|Budget Amount *help
¥2,300,000 (Direct Cost : ¥2,300,000)
Fiscal Year 1999 : ¥500,000 (Direct Cost : ¥500,000)
Fiscal Year 1998 : ¥500,000 (Direct Cost : ¥500,000)
Fiscal Year 1997 : ¥1,300,000 (Direct Cost : ¥1,300,000)
In this research, I have investigated linguistic phenomena in English which involve auxiliary elements such as tense, modals, negation, and so on, from the viewpoint of syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface. I have also examined the theoretical framework of the Minimalist Program in terms of these interface phenomena. The main claim on the theoretical framework is that c-command, which has been playing significant roles in a variety of subfields of modern generative studies, should be eliminated from linguistic theory. Although some recent studies claim that c-command can be defined derivationally as a consequence of fundamental structure-building processes, my claim is that c-command is not necessary either in syntactic computation or in semantic interpretation even as a derivationally defined notion. If this claim is correct, we can contribute to "minimizing" syntactic theory in a significant way. The investigation of syntax and semantics of tense in terms of the Inclusiveness Condition of the Minimalist Program has revealed that Modal and Perfect always project irrespective of morphological realization of these heads, and that we need Modal Reference Time in addition to Speech Time, Reference Time, and Event Time of the traditional Reichenbachian theory. As for sentence negation in English, I have shown that a distinction should be made between true negative expressions which contain Neg operator and "parasitic" negative expression which contain no Neg operator. What is claimed about modals in English is that they are not lexically ambiguous as traditional analyses claim, but lexically monosemous and uniformly raising predicates in ever reading. I have argued that a variety of observed readings of modals come from the interaction of the core lexical meaning of each modal, pragmatic factors, and two ways of predications.