Quirky Binding in the Object-Subject Construction and its Semantics

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

It has been argued in this paper that Korean reflexives and pronouns reveal murky cases where dependent terms c-command QPs at PF and that syntactic coindexations cannot not distinguish between a BVA reading and a group reading. Here a BVA reading and a group reading induced by Korean plural dependent terms are attributed to a property of the Korean plural morpheme tul and the dual readings induced by the plural dependent terms are accounted for by adopting linking at LF. That is to say, the dual readings can be disambiguated by adopting linking after QR, depending on whether the dependent terms are linked to the trace of QR or the operator itself at LF. To account for the semantic difference between singular terms and plural terms, all we need to assume here is that the interpretative difference between singular terms and plural terms results from the Korean bound morpheme tul. Put in a different way, the Korean plural morpheme tul functions as a dependent term which induces a group reading and a BVA reading, whereas singular reflexives function as a distributor which induces a BVA reading. This semantic difference between singularity and plurality in Korean leads us to conclude that in Korean, a structurally singular NP functions as semantically singular, whereas a structurally plural NP functions either as semantically singular or plural. As a result, the Korean plural dependent terms reveal dualistic number properties: structurally they function only as plural, and semantically either as singular or plural.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Ueyama, A., "Two Types of Dependency" University of Southern California 1998

2 Safir, K., "The Syntax of Anaphora" Oxford University Press. 2004

3 Avrutin, S., "The Structural Position of Bound Variables in Russian" 25 : 709-727, 1994

4 Heim, I., "The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases" University of Massachusetts 1982

5 Katada, F., "The Representation of Anaphoric Relations in Logical Form" University of Southern California 1990

6 May, R., "The Grammar of Quantification" MIT. Cambridge 1977

7 Reinhart, T., "Specifier and Operator Binding. in Reuland, E. eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness. MIT Press"

8 Hoji, H., "Sloppy Identity and Formal Dependency" 15 : 209-223, 1997

9 Higginbotham, J., "Reference and Control" 301-326. 301-326, 1989

10 강남길, "Quantifiers, Pronouns, anda Bound Variable Interpretation" 한국중앙영어영문학회 49 (49): 1-20, 2007

11 Evans, G., "Pronouns" 11 (11): 337-362, 1980

12 Higginbotham, J., "On the Varieties of Cross-Reference. In GLOW X Proceedings" 27 : 123-1452, 1988

13 Higginbotham, J., "On Semantics" 547-593. 16 (16): 547-593, 1985

14 Higginbotham, J., "Logical Form, Binding, and Nominals" 547-593. 16 : 547-593, 1983

15 May, R., "Logical Form" MIT Press 1985

16 Hornstein, N., "Logic as Grammar" MIT Press. 1986

17 Strawson, P.F., "Introduction to Logical Theory" Methuen 1952

18 May, R., "Indices and Identity" MIT Press. 1994

19 Hoji, H., "Demonstratives, Bound Variables, and Reconstruction Effects" Abstract for GLOW 1999

20 Kang, Nam-Kil., "Coindexation-based Binding Theory and Linking Theory" 32 (32): 187-205, 2006

21 B?ring, D., "Binding Theory" Cambridge University Press. 2005

22 Higginbotham, J., "Anaphoric Reference and Common Reference" MIT. Cambridge 1992

23 Montalbetti, M., "After Binding: On the Interpretation of Pronouns" MIT 1984

24 Kamp, J.A.W., "A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation. In: Formal Methods in the Study of Language" Amsterdam 1981