원문정보
초록
영어
This article addresses erroneous RCs that are semantically equivalent but syntactically ungrammatical due to omission or incompletion of syntactic movement and copy/deletion operations resulted from inconsistent realizations of immature morphosyntactic functional features while L2 syntax is intact. The interpretive rule [Make OP] proposed in Munn (1994) was adopted to analyze the operations in RCs. The presentational amalgam construction, a SUB RC equivalent, was analyzed to be an accidental deletion of the required operator in Spec-CP during the deletion stages. The DO RC with a resumptive pronoun, a DO RC equivalent, occurred by reason of phonological realizations of remnant morphosyntactic features of the variable which were incompletely deleted, but still delivered to Spell-Out. This article attributes both SUB and DO RC equivalents to the immaturity of operator features in Spec-CP. An IO RC equivalent called the NoPrep construction is analyzed as the result of failure to fully realize the functional features of preposition, resulting in the incorporation of the preposition into the verb for remotely licensing the variable. By and large, this article tacitly adopted the position in which the development of syntax is dissociated from the development of morphology (Lardiere, 1998b; Haznedar, 2003; Herschensohn et al., 2005; Lee, 2006), and stressed out that L2 research should investigate the autonomous nature of L2 grammar without respect to the perspectives in target grammar (Bley-Vroman, 1983).
목차
II. Movement, Copy/Deletion, and Predication in English RCs and [Make OP]
III. Relative Clause Equivalents (RCEs)
1. SUB RCE : Presentational Amalgam Construction
2. DO RCE : Resumptive RCs
3. IO RCE : NoPrep Constructional
IV. Concluding Remarks
Works Cited
Abstract