Long -distance binding in the feature -movement framework with reference to Russian.
Item
-
Title
-
Long -distance binding in the feature -movement framework with reference to Russian.
-
Identifier
-
AAI9969727
-
identifier
-
9969727
-
Creator
-
Rudnitskaya, Elena Leonidonna.
-
Contributor
-
Adviser: Robert W. Fiengo
-
Date
-
2000
-
Language
-
English
-
Publisher
-
City University of New York.
-
Subject
-
Language, Linguistics | Language, Modern
-
Abstract
-
The account of long-distance binding in Russian in this work is not logophoric but syntactic. It is based on the head movement framework, but I modify this framework and implement it in the Minimalist framework. I consider reflexive movement as [+R] feature movement: the [+R] feature of the reflexive moves to the T whose specifier is the reflexive's antecedent. Following the head movement approach and based on the derivation by phase approach, I have assumed that the [+R] reflexive feature cannot skip any C head on its way to the antecedent T, whereas its movement is otherwise unbounded. I have also assumed that this feature cannot adjoin directly to C if another feature is already adjoined to C. If C has an interpretable feature, [+R] cannot excorporate from C because it is too deeply embedded under this interpretable feature, and reflexive movement is blocked. This result shows that the distinction between interpretable and non-interpretable features is important. Cross-linguistically, differences in the distribution of long-distance reflexives imply differences in interpretable feature content of C in various syntactic constructions. My account proves that the [+wh] feature of C is non-interpretable and that the controlled PRO has non-interpretable phi-features. It also implies that Null (=Dative) Case in Russian is checked by an infinitive C but not by T, that is, the [Dat] feature is base-generated in the C head of an infinitive. I have proposed a solution to the problem of complex reflexives and reciprocals (using the Russian sam sebja "self-N sebja-A" as an example). This account attributes the SELF-reflexive properties of sam sebja not to the fact that sam sebja is a complex reflexive (like samogo sebja, which can be long-distance), but to sam sebja's small clausal internal structure in conjunction with the abstract incorporation of the head of this small clause into the matrix T. I have also considered other contexts of binding (adjectival noun modifiers, DP-s, infinitives with a PRO subject and with a wh-word or complementizer). When binding in these contexts is judged as deviant, I propose that non-syntactic (pragmatic or sentence-processing) factors affect the judgments.
-
Type
-
dissertation
-
Source
-
PQT Legacy CUNY.xlsx
-
degree
-
Ph.D.
