Properties of Scrambling in Generative Grammar

이은석 언어과학회 2013 언어과학연구 Vol.0 No.65

This paper presents some fundamental properties of scrambling in Korean by identifying the properties that make scrambling distinct from topicalization and by reviewing why scrambling is given a movement analysis within a generative grammar rather than a base-generation analysis. Empirical evidence in Korean scrambling of non-arguments such as adverbs is considered to argue that scrambling in Korean involves a movement operation. The paper presents the motivation for the distinction between two types of scrambling (A-scrambling and A-bar scrambling) and also argues that Korean scrambling shows properties associated with these two types of scrambling.

Scrambling과 정보구조

이만기 ( Man Ki Lee ) 한국스페인어문학회 2004 스페인어문학 Vol.0 No.30

The purpose of this paper is to examine the so called “scrambling phenomenon” in Korean and Japanese and the “topicalization” in Spanish. In the case of scrambling in Korean, we showed the general characteristics of long-distance scrambling: forced reconstruction effect, absence of adjunct scrambling, absence of weak island effects, and anti-freezing effect. In order to explain these facts of scrambling, we have argued, first, that scrambling is not an optional movement, but a feature-checking movement, consistent with Last Resort principle. Second, long-distance scrambling is focus-driven movement (cf. Miyagawa:1997, 2001). Third, scrambling is the case of resumptive chains (Move under Match, in the absence of Agree): symmetry between scrambling and resumption(cf. Boeckx:2003). Finally, we proposed that topicalization in Spanish can be considered to be the same case of scrambling, because there are syntactic similarities between topicalization in Spanish and scrambling in Korean, such as strong island-sensitive operation, weak islandinsensitive movement, clitic doubling phenomenon (in favor of resumptive chain) and the absence of adjunct(adverb) movement. We assumed that resumptive chains are formally similar to instances of clitic doubling in topicalization. So, noticing the clitic-doubling phenomena in topicalization in Spanish, we consider scrambling as the same type of clitic doubling. Scrambling, as the clitic doubling construction in Spanish, forms a resumptive-chain(Boeckx:2003). Topicalization in English and Wh-movement are feature-checking movement by Agree, but Scrambling in Korean and Topicalization in Spanish are [Foc/Top] feature checking movement by Match+Move without Agree.

A Single Restriction on Scrambling in Korean

이은숙 대한언어학회 2008 언어학 Vol.16 No.1

This paper amis to deepen our understanding of free word order phenomena or scrambling. It offers a unified approach to some fundamental limitations on scrambling in Korean. These would have been attributed to a head parameter in earlier syntactic theories but are problematic in more recent syntactic theories in the minimalist framework where such a parameter cannot be naturally stated. Korean has several limitations on scrambling. It is blocked from preposing the verb. It does not commute noun phrases that bear the same Case, nor does it prepose the right member of a small clause. I argue that these descriptive generalizations follow from a single, elegant restriction: only semantically complete or saturated constituents can scramble.

어순뒤섞기와 연쇄형성

최도규 한국독어학회 2008 독어학 Vol.18 No.-

In der vorliegenden Arbeit habe ich über das Scrambling des Deutschen und Koreanischen aufgrund der Kettenbildungsanalyse von Haider & Rosengren untersucht. Die Scramblingsformen zwischen den zwei Sprachen waren einander unterschieden. Während Scrambling des Deutschen nur innerhalb eines Satzes möglich ist, kann im Koreanischen ein Element nicht nur innerhalb eines Satzes, sondern auch über die Satzgrenze hinaus gescrambelt werden. Nach der Kettenbildungsanalyse haben Ergänzungen eines Prädikats die Grundabfolge, und nur Argumente erlauben Scrambling, wobei ein gescrambeltes Element mit der Spur eine Argumentkette bilden kann. Das kurze Scrambling im Koreanischen wird zusammen mit dem ihm entsprechenden Scrambling im Deutschen identisch behandelt. Dafür wurde gezeigt, dass die Prädikate im Koreanischen jeweils verschiedene Grundabfolgen haben, und eine Argumentkettenbildung in der serialen Verbenkonstruktion möglich ist. Nach meiner Meinung ist diese seriale Verbenkonstruktion kohärent, und aufgrund von Adjazenz und Negationsskopus realisierbar. Nach der Kettenbildungsanalyse wird ein Element innerhalb eines Satzes oder über die Satzgrenze in die funktionale Spezifikationsposition Topik-gescrambelt. Prädikate und Adverbiale werden kurz Topik-gescrambelt. Argumente können lang Topik-gescrambelt werden. Scrambling der Adverbiale im Koreanischen ist wie im Deutschen auch nicht möglich. Aber im Gegensatz zum Deutschen lassen Prädikate im Koreanischen sowohl Scrambling als auch Topik-Scrambling nicht zu. Ein langes Scrambling im Koreanischen wird mit einem langen Topik-Scrambling in dem Sinne identisch behandelt, dass Argumente über die Satzgrenze hinaus vor der Subjektposition eines übergeordneten Satzes stehen. Die nach der Kettenbildunganalyse abgeleiteten Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit sind wie folgt: 1. Nur Argumente lassen im Deutschen und Koreanischen Scrambling zu. 2. Adverbiale erlauben in beiden Sprachen kein Scrambling. 3.Das kurze Scrambling im Koreanischen ist mit dem Scrambling im Deutschen identisch. 4. Das lange Scrambling im Koreanischen und das lange Topik-Scrambling im Deutschen haben deutliche Parallelen.

Scrambling from Head-internal Relative Clauses

Jongil Kwon 한국중앙영어영문학회 2009 영어영문학연구 Vol.51 No.4

In this paper, I have discussed scrambling from kes constructions. In terms of scrambling, kes constructions are considerably freer than other types of complex noun phrases such as the HeRC and the free nominal CNP, which are a strong island for scrambling. However, this does not entail that scrambling from kes constructions is always acceptable. That is, kes constructions show some island effects on scrambling. For example, adjuncts cannot be scrambled from both the HiRC and the NCC constructions. This implies that kes constructions are always an island for scrambling of adjuncts. Also, the HiRC differs from the NCC; namely, scrambling from the HiRC construction is more restrictive than the one from the NCC construction. In particular, an element can be scrambled out of the HiRC construction if and only if it is the internal head of the relative clause. Otherwise, the HiRC is an island for scrambling. In contrast, the NCC construction is free from such island condition on the semantic properties of the scrambled element. In conclusion, in terms of scrambling, the two types of kes constructions are distinguished from each other. In other words, scrambling is a useful syntactic tool to divide kes constructions into two types: HiRC vs. NCC.

A Study on Scrambling in Korean - The Minimalist Approach

Hyeran Lee(이혜란) 한국생성문법학회 2006 생성문법연구 Vol.16 No.3

  Scrambling has been argued as an optional operation by Saito (1985, 1989, 1992, 2004, 2005), Fukui (1993), and others. An optional overt movement in scrambling is against minimalism in which displacement takes place only when the uninterpretable features are involved. It has been puzzling what feature makes scrambling possible. In accordance with the minimalist spirit, Bo?kovi? and Takahashi (1998) claim that scrambled elements are base-generated in their surface position and undergo the obligatory LF movement to receive theta-roles. Miyagawa (1997, 2001, 2003) claims that local A-scrambling is triggered by the EPP-feature on T based on V-to-T movement in languages like Japanese, while long-distance A"-scrambling is not triggered by the EPP-feature, but by focus. These two different analyses are in common in that they try to get rid of optionality in scrambling. Their approaches are however different: the former argues for no overt movement in scrambling, and the latter claims that movement in scrambling is obligatory and overt due to the EPP-feature. Under the minimalist spirit, I argue that scrambling in Korean is not an optional operation, but an obligatory syntactic operation. Concerning the driving force of the operation, I claim that scrambling is uniformly induced by the edge feature (EF) (Chomsky 2005, 2006). It is also argued that the scrambled position driven by EF is not necessarily an A"-position but can be an A-position as long as the same focus feature is involved.

Properties of Scrambling in Generative Grammar

Eun Suk Lee(이은석) 언어과학회 2013 언어과학연구 Vol.0 No.65

This paper presents some fundamental properties of scrambling in Korean by identifying the properties that make scrambling distinct from topicalization and by reviewing why scrambling is given a movement analysis within a generative grammar rather than a base-generation analysis. Empirical evidence in Korean scrambling of non-arguments such as adverbs is considered to argue that scrambling in Korean involves a movement operation. The paper presents the motivation for the distinction between two types of scrambling (A-scrambling and A-bar scrambling) and also argues that Korean scrambling shows properties associated with these two types of scrambling.

Scrambling of Korean Embedded Clauses

권종일 한국생성문법학회 2010 생성문법연구 Vol.20 No.2

Unlike English, which has a fixed word order, Korean shows a free word order phenomenon or scrambling. The primary goal of this paper is to explore the grammatical nature of scrambling with regard to Korean embedded clauses. I argue here that scrambling of embedded clauses (CP scrambling) is distinct from scrambling of simple noun phrases (DP scrambling) in that while the latter shows various syntactic and semantic locality effects, the former does not. That is, every scrambled embedded clause must be "radically" reconstructed to its default word-order position in the spirit of Saito (1989; 1992). In order to account for the radical reconstruction effect of CP scrambling, I propose here the PF-movement analysis, which also reflects on the discourse-functional flow of Korean word order variations.

한국어 뒤섞기와 대용어 해석

김혜경 이중언어학회 2005 이중언어학 Vol.27 No.-

It is widely assumed that Korean and Japanese have unique properties such as scrambling. English, however, does not show such phenomena. Scrambling is not an easy issue to deal with. Some claim that scrambling is strictly optional, whereas others claim that scrambling is an obligatory operation driven by morphological features. Above all, it is very challenging to account for the triggering factor that causes Korean scrambling involving anaphors. Recently, Saito (2003) argues that unlike wh-movement and NP-movement, scrambling is an instance of an optional operation and thus there is no feature that triggers scrambling. In this paper, we will try to find the right track for the interpretation of Korean scrambling involving anaphors by assuming Saito's (2003) derivational interpretation of chains for scrambling and Chomsky's (2000, 2001) phase-based analysis. In addition, we will provide the factor which motivates Korean scrambling involving anaphors.

Scrambling from Head-internal Relative Clauses

권종일 한국중앙영어영문학회 2009 영어영문학연구 Vol.51 No.4

In this paper, I have discussed scrambling from kes constructions. In terms of scrambling, kes constructions are considerably freer than other types of complex noun phrases such as the HeRC and the free nominal CNP, which are a strong island for scrambling. However, this does not entail that scrambling from kes constructions is always acceptable. That is, kes constructions show some island effects on scrambling. For example, adjuncts cannot be scrambled from both the HiRC and the NCC constructions. This implies that kes constructions are always an island for scrambling of adjuncts. Also, the HiRC differs from the NCC; namely, scrambling from the HiRC construction is more restrictive than the one from the NCC construction. In particular, an element can be scrambled out of the HiRC construction if and only if it is the internal head of the relative clause. Otherwise, the HiRC is an island for scrambling. In contrast, the NCC construction is free from such island condition on the semantic properties of the scrambled element. In conclusion, in terms of scrambling, the two types of kes constructions are distinguished from each other. In other words, scrambling is a useful syntactic tool to divide kes constructions into two types: HiRC vs. NCC.