Nem jöttem hínia az igazakat : Az ómagyar anti-egyezetett főnévi igenevekről

Dékány, Éva (2012) Nem jöttem hínia az igazakat : Az ómagyar anti-egyezetett főnévi igenevekről. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, 108. pp. 219-252.

Preview

Text Nem jöttem hínia az igazakat_végleges_formázás.pdf - Published Version Download (345kB) | Preview

Abstract

controlled PRO subject. These infinitives could optionally agree with their subject, anti-agree with it (3SG agreement but non-3SG subject), or show no agreement. I argue that infinitives without agreement contain no agreement features, while agreeing and anti-agreeing ones do so. I propose that Old Hungarian infintives can be optionally strong or weak phases, and the difference in strength correlates with the two agreement types. When the infinitive is a weak phase, PRO can get referene in the canonical position (the specifier of the infinitival TP). Here PRO is probed by T’s agreement features and it values these features, yielding regular agreement. Antiagreement occurs when the infinitive is a strong phase. In this case the phase boundary between the PRO and its controller prevents PRO from getting reference in spec, TP. In order to get reference, PRO either has to move to the edge of the infinitival phase, or it has to get referene in the postsyntactic component. In either case, PRO gets reference when it cannot be probed by T’s agreement features any more. To prevent these features from reaching the interfaces without a value, a default feature-filling mechanism rescues the derivation as a last resort. The analysis supports binding or agreement based theories of control, as opposed to the movement analysis.

Actions (login required)

Edit Item