Przypadek i czas a finitywne zdania argumentowe w języku polskim

W artykule omówiona jest analiza przedstawiona przez Davida Pesetsky'ego i Esther Torrego w serii artykułów traktujących o związku przypadka z czasem w świetle danych z języka polskiego. Zastosowanie analizy wspomnianych autorów do języka polskiego wykazuje, że omawiane przez autorów kwestie są znacznie bardziej skomplikowane w języku polskim niż w języku angielskim i że rozszerzenie tej analizy o dane z języka polskiego wymagałoby modyfikacji mających wpływ na całokształt ich analizy. Występujące w języku polskim: asymetria dotycząca obecności bądź pominięcia zaimka to w zdaniach argumentowych (mianowicie jego obligatoryjna obecność w pozycji podmiotu czy po przyimku, a opcjonalne występowanie w pozycji dopełnienia czasownika), możliwość ekstrakcji podmiotu zdania podrzędnego w obecności że (czyli leksykalnego komplementyzera), większa dowolność dystrybucyjna argumentów zdaniowych, a także możliwość posiadania dopełnień rzeczownikowych przez przymiotniki i rzeczowniki, wskazują na to, że język polski systematycznie różni się od angielskiego. Choć analiza Pesetsky'ego i Torrego nie jest w swojej obecnej formie w stanie wyjaśnić wszystkich kwestii dotyczących wyżej wymienionych zjawisk, jest ona na tyle spójna, a zarazem atrakcyjna w swoim redukcyjnym podejściu, że warto podjąć się jej modyfikacji aby w rezultacie z powodzeniem można ją było odnieść do wszystkich języków, włączając język polski. W artykule tym podjęta jest więc próba wykazania, że analiza tego typu może być zastosowana do języka polskiego pod warunkiem, że wprowadzone zostaną pewne modyfikacje. Dodatkowo, wykazane zostanie, że niektóre z różnic pomiędzy językami angielskim i polskim są tylko powierzchowne, inne zaś wynikają z głębszych różnic dotyczących składni danego języka.In this paper I discuss Polish data in view of Pesetsky and Torrego's (2001, 2004, 2007) proposals. The data suggest that the issues are more complex than they appear in English, and that extending the analysis to Polish would require modifications shedding light on the entire proposal. The Polish to-omission asymmetry, the missing that-t effect, distribution of CP arguments, as well as complementation possibilities of nouns and adjectives will be discussed in detail. It will be argued that $\phi$-features must play a role in Agree relations with the Tns probes, contrary to the recent proposals made by the authors

Subjecthood of Quirky Subjects and GF-Split

In this paper we show that most of the adduced intuitions about subjects and subjecthood are true for Nominative subjects and depend exactly on this Case, i.e. a subject is bound to have all, or most, of the subject properties only when it stands in Nominative. The problems with subjecthood properties arise, however, once the potential subject does not bear this apparently special Case, but is inherently Dative or Accusative, i.e. "Quirky". We argue that Quirky Subjects undeniably bear subjecthood and we support this view with relevant data. We also propose parameter settings for the analysed languages and eventually a definition of subject based on Ura's (2000) analysis of Grammatical Function Split phenomena (hence GF-Split)

Case, tense and finite clausal arguments in Polish

In this paper I discuss Polish data in view of Pesetsky and Torrego’s (2001, 2004, 2007) proposals. The data suggest that the issues are more complex than they appear in English, and that extending the analysis to Polish would require modifications shedding light on the entire proposal. The Polish to-omission asymmetry, the missing that-t effect, distribution of CP arguments, as well as complementation possibilities of nouns and adjectives will be discussed in detail. It will be argued that φ-features must play a role in Agree relations with the Tns probes, contrary to the recent proposals made by the authors

The Minimal Revolution

The earliest work on minimalism presenting its most general ideas and assumptions is Chomsky’s (1993) paper entitled “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory” (MPLT). As Chomsky puts it, the paper is just a sketch of the program. Careful analyses of certain problematic areas faced by the previous forms of the generative framework the Government and Binding Theory (in Lectures on Government and Binding, Chomsky 1981) and the Principles and Parameters Theory (in Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar Chomsky 1991) contributed to the formation of the Minimalist Program. Chomsky points out the most important changes introduced to the generative approach via the Minimalist Program as well as the problematic aspects haunting the theory. The goal of this paper is firstly to present the ideas as they were introduced and developed by Chomsky and others, and, secondly, to provide analyses of their application in a description of concrete linguistic phenomena. Chomsky concludes his MPLT paper naming the leading assumptions constituting the Minimalist Program, quoting Chomsky (1993, in Chomsky 1995: 212): i. A linguistic expression (SD) is a pair (π, λ) generated by an optimal derivation satisfying interface conditions. ii. The interface levels are the only levels of linguistic representation. iii. All conditions express properties of the interface levels, reflecting interpretive requirements. iv. UG provides a unique computational system, with derivations driven by morphological properties to which syntactic variation of languages is restricted. v. Economy can be given a fairly narrow interpretation in terms of FI, length of derivation, length of links, and Greed. All of the above ideas entail reanalysis of a substantial amount of data as well as reformulation of certain rules and conditions. They entail reduction of the levels of syntactic representation provided by the Extended Standard Theory (D-Structure, S-Structure, Logical Form and Phonetic Form) leaving only two of them, namely, the interface levels of Logical Form (LF) and Phonetic Form (PF). Derivations are supposed to satisfy conditions applying only on the aforementioned interface levels, hence conditions previously holding at D-Structure and S-Structure must be reformulated in terms of minimalist assumptions and proved to apply on the remaining interface levels, at LF to be precise. The conditions are restricted to interpretation, namely, only legitimate objects bearing interpretable features are allowed at each of the interface levels. The convergence principle requiring legitimate objects on the interface levels is referred to as Full Interpretation. Any object entering LF or PF equipped with a feature that is uninterpretable on any of the respective levels will cause a crash of a given derivation. Derivations are said to be driven by the need of satisfaction of morphological features, hence any performed movement must satisfy a morphological feature of the moved element (Greed; Chomsky 1993: 266). Economy principles concern both representations and derivations. With respect to representations we apply the aforementioned principle of Full Interpretation (FI), with respect to derivations we will discuss principles such as Shortest Move, Fewest Steps, Procrastinate and Greed. All of these call for a thorough investigation and research. Chomsky’s presentation of the problems along with some of his proposed possible solutions in MPLT paper leave a lot of material for further analyses and justification and it is the goal of this paper to address the problems as fully as possible. The problems will be presented in the following fashion: firstly, we discuss the minimization of the levels of syntactic representation along with the consequences this step entails; secondly, we are going to present the way in which phrase structure within the minimalist framework is built up and show the workings of the computational system both in the overt and covert component; thirdly, we are going to examine the reasons behind movement in syntax and introduce the concept of feature checking (Checking Theory) in minimalism; lastly, we are going to put forward a detailed discussion on economy principles in the Minimalist Program and provide reanalysis of the well-known problematic structures that can now be accounted for by the economy conditions

Recent Minimalist Developments and the Nothion of Subjecthood

The goal of this paper is to define the notion of subjecthood in syntactic terms. We base our assumptions on Ura’s (2000) feature checking theory and his idea of defining Grammatical Relations on that basis. We reanalyse his ideas in terms of Chomskyan (2001) most recent Probe/Goal system. Following Ura (2000), we assume that such standard subject properties as binding a reflexive, controlling a missing subject in a subordinate clause and raising, result from a feature checking relation established with the T head/Probe while checking off the following features of T in the course of the derivation: [EPP], [Φ] and/or [CASE]. We present an analysis of both Nominative and Non-Nominative Subject Constructions in Polish and English (Old and Middle English) and propose parameter settings with respect to subjecthood for both languages. We also propose an analysis of scrambling based on feature checking (as in (Witkoś 2005)) and show that the possibility of scrambling in a given language depends on the availability of an additional [OCC] feature on the functional heads involved, i.e. T, v or Agr. We show how Polish differs from English in this respect. Finally, we propose a definition of subject based exclusively on feature checking