«1. Introduction. In Korean and Japanese Morphology from a lexical perspective, Sells (1995) argues against the view that complex words in Japanese or ...»
That different linear orders can be derived from a single underlying hierarchy, is not problematic, but expected under the syntactic view, as we have shown in the previous sections. Finally, evidence for underlying hierarchies, or principles that underlie clausal hierarchies seems even stronger now than at the time when Sells published his article (Cinque 1999, Rizzi 1997, 2000, Pollock and Poletto 2003, Hallman 1998, Koopman and Szabolcsi 2000, Julien 2002, Williams 2003, among others).
5. Case and agreement Here I will show that the independently motivated syntactic mechanisms introduced so far account for further properties of Korean morphology. In 5.1, I argue that the surprising position of structural case markers in Korean is due to very local movement stranding the case markers. In
5.2. and 5.3, I argue that honorific agreement and plural agreement should be analyzed as cases of agreement triggered under pied-piping, and stranding, in the case of plural agreement.
5. 1. The position of structural Case markers.
The structural case markers, i/ka (nom), ul (acc), and uy (genitive), follow man ‘only’. Case markers occupy a position quite distinct from Ps, which precede man ‘only’, as the following
The question arises how a structural Case marker can follow DP externally merged material like focus. Analytical options are restricted. The merged order is either FocusmanCaseDP or CaseFocusmanDP. Case locally selects for DP, and so does Focus: given locality of selection, this requires movement to Spec, Case and spec Focus. On general conceptual grounds, Focus Casenom is expected, given the general layering of syntactic hierarchies: nominative belongs to the TP level, and Focus to the CP level. In a similar way, we expect Focus CaseAcc14 and Focus CaseGen in the DP domain. Specific syntactic derivations follow from the Principle of locality of
(39) Focusman ‘only’ Nom (i/ka)..DP
A DP is attracted to Spec, Nom satisfying local selection by the Case head, and further extracts to Spec, Focus, if focused. The resulting phase is sent off to phonology, where the nominative is spelled out as i or ka depending on the phonological properties of the preceding segment, i.e.
Nom behaves as a clitic. Again, in this analysis, focus and Case surface in the merged head initial order, not in the mirrored order. Coordination may provide independent support for FocusCase.
Neither man nor i can be repeated under (DP) coordination, but DPs can. This is consistent with
man i DP &DP15:
The hierarchy Nom Focus (man) DP also allows a syntactic derivation, provided we find some way to turn DP-man into a remnant constituent before it moves on to Focus. However, it wrongly predicts coordination under nominative to be available (40c), and it deviates from the fact that crosslinguistically Focus heads merge higher than Nom or Acc; this latter fact should follow from basic principles of architecture.
5.2. Honorific agreement.
The honorific suffix follows the verbal ‘root’ and precedes Tense. It cooccurs with a structural subject that is marked [+honorific]: it thus represents a particular instance of subject agreement.
Coordination shows the morpheme that spell out honorific agreement, which I will notate as
Agrhon, is lower than T (Choi 2001), hence TAgrhonvP/VoiceP:
‘President Kim arrived at the office early and left early’ Under standard approaches to agreement, the constituent triggering honorific agreement is either in a Spec head relation with the relevant Agr head at some point, or locally c-commanded by a head endowed with the agreement feature (under Agree). The discussion in section 4.3. offers another possibility: agreement could be triggered under pied-piping (as argued for independently in Koopman 2003). This finds further support by the ability of an honorific possessor to trigger honorific agreement, without evidence for overt possessor raising. (Sells 1995, fnt. 21, citing
‘The teacher’s hands are big (hon.)’ The possessor in Spec, DP agrees with D and hence the entire DP carries the feature [+hon], allowing Agrhon to agree with the possessor. Under an agreement-under-pied-piping approach, an honorific NP in Spec, vP triggers honorific agreement on v; vP therefore inherits the +hon feature, and triggers further agreement under pied-piping. The honorific agreement feature is checked off in Spec Agrhon and will not trigger agreement on higher heads. It is interesting that the honorific head must be merged low, both within the DP where it precedes plural, and within the clause, where it precedes tense (and plural agreement, as well). It will pied-pipe with the vP to higher merged heads, hence its linear position.
5.2.1. Some honorific mysteries.
There are some mysteries with honorifics which Sells takes as additional strikes against the syntactic view. The purpose of this section is to show that the syntactic view can in fact make the relevant distinctions using the available mechanisms, and hence that these data do not form any particular obstacle to the syntactic view.
The first observation concerns Japanese irregular honorific verb forms. Though a bit redundant, irregular honorific verb forms may appear in the syntactic honorific construction (Sells and Ida 1991), but the regular verb stem cannot appear in this environment.
(44) a. Japanese productive honorific: o-V-ni naru
Sells points out that double marking seems problematic for a syntactic account since honorification should have a unique syntactic expression. In light of the preceding section, we can understand the honorific construction as follows: whenever a v agrees with a honorific subject, it inherits the feature +honorific. In accordance with the elsewhere principle, the regular verb stem is blocked in (44b) by the listed honorific form. The listed form can appear by itself, since it carries the feature +honorific. The listed form can also occur in the syntactic honorific construction (44c), just like double agreement is allowed.
Sells’ second observation concerns irregular honorific forms in Korean, which ‘fit’ into different syntactic contexts than regular ones. As shown in (37), C1 cannot cooccur with an overt honorific suffix.
However, C1 can cooccur with an irregular honorific form: (capswusi-e versus *ilk-usi-e) (Sells:293 (28)):
The irregular honorific form thus has the distribution of a regular verbal root, yet at the same time, it requires an honorific subject. How can we understand this distribution? Suppose that irregular honorific verb forms and regular honorific verb forms have the following syntactic representations when handed over to the phonology. A zero head cooccurs with a phonologically specified list of stems in the case of irregular honorific verb forms. The honorific affix spells out
the head of the projection in the case of regular honorifics:
These structures express their common distribution, but differ in the distribution of overt/covert material. My claim is that this is not without syntactic consequences. VP extraction in (46a) would strand a silent head but an overt head in (46b). Furthermore, pied-piping in the latter case would yield the ungrammatical string (47c). This is illustrated below
(47a) shows that an irregular honorific verb has the same distribution as a root v, i.e. it can be in the Spec, CP of this particular C satisfying the selectional requirement of this C. (47b) can be argued to violate a phonological requirement on the overt honorific–si (i.e. must have a VP with overt V in its Spec at spell-out, it is not a clitic); and (47c) can be argued to violate a size requirement on overt material in Spec –e (the overt V may not be more deeply embedded than vP). The silent honorific (47a) “escapes” phonological conditions by virtue of being silent, and therefore only (47a) converges. This allows the projection headed by –e to contain an honorific subject, and an honorific verb form, as long as the honorific head itself is silent.
5.3. Plural agreement.
Korean has a second kind of subject agreement: plural subjects optionally trigger plural agreement tul, a phenomenon that strongly resembles complementizer agreement in the West Germanic languages. Sells did not include tul in his article: “The plural marker tul does not appear in the charts above because it shows considerable freedom to where it may attach within the word”. (Sells: 316, footnote 40). In this section, I will show that the quite challenging distribution of tul in the verbal complex can be quite nicely integrated in the syntactic account.
More specifically, I will argue that plural agreement is triggered under pied-piping of TP and stranding of Agrplural. The differences with honorific agreement follow from the high location of plural Agreement, which seems to correspond more closely to a very high AgrS.
5.3.1. Distribution of tul.
Tul is a plural suffix on nouns, and a plural agreement marker optionally co-occurring with a plural subject16 (optionality is indicated in the examples below by italics). This section focuses on the following facts: tul can follow any of the root Cs, provided the CP contains a plural subject17.
Tul may not follow any of the mood/force markers however, if the latter are embedded under the general subordinator ko (Park and Sohn: 1993, p. 201), which Sells (p.
297) describes as “basically a marker of someone’s words or thoughts”:
(50) John-i [chinkwu-tul-i ttenas-ta (*tul)-ko(*tul)] malha-ess-ta
Tul may follow the subordinator ko, however if ko itself can be said to have a plural subject (Park
and Sohn 1993: 197 (13)19:
(51) chinkwu-tul-i [John-i ttenas-ta –ko-tul] malha-ess-ta-tul
5.3.2 Tul as stranded AgrS.
Plural agreement occurs in a different position than honorific agreement. It is neither in complementary distribution with it, nor fused with it, and they can cooccur (49e). Plural agreement follows C, which makes it look very similar to the complementizer agreement in the West Germanic SOV languages (modulo the linear position of the TP). Like complementizer agreement, plural agreement is optional. The linear position suggests it spells out a much higher head than honorific agreement, say a very high Agr projection just below the C region, i.e. C AgrS, or just above C, i.e. AgrSC. If plural spells out high AgrS, as in (53a), this order can only be derived by obligatorily stranding AgrS. Since TP precedes C, it is natural to think of the extracted XP that contains the agreement triggering category as TP, and that agreement is triggered under pied-piping:21
This stranding derivation accounts for the linear position of plural agreement: it must follow C, and cannot occur anywhere in the verbal complex between V and C, because AgrS is merged higher than T, and obligatorily stranded by TP movement.
Alternatively, Agr could be merged higher than C, as Shlonsky (1994) proposes for complementizer agreement in the West Germanic OV languages. If so, the linear order would mirror the hierarchical order (Agrpl C T). This hypothesis is adopted by Park and Sohn (1993), on the grounds that it explains why tul can only appear in root contexts. Unfortunately, this generalization appears to be incorrect; plural agreement does occur in non-root contexts, though not in all non-root contexts. Clausal complements allow for optional plural agreement when they contain a plural subject with C1, C2 and C3 endings (49), even when they form a verbal complex.
Embedding these predicates under a verb like say, does not affect the plural marking on the embedded C, but only affects tul’s possible co-occurrence before the subordinator ko (52), showing that this must be related to some property of ko. (section 5.3.3.) (54) b. John-i ilk-ko-(tul) siph- keyss-ta- (*tul) ko malha-ess-ta
The underlined tul is licensed by a plural DP internal to the embedded complement, i.e. PRO, the external argument of read. Finally, tul may appear in embedded contexts, as long as the
subordinator ko is absent22:
(55) na-nun kutul-i tolawa-ss- nunci-tul(-ul) mul-ess-ta
I will assume that tul spells out AgrS (CAgr) 23, as it seems to be a more economical analysis than one which assumes that the quite diverse C like elements can be selected by subject agreement. and that TP extraction is forced24. If this is correct, the linear order represents another case where two heads occur in the merged head initial order, and where agreement is triggered under pied-piping.25 5.3.3. ko-subordination.
Why cannot tul precede the subordinator ko? A clausal complement with a plural subject cannot trigger plural agreement, neither after the question particle, nor following the subordinator ko. (cf (51)) unless ko can be said to have a PRO controlled by the plural DP of the verbs of thinking or
(56) John-i [chinkwu-tul-i ttenas-nya (*tul)-ko(*tul)] mwul-ess-ta
In our paper on logophoricity (Koopman and Sportiche 1989)), certain types of complementizers (“say” type complementizers) are analyzed as Vs projecting a PRO subject, dominated by a CP node, and taking a CP complement. This proposal directly captures the distribution of plural agreement following ko, as the following derivation (which abstracts from leftward TP movements) illustrates.