A Bi-clausal Approach to Coordinated Wh-questions in Korean

( Jongil Kwon ) 경남대학교 인문과학연구소 2021 人文論叢 Vol.54 No.-

According to Citko & Gračanin-Yuksek (2013), there are three different structures in a new typology of coordinated wh-questions (CWHQs): mono-clausal, bi-clausal with bulk sharing, and bi-clausal with non-bulk sharing. This paper presents a non-bulk sharing bi-clausal approach to Korean CWHQs, which is a modified version of Citko & Gračanin-Yuksek’s original structure. Our analysis has two strong advantages against the existing studies about wh-in-situ languages (Kasai 2016; Jung 2018, inter alia). First, from a theoretical perspective, it does not need any stipulated syntactic mechanism such as sideward movement or backward ellipsis. Second, from an empirical perspective, it can account for some of the syntactic or semantic puzzles appearing in the previous analyses. The Korean CWHQ structure involves focus movement of each of wh-phrases contained in different vPs. The target position of focus movement is the specifier and complement position of &⁰, a head of &P, which requires focused wh-phrases. This paper argues that a bi-clausal structure is a better option in analyzing Korean CWHQs.

A Resumption Strategy for Gapless Multiple Right Dislocation

Jeong-Shik Lee 서울대학교 언어교육원 2017 語學硏究 Vol.53 No.1

This paper mainly focuses on gapless multiple right dislocation constructions in Korean. Abe (2016) argues against the most popular approach to right dislocation, namely, a bi-clausal analysis incorporating repair by ellipsis strategy. Instead, he argues for a bi-clausal in situ deletion approach based on island insensitivity, intervention effects, and multiple sluicing in Japanese. In this paper, I carefully examine Abe’s arguments, using corresponding Korean examples, and argue that his arguments are not tenable. I even claim that the bi-clausal analysis is not an option. More specifically, I propose that the in situ deletion effects are achieved by another mechanism, which I call phonetic resumption, under the mono-clausal analysis coupled with TP-raising.

A Bi-clausal Account of English "to"-Modal Auxiliary Verbs

( Sung Shim Hong ) 한국언어정보학회 2014 언어와 정보 Vol.18 No.1

This paper proposes a unified structural account of some instances of the English Modals and Semi-auxiliaries. The classification and the syntactic/structural description of the English Modal auxiliary verbs and verb-related elements have long been the center for many proposals in the history of generative syntax. According to van Gelderen (1993) and Lightfoot (2002), it was sometime around 1380 that the Tense-node (T) appeared in the phrasal structures of the English language, and the T-node is under which the English Modal auxiliaries occupy. Closely related is the existing evidence that English Modals were used as main verbs up to the early sixteenth century (Lightfoot 1991, Han 2000). This paper argues for a bi-clausal approach to English Modal auxiliaries with the infinitival particle ‘to’ such as ‘ought to’ ‘used to’ and ‘dare (to)’ ‘need (to)’, etc. and Semi-auxiliaries including ‘be to’ and ‘have to’. More specifically, ‘ought’ in ‘ought to’ constructions, for instance, undergoes V-to-T movement within the matrix clause, just like ‘HAVEAux’ and all instances of ‘BE’, whereas ‘to’ occupies the T position of the embedded complement clause. By proposing the bi-clausal account, Radford’s (2004, 2009) problems can be solved. Further, the historical motivation for the account takes a stance along with Norde (2009) and Brinton & Traugott (2005) in that Radford’s (2004, 2009) syncretization of the two positions of the infinitival particle ‘to’ is no different from the ‘boundary loss’ in the process of Grammariticalization. This line of argument supports Krug’s (2011), and in turn Bolinger’s(1980) generalization on Auxiliaryhood, while providing a novel insight into Head movement of V-to-T in Present Day English.

Remarks on Right Dislocation Construction in Korean : Challenges to bi-clausal analyses

Heejeong Ko 서울대학교 언어교육원 2014 語學硏究 Vol.50 No.2

This paper investigates the syntax and semantics of postverbal elements in so-called Right Dislocation Constructions (RDCs) in Korean. Recently, a growing number of researchers have argued that RDCs in Korean must be analyzed under the assumption that RDCs contain a bi-clausal structure. This paper aims to closely re-examine and evaluate the validity of current bi-clausal analyses. In particular, I discuss three representative approaches couched under bi-clausal analyses: (i) the scram-bling-based analysis, (ii) the pro-predicate based analysis, and (iii) the fragment-based analysis. I show that each of these approaches faces non-trivial challenges. Specifically, I show that the syntax of postverbal elements cannot be equated to either scrambling or a regular fragment answer. An array of intriguing contrasts between RDCs and scrambling, and between RDCs and fragments are presented in this paper. I also present a new set of challenges to the claim that postverbal elements are licensed by a pro-predicate.

A Resumption Strategy for Gapless Multiple Right Dislocation

이정식 서울대학교 언어교육원 2017 語學硏究 Vol.53 No.1

This paper mainly focuses on gapless multiple right dislocation constructions in Korean. Abe (2016) argues against the most popular approach to right dislocation, namely, a bi-clausal analysis incorporating repair by ellipsis strategy. Instead, he argues for a bi-clausal in situ deletion approach based on island insensitivity, intervention effects, and multiple sluicing in Japanese. In this paper, I carefully examine Abe’s arguments, using corresponding Korean examples, and argue that his arguments are not tenable. I even claim that the bi-clausal analysis is not an option. More specifically, I propose that the in situ deletion effects are achieved by another mechanism, which I call phonetic resumption, under the mono-clausal analysis coupled with TP-raising.

A Bi-clausal Account of English 'to'-Modal Auxiliary Verbs

Hong, Sungshim Korean Society for Language and Information 2014 언어와 정보 Vol.18 No.1

This paper proposes a unified structural account of some instances of the English Modals and Semi-auxiliaries. The classification and the syntactic/structural description of the English Modal auxiliary verbs and verb-related elements have long been the center for many proposals in the history of generative syntax. According to van Gelderen (1993) and Lightfoot (2002), it was sometime around 1380 that the Tense-node (T) appeared in the phrasal structures of the English language, and the T-node is under which the English Modal auxiliaries occupy. Closely related is the existing evidence that English Modals were used as main verbs up to the early sixteenth century (Lightfoot 1991, Han 2000). This paper argues for a bi-clausal approach to English Modal auxiliaries with the infinitival particle 'to' such as 'ought to' 'used to' and 'dare (to)' 'need (to)', etc. and Semi-auxiliaries including 'be to' and 'have to'. More specifically, 'ought' in 'ought to' constructions, for instance, undergoes V-to-T movement within the matrix clause, just like 'HAVEAux' and all instances of 'BE', whereas 'to' occupies the T position of the embedded complement clause. By proposing the bi-clausal account, Radford's (2004, 2009) problems can be solved. Further, the historical motivation for the account takes a stance along with Norde (2009) and Brinton & Traugott (2005) in that Radford's (2004, 2009) syncretization of the two positions of the infinitival particle 'to' is no different from the 'boundary loss' in the process of Grammariticalization. This line of argument supports Krug's (2011), and in turn Bolinger's(1980) generalization on Auxiliaryhood, while providing a novel insight into Head movement of V-to-T in Present Day English.

A Bi-clausal Account of English `to'-Modal Auxiliary Verbs

홍성심 한국언어정보학회 2014 언어와 정보 Vol.18 No.1

This paper proposes a unified structural account of some instances of the English Modals and Semi-auxiliaries. The classification and the syntactic/structural description of the English Modal auxiliary verbs and verb-related elements have long been the center for many proposals in the history of generative syntax. According to van Gelderen (1993) and Lightfoot (2002), it was sometime around 1380 that the Tense-node (T) appeared in the phrasal structures of the English language, and the T-node is under which the English Modal auxiliaries occupy. Closely related is the existing evidence that English Modals were used as main verbs up to the early sixteenth century (Lightfoot 1991, Han 2000). This paper argues for a bi-clausal approach to English Modal auxiliaries with the infinitival particle ‘to’ such as ‘ought to’ ‘used to’ and ‘dare (to)’ ‘need (to)’, etc. and Semi-auxiliaries including ‘be to’ and ‘have to’. More specifically, ‘ought’ in ‘ought to’ constructions, for instance, undergoes V-to-T movement within the matrix clause, just like ‘HAVEAux’ and all instances of ‘BE’, whereas ‘to’ occupies the T position of the embedded complement clause. By proposing the bi-clausal account, Radford’s (2004, 2009) problems can be solved. Further, the historical motivation for the account takes a stance along with Norde (2009) and Brinton & Traugott (2005) in that Radford’s (2004, 2009) syncretization of the two positions of the infinitival particle ‘to’ is no different from the ‘boundary loss’ in the process of Grammariticalization. This line of argument supports Krug’s (2011), and in turn Bolinger’s(1980) generalization on Auxiliaryhood, while providing a novel insight into Head movement of V-to-T in Present Day English.

Remarks on Right Dislocation Construction in Korean: Challenges to bi-clausal analyses

고희정 서울대학교 언어교육원 2014 語學硏究 Vol.50 No.2

This paper investigates the syntax and semantics of postverbal elementsin so-called Right Dislocation Constructions (RDCs) in Korean. Recently,a growing number of researchers have argued that RDCs in Koreanmust be analyzed under the assumption that RDCs contain a bi-clausalstructure. This paper aims to closely re-examine and evaluate the validityof current bi-clausal analyses. In particular, I discuss three representativeapproaches couched under bi-clausal analyses: (i) the scrambling-based analysis, (ii) the pro-predicate based analysis, and (iii) thefragment-based analysis. I show that each of these approaches facesnon-trivial challenges. Specifically, I show that the syntax of postverbalelements cannot be equated to either scrambling or a regular fragmentanswer. An array of intriguing contrasts between RDCs and scrambling,and between RDCs and fragments are presented in this paper. Ialso present a new set of challenges to the claim that postverbal elementsare licensed by a pro-predicate.

On the Syntax of "Have To"

Sungshim Hong(홍성심) 한국생성문법학회 2007 생성문법연구 Vol.17 No.3

  This paper, based on the current theory of phrase structure, aims to analyze the internal structure of "have to" constructions, especially in American English. Radford (1997, 2004a, 2004b), following Chomskyan framework of Transformational grammar (Chomsky 1981, 1995, 2001), argued that two potential positions exist for the infinitival particle "to"-either T or Aux. If Radford"s analysis is to be accepted, then the sequence of "have" followed by "to" with a modal-like meaning casts a problem in its phrase structure. This paper will argue that if "have" is a lexical verb as maintained in Huddlestone and Pullum (2002) and Quirk, et al (1972, 1985) and if "to" is either a T constituent or Aux constituent depending on the existence of a negative element, then the "have to" construction is bi-clausal rather than monoclausal. In other words, "have" is in the matrix TP, whereas "to" is in the embedded TP. Therefore, the surface subject of the "have to" construction is a raised subject from the embedded TP to the matrix TP, making "have" a raising predicate, just like "seem" and "appear." To support this argument, this paper will offer empirical support from the distribution of certain adverbials such as "yet," "only," and "still" as well as expletive subjects like "there" in the "have to" construction One consequence of this analysis is the ability to account for the contraction phenomenon, where "have to" is pronounced as [hæfta] because the A-trace of the subject-to-subject raising does not block the contraction between "have" and "to."

우전위 요소의 영역

이정식 한국생성문법학회 2018 생성문법연구 Vol.28 No.2

This squib is a reply to Park s (2017) advocation for the ellipsis approach to the right dislocated construction (RDC), i.e., the bi-clausal analysis accompanied by Move & Delete under the head-final structure. Park intends to maintain his ellipsis approach against Shimoyama, Drummond, Schwarz and Wagner s (2015) claim that the ellipsis approach produces wrong scope facts (in Japanese). This squib examines Park s arguments in detail and shows that they are not viable. It is pointed out that one of his proposals, i.e., argument ellipsis of the moved object in the elliptic clause, is suspicious in that this object carries focus with it, and that disallowing pro movement in gapped RDCs is just arbitrary and is in exclusion of his argument ellipsis, which is contradictory. Particularly, Park s analysis applies the Parallelism condition in a way that is inconsistent with Fox (2000) system about scope interpretation. The resulting problems rather indicate that the head-final bi-clausal approach to RDCs is on the wrong track. By contrast, adopting the head-first mono-clausal analysis to RDCs (Lee 2009, 2010, 2011a), I show that it can straightforwardly account for the scope facts in RDCs at issue without facing the problematic situations in Park s system.