Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T19:18:31.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minimalisme et variation syntaxique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Juvénal Ndayiragije
Juvénal Ndayiragije*
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues for a very restrictive theory of feature checking whereby only formal features of functional heads need to be checked for convergence. This theory, which enables us to dispense with most of the economy conditions assumed within the minimalist program (Chomsky 1995), is empirically supported by two syntactically and semantically related constructions in Kirundi: the Subject-Object Reversal and the Transitive Expletive Constructions. On parametric grounds, we argue that such constructions derive from the existence in Kirundi of a TP-internal focus projection whose [+focus] feature must be checked for convergence.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article propose une théorie restrictive de vérification des traits selon laquelle seules les catégories fonctionnelles doivent vérifier leurs traits formels pour qu’une dérivation converge. Cette théorie a pour conséquence l’élimination de la plupart des principes d’économie formulés dans le programme minimaliste (Chomsky 1995). Ses motivations empiriques viennent de deux constructions attestées en kirundi et non en français ou en anglais: la construction à inversion Sujet-Objet et la construction impersonnelle transitive. L’existence de ces deux constructions syntaxiquement et sémantiquement reliées est dérivée de l’existence, en kirundi, d’une projection focus interne à TP dont le trait [+focus] doit être vérifié pour qu’il y ait convergence.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 43 , Special Issue 01 1: Grammaire et variation , March 1998 , pp. 65 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références

Bobaljik, Jonathan, et Jonas, Diane. 1996. Subject positions and the role of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195–236.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, sous la dir. Hale, de Kenneth et Keyser, Samuel Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare phrase structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1996. Some observations on economy in generative grammar. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jonas, Diane. 1992. Checking Theory and nominative Case in Icelandic. In Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 1, sous la dir. Kuno, de Susumo et Thrainsson, Hoskuldur, 175–195.Google Scholar
Jonas, Diane, et Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1993. Specs for subjects: The role of TP in Icelandic. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18, sous la dir. Phillips, de Colin, 59–98. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1980. A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kinyalolo, Kasangati. 1991. Syntactic dependencies and the Spec-head agreement hypothesis. These de doctorat, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1988. Variations on a Theme: Existential sentences in Swedish and Icelandic. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax, sous la dir. Fekete, de Denise et Laubitz, Zofia, 168–181. McGill University.Google Scholar
Ndayiragije, Juvénal. 1996. A non-greed-based checking theory: Attract F in Bantu. Communication presentee au Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Rognvaldsson, Eirikiir. 1987. OV word order in Icelandic. Presente au Seventh Biennial Conference of Teachers of Scandinavian Languages in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. University College, London.Google Scholar
Thràinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Thràinsson, Höskuldur. 1991. Comments on the paper by Vickner. In Workshop on verb movement. University of Maryland (College Park).Google Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1995. Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. Thèse de doctorat, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Vickner, Sten. 1991. Verb movement and the licensing of NP-positions in the Germanic languages. Thèse de doctorat, Universite de Geneve.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 1993. Agr-based Case Theory and its interaction with the A-Bar system. Thèse de doctorat, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. 1980. Extraction rules in Icelandic. Thèse de doctorat, Harvard University.Google Scholar