earticle

영어

In this article we examine Lasnik`s(1992) and Chomsky`s(1993, 1995) analyses of expletive there constructions. On observing there-sentences in terms of Chomsky`s(1995) Attract-Feature theory, our primary concern is whether the expletive there bears only [D] feature or case feature besides [D] feature. We have illustrated that there is an NP that checks [C] and [D] features but not [ø]-features, since it occupies a case position but lacks Agreement features. If there is inserted in Spec of T before Spell-Out, T will have its strong [D] features checked before Spell-out, resulting in PF legitimacy. The expletive there checks the (nominative or accusative) case features against T and FF(V) adjoined to T. But the case feature of expletive there will be checked at LF because it is a weak feature. An associate NP in there constructions must be raised at LF to adjoin to there, in order to check its [ø]-features against T. The NP is correctly predicted to agree with the verb since the FF(V) raises to T to check its [ø]-features as well. Thus the strong [D] features are checked overtly by there, whereas the weak [ø]-features are checked by LF adjunction o there. If the NP fails to raise, it will bear unchecked features at LF. Thus there will be illegitimate objects at LF and the derivation will crash. But we assume that an associate NP has no case. So it is not the case-checking requirement that forces the postverbal NP to be adjoined to there at LF. The case-checking theory does not demand that every NP bears some case. If an NP bears case, the case feature must be checked in an appropriate position by some functional category which has the same case feature. If an NP doesn`t have case, then the case-checking is irrelevant. In short, we claim that the postverbal NP in there-sentences bears no case.