/Accusative Distinction	206
6.4.2.	Typological Varieties of Ergative Languages	207
6.4.3.	Intransitives and Case-Marking of SUBJ(I)	220
6.4.4.	Anti-Passive	224
6.4.5.	Nonexistence of Anti-Passive in Accusative Languages	228
6.5.	Summary	228
7.	Double Object Constructions	230
7.1.	Larsonian VP-Shell in Agr-Based Case Theory	230
7.2.	Underlying Structure for DOC	232
7.3.	Deriving Typological/Dialectal Differences in DOC	234
7.3.1.	Norwegian/Swedish vs. Danish	235
7.3.2.	British vs. American English	244
7.3.3.	Explanation of the Crosslinguistic Generalization	249
7.4.	Summary	249
Appendix	Typological Variety of DOC	250
8.	Object Shift in Japanese	255
8.1.	Word Order in Japanese Ditransitive Clauses	256
8.2.	Object Shift in Ditransitive Clauses	258
8.2.1.	Object Shift to an A-Position	258
8.2.2.	Whither Is the Object Shifted?	259
8.2.3.	Optionality of Object Shift and Violability of Procrastinate	268
8.2.4.	Passivizability of DO and Violability of Procrastinate	271
8.3.	Object Shift out of Desiderative Complements	272
8.3.1.	Desiderative Complement in Japanese	272
8.3.2.	Violability of Procrastinate	275
8.4.	Object Shift in Transitive Clauses	276
8.4.1.	Impossibility of Object Shift in Transitive Clauses	276
8.4.2.	Lexical Difference in Violability of Procrastinate	280
8.5.	Summary	280
Appendix	Optional vs. Obligatory Object Shift	281
9.	Conclusion and Further Issues	283
	References	287
	Index	311

Editorial Reviews

"Much recent work on linguistic form and meaning has been guided by the idea that the computational system of natural language is essentially invariant, even rather simple, and that the apparent variety of expressions in typologically different languages reduces largely to small modifications in the morphological component of the system. Ura's theory of multiple feature-checking develops the basic idea in original and highly productive ways, providing persuasive answers to difficult questions that arise in widely-ranging languages, and opening up new and challenging problems. It is an impressive achievement, which merits careful study."—Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

From the Publisher