Earticle

Of the core syntactic relations in UG, nothing is more gregarious than c-command. It plays a key role in at least three different domains: binding, linearization and movement. However, in terms of the Minimalist Program, it is desirable for c- command to be eliminated from linguistic theory. This paper explores the syntactic properties of c-command in the phenomena of binding, linearization and movement. I argue some advantages of the analysis without recourse to the c-command relation and examine their problems. The proposal of this study is to discuss the possibility of eliminating the c-command relation in each case

The purpose of this paper is to claim that there is little reason to think that control is a special phenomenon of movement. The approaches advocated by Hornstein(1999, 2001) and Chomsky(2000, 2001) have a certain appeal, but they are not without serious problems. Hornstein’s movement analysis of control constructions overgenerates ungrammatical sentences and has theory-internal problems. His “control as movement” approach presents no obvious way to block the incorrect outputs of control. Chomsky’s analysis of control structure as a consequence of the syntactic operation “Agree” also has some conceptual problems based on the movement analysis of PRO, which assumes that after PRO agrees with control T, PRO moves to the Spec of TP to meet the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) and then PRO is assigned with the null Case. The argument against the PRO-movement analyses is based on the empirical evidence from the behavior of floating quantifier all (Baltin(1995)), and conceptual consideration that the EPP is a phonological requirement (Lasnik(1999)). They are discussed to show the evidence that PRO does not move to the subject position of control T which does not allow the EPP-feature unlike other finite clauses and that PRO agrees in the base-generated position in order for its derivation to be converged.

Ha, Seungwan. 2012. A Sideward Movement Analysis of Transparent Free Relatives. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 37-3, 737-756. This paper is concerned with syntactic derivations of Transparent Free Relatives (TFRs). We first reviewed the two previous analyses: PF-deletion and Multiple Dominance (MD), but found conceptual and empirical problems. The deletion analysis suffers from a conceptual problem, in that PF-deletion is considered optional but forced in TFRs. The MD account fails to account for empirical facts centering around NPI-licensing. We propose an alternative that TFRs involve sideward movement. The TFR predicate is copied from the relative clause and merged to the main clause. As derivation proceeds, the TFR is adjoined to the head noun in the main clause. The copies of the TFR predicate are in a c-command relation, forming chain. Since non-distinct copies would induce a violation of the irreflexivity condition on linear order, one of the copies must delete by Chain Reduction. Sideward movement also resolves the intervention effect in NPI-licensing which poses a serious challenge to the MD account. (Kyungpook National University)

This paper aims to explore the properties of raising constructions with an experiencer argument and to provide appropriate analysis for them. In this paper, we have proposed a novel analysis of Spanish raising constructions with an experiencer argument. Specifically, based on the analyses of experiencer pro proposed by Torrego(2002), we have proposed that the Spanish raising verb [v*-parecer] licences a null experiencer argument pro in its Specifier position, and that when the subject argument moves to the outer-Spec of v*P, it crosses the pro of Spec-v*P, resulting in a violation of the Minimal Link Condition(MLC). On the other hand, in order to explain the so-called 'experiencer paradox', which appears in the English raising construction, we have argued that a multidominant structure can be applied to this construction(cf. Citko 2005, 2011; Wilder 1999, 2008; Gracanin-Yuksek 2007, 2012; Johnson 2009; de Vries 2009, 2012; You 2016, etc.).