러시아어 무인칭 구문(impersonal constructions)의 통사적 구조에 대한 재고찰: A Minimalist Approach

초록

This paper investigates the syntactic structure of impersonal constructions, i.e., absolute, dative, and accusative impersonal sentences, on the basis of the assumption that there is a null expletive subject phonologically invisible on the specifier of TP. This approach is in contrast to the Russian tradition disapproving of a covert syntactic subject in nominative. This research is based on Burzio’s Generalization that a verb (with an object) case-marks its object if and only if it theta-marks its subject. In accusative impersonal sentences, like in personal sentences, the light verb little v possesses a full set of phi-features and T is not a defective functional category, which has EP (Extended Projection Principle), [nom] case, and uninterpretable [utense:] features. Being a functional category responsible for tense, nominative case, and EP, T serves for syntactic derivation as Probe, which searches for its Goal with nominal features. This mechanism is called “Agree”, in which interpretable and uninterpretable features are shared reciprocally and valued among them. The reason why a subject on the specifier of TP in impersonal sentences does not spell out phonologically overtly is that it does not satisfy the Visibility Condition that case [case:] and referentiality [+/-Ref] features must be marked in order to be visible for an argument. In the case of Russian accusative impersonal sentences, these two requirements of [nom] and [-Ref] features prevent arguments from spelling out overtly. With regard to the position of a subject, the initial merge of a subject occurs on the specifier of VP and later moves up to the specifier of vP to receive a theta-role of [agent] or stay in the initial position without move (in-situ). Russian accusative impersonal sentences are different from unaccusative sentences in that the latter have a nominative subject, which originates from an internal complement within VP, while the former have a nominative subject, which cannot spell out phonologically due to the failure to satisfy the Visibility Condition. The lack of a nominative subject triggers the use of default agreement for Subject-Predicate Agreement. Default agreement is the last resort to solve non-agreeing cases between subjects and predicates. Default agreement is one of the two types of formal agreement: one is grammatical agreement [+AGR/+Ref] and default agreement [+AGR/-Ref]. Semantic agreement [-AGR] occurs due to semantic factors between an agreement controller and an agreement target. Furthermore, accusative impersonal verbs cannot form their own participles or gerunds. However, Covert null expletive subjects in impersonal verbs can serve as a controller of gerunds used in a subordinate clause. The use of gerunds entails the existence of their controllers in the matrix clause, since gerunds can be used only when subjects in gerundive clauses are the same as those of main clauses. The controllability over gerunds firmly supports the assumption that there is a phonologically covert null expletive subject in nominative.

키워드