격과 인접조건

With the abandonment of a lexical account for the linear order of complements, many linguists have sought to implicate a syntactic force. one effect this force has in English is to position the nominal complements to verbs before those of other categorial status. there are two aspects to this effect. First, the force involved singles out nominals : its signature is the ability to distinguish NPs from all other phrases. Second, the effect involves reserving the initial position among complements for these nominals. This paper examines the relationship between these two aspects to the problem, and concentrates more particulary on the causes for the second effect the NP First order of complements. That NPs must precede other complements can now be restated as the fact that case-marked positions precede others, and the force involed can be sought in the conditions under which Case is assigned. Pursuing this line of thinking, Stowell(1981) exploits the fact that the first position among the verbal complements in English is also the one closest to the Case-assigning verb and suggests, therefore, that Case is assigned to adjacent positions. This “adjacency condition” on Case assignment in conjunction with the Case Filter guarantees that NPs will precede other complements in English. there are two caveats to this scheme. First there are constructions where a verb appears to have two nominal complements bearing accusative Case, which is unexpected given a Case adjacency condition. Second there are situations where a verb has two NP complements, one in the accusative Case and the other in some other Case. Thus, these constructions encourage viewing the adjacency condition as one certain Cases but not others. It is conventional to restrict the adjacency condition to just structural Cases. But I believe this account for the NP-first arrangement of complements is wrong. Instead, I will suggest that NPs come before other complements because, in the typical situation, they move to a position preceding V’; Thus this paper sketches how this hypothesis resolves the difficulties for the adjacency theory. The remainder of the paper is concerned with finding the cause for the object’s movement.