It is asserted in this paper that the EPP should be overtly satisfied in narrow syntax, in advance to sluicing. In a variety of West Germanic dialects--especially in Dutch, complementizer agreement (CA) and/or subject clitic (SC) (optionally) appear on the complementizer of embedded clauses. Arguing against Craenenbroeck (2004)"s idea that a subject, violating the EPP, is in its base position in Dutch sluicing construction, I claim that the absence of CA and SC endings in Dutch wh-sluices results from the blockage of the "phonological" movement in Zwart (2001)"s sense. The reason why ？-features of T are never manifested on C in sluicing construction is that sluicing itself bleeds the phonological counterpart of syntactic T-to-C movement. Then, what is redeemed in this construction is not EPP violation but non-application of phonological movement.
영어 초록<BR>1. Introduction<BR>2. What is repaired by ellipsis?<BR>3. A subject-in-situ analysis of Dutch sluicing construction4<BR>4. Arguments against EPP-neglecting analyses<BR>5. Conclusion<BR>References<BR>저자소개<BR>
(0)
(0)