The Movement of Non-Focused Relative Clauses

Youngkook Kim 경희대학교 언어정보연구소 2010 언어연구 Vol.27 No.2

The relative clauses are base-generated within the scope of determiner, namely, [Spec,AgrP] and the non-focused (nonrestrictive) relative clauses further move out of the scope of determiner (pre-determiner position), or [Spec,DP] to receive a proper interpretation. The restrictive relative clauses remain in their original position without any movement in syntax or at LF, irrespectively of whether they are Korean or English. On the other hand, the movement of non-focused relative clauses occurs syntactically in Korean and it happens in LF in English. The restrictive relative clauses check their focus feature in [Spec,AgrP], or inside of the scope of determiner, and the non-focused (nonrestrictive) relative clauses check their non-focus (TOPIC) feature in [Spec,DP], regardless of whether they are English or Korean. The difference between English and Korean is whether the non-focused (non-restrictive) relative clauses check their features in syntax or at LF. The non-focused (non-restrictive) relative clause in Korean checks in syntax while in English at LF.

The Movement of Non-Focused Relative Clauses

김영국 경희대학교 언어정보연구소 2010 언어연구 Vol.27 No.2

The relative clauses are base-generated within the scope of determiner, namely, [Spec,AgrP] and the non-focused (nonrestrictive) relative clauses further move out of the scope of determiner (pre-determiner position), or [Spec,DP] to receive a proper interpretation. The restrictive relative clauses remain in their original position without any movement in syntax or at LF, irrespectively of whether they are Korean or English. On the other hand, the movement of non-focused relative clauses occurs syntactically in Korean and it happens in LF in English. The restrictive relative clauses check their focus feature in [Spec,AgrP], or inside of the scope of determiner, and the non-focused (nonrestrictive) relative clauses check their non-focus (TOPIC) feature in [Spec,DP], regardless of whether they are English or Korean. The difference between English and Korean is whether the non-focused (non-restrictive) relative clauses check their features in syntax or at LF. The non-focused (non-restrictive) relative clause in Korean checks in syntax while in English at LF.

The Use of Non-restrictive Relative Clauses by Korean EFL Learners

Kang, Seung-Man(강승만) 새한영어영문학회 2015 새한영어영문학 Vol.57 No.4

English allows a variety of modes of modification by simple words, phrases, or clauses by placing modifying elements before or after the noun. On the contrary, Korean allows such modifying elements to appear only before the noun. If the modifying elements appear before the noun, this mode is called ‘attributive’ modification. On the contrary, if they appear after the noun, it is called ‘descriptive’ modification. As only attributive modification is allowed in Korean, it is highly expected that Korean EFL learners will have a hard time dealing with relative clauses, restrictive or non-restrictive, which modify their head noun in a descriptive way. Centering around non-restrictive relative clauses, this paper examines some grammatical properties of modification in English and delves into Korean EFL learners’ behavioral aspects of using them in their writing. For discussion, I conducted a survey among 31 Korean EFL learners and 10 native speakers of English. The findings of the survey reveal that Korean EFL learners employ a variety of strategies for connecting the matrix clause with the subsequent clause by means of relativization, restrictive or non-restrictive, coordination, subordination, and so on. I argue that they all result from a cross-linguistic difference between the two languages in terms of the mode of modification.

The Use of Non-restrictive Relative Clauses by Korean EFL Learners

강승만 새한영어영문학회 2015 새한영어영문학 Vol.57 No.4

English allows a variety of modes of modification by simple words, phrases, or clauses by placing modifying elements before or after the noun. On the contrary, Korean allows such modifying elements to appear only before the noun. If the modifying elements appear before the noun, this mode is called ‘attributive’ modification. On the contrary, if they appear after the noun, it is called ‘descriptive’ modification. As only attributive modification is allowed in Korean, it is highly expected that Korean EFL learners will have a hard time dealing with relative clauses, restrictive or non-restrictive, which modify their head noun in a descriptive way. Centering around non-restrictive relative clauses, this paper examines some grammatical properties of modification in English and delves into Korean EFL learners’ behavioral aspects of using them in their writing. For discussion, I conducted a survey among 31 Korean EFL learners and 10 native speakers of English. The findings of the survey reveal that Korean EFL learners employ a variety of strategies for connecting the matrix clause with the subsequent clause by means of relativization, restrictive or non-restrictive, coordination, subordination, and so on. I argue that they all result from a cross-linguistic difference between the two languages in terms of the mode of modification.

Uses and Roles of the Relative Pronouns

이윤진,강문구 사단법인 미래융합기술연구학회 2021 아시아태평양융합연구교류논문지 Vol.7 No.10

This study analyzes English relative pronouns grammatically and explores the teachings methods through which Korean learners can easily understand the meaning and usage of English relative pronouns that do not exist in their native language. In Chapters 2 and 3, this study refers to the thoughts of past scholars and lists the definition and types of the relative pronoun to analyze its characteristics. The common definition is that the relative pronoun serves as both the pronoun and the conjunction. Types of relative pronouns include common relative pronouns, compound relative pronouns, and pseudo-relative pronouns. To study the use of the relative clause containing the relative pronoun, the researchers consider the usage of relative clauses, restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, and examine their differences. There is a semantic and structural difference between the two usages, so one should choose to employ one or the other according to the text. Furthermore, this study presents effective teaching methods for relative pronouns that can help motivate student interest from an educational aspect. In conclusion, the instructor should explain the grammatical knowledge about the relative pronoun and the relative clause, and then have students in pairs or groups practice the sentences and notice their weaknesses, so that the grammar is internalized within them.

한국어 내핵 관계절의 존재에 대한 증거와 비증거

류병래 한국언어정보학회 2022 언어와 정보 Vol.26 No.2

This paper reviews and critically discusses some widely believed but not entirely evidenced arguments for the so-called Internally-Headed Relative Clauses (IHRCs) in Korean. We deal with two highly controversial issues: the definition issue and the validation issue of the most believed grammatical peculiarities of IHRCs in Korean. We first deal with the previous attempts to define IHRCs in Korean, showing that they fail to differentiate IHRCs from other relative clauses. Furthermore, we show that, contrary to the definition of the relative clauses, IHRCs are neither subordinate clauses nor nominalized sentences in Korean. In addition, we show that the overtness of the pivot element cannot be maintained. We then critically discuss the issue of whether the mostly assumed grammatical peculiarities of the Korean IHRCs get empirically supported by a set of new data. Finally, we dispute widely assumed properties of IHRCs in Korean such as gaplessness, unbounded dependencies, the identity of truth-conditional meaning between IHRCs and Externally-Headed Relative Clauses (EHRCs), and non-restrictive interpretation with maximality effects.

On the Nature of Wh-word in English Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses

홍성심,이재근 한국영어학회 2016 영어학 Vol.16 No.3

Sungshim Hong and Jaekeun Lee. 2016. On the nature of Wh-word in English Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 16-3, 623-648. This paper raises a question on exactly what the nature of Wh-word in English Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses (NRRCs) is, as opposed to that in Restrictive Relative Clauses (RRCs). Other than being equipped with a Wh-element in common, there exist overwhelming asymmetries between English RRCs and NRRCs. Based on the generalizations and disparities between RRCs and NRRCs brought forward in the literature (Quirk, et. al. 1972, 1985, Borsley 1992, Kayne 1994, Borsley 1997, McCawley, 1998, Lobeck, 2000, De Vries 2002, 2006, Aoun & Li 2003, Authier & Reed 2005, Arnold & Borsley 2008) this paper examines the nature of Wh-word in English NRRCs, which has long been neglected in the generative syntax field. We argue that the Wh-word heading NRRCs is not a Wh-Operator since it shows no signature properties of (linguistic) operators; no WCO effect, no Reconstruction effect, no quantificational properties (Aoun & Li 2003, Authier & Reed 2005), whereas the Wh-word in RRC is. The formal features of the Wh-phrase in NRRC are lacking (Law 2000), so that it is argued here to be a deficient Wh-exp, or Wh-expletive with the minimal features. All in all, we argue that the Wh-word heading NRRC is not Wh-operator and the construction is a relative in disguise.

아동의 관형절 구성 능력 발달 연구

이필영 국어교육학회(since1969) 2009 국어교육연구 Vol.45 No.-

This study aims to investigte the development of the ability of the infants in the period from 23-months-old to 43-months-old to construct the relative clause and the noun complement through the materials made of their free speech. In this period their ability to use such construction develop steadily, and the most frequent head noun is 'keos(것)'. In case of the relative clause, the restrictive clauses go ahead of the non-restrictive clauses in the frequency and the time of their uses. And the subjecthood of the head noun is learned earlier than the objecthood or adverbhood. The adjective predicate is also earlier-learned compared to the verb predicate in the relative clause construction. The predicate ‘keos(-i-)' is most frequently used among the complement nouns. The acquisition time of ‘(-eul) keos(-i-)' is different from that of ‘(-eun/neun) keos(-i-)'. ‘(-eul) keos(-i-)' that express the intent of the 1st person subject is learned earlier than the one that express the guess of the speaker.

관계문장의 의사소통 기능적 특성- 비한정적 관계문장의 유형 분석

김백기 ( Paig Ki Kim ) 한국외국어대학교 언어연구소 2009 언어와 언어학 Vol.0 No.44

This paper observed the relative clauses in German in respect to their functional characters and attempted to analyse the “non-restriktive” relative clauses. In particular, this paper focused on the relation between the relative clause and the main clause, as well as the relation between the relative clause and the context. German grammarians have paid attention to the relative clauses which are treated in isolated sentences. Nevertheless, not many studies have been done on the relative clauses in the contextual level. This paper aims to fill this gap. This study argues that relative clauses should be defined as a pragmatical linguistic work. This approach could also be applied to foreign language education and German text translation.

비제한적 관계절로서의 영어 It-분열문

이재근(),홍성심() 한국생성문법학회 2018 생성문법연구 Vol.28 No.3

Lee, Jaekeun and Hong, Sungshim. 2018. English It-Clefts as non-Restrictive Relative Clauses. Studies in Generative Grammar, 28-3, 389-410. The current paper examines the English It-Cleft constructions and argues that this construction consists of a referential pronoun ‘it’ rather than an expletive ‘it’ (Hedberg 2000, Reeve 2007, 2011, 2012), and the cleft clause in it-clefts is a non-restrictive relative clauses, contra Hedberg (2000), Reeve (2011), and many others. The referential component of it-clefts is a copula construction in the form of ‘It...copula...[ FocP XP [ RC who/that...]’. The non-restrictive relative clause part, which is the cleft clause, CP, headed by a Wh-word, merged with the Head of the clefted constituent or the Focus. To that end, we show the close relationship and symmetry between cleft clauses in it-clefts and non-restrictive relative clauses. Therefore, this is a strictly derivational approach to English it-clefts, which utilizes the operational mechanism such as the Sideward Movement (Nunes and Hornstein 2005, Hornstein 2009)