«1. Introduction. In Korean and Japanese Morphology from a lexical perspective, Sells (1995) argues against the view that complex words in Japanese or ...»
A plural subject in C1 will yield plural agreement following C1, a plural subject in C2 will yield, plural agreement following ko. A plural in C3 should be able to yield plural following C3, but cannot do so if C3 is selected by ko. In (56), PRO is singular, since its controller is singular: ko therefore cannot be followed by tul. In (57), PRO is plural, since its controller is plural, whence ko-tul. Korean thus present strong evidence for the syntactic presence of a PRO introduced by particular types of complementizers.
The question remains what rules out *C-tul-ko. The derivation underlying this order would result
in the following structure:
This configuration contains overt phonological material on a right branch lower than the head C, and is well-known for causing ungrammaticality (*a proud of John mother). It is likely that such structures are filtered out by complexity filters (see Koopman 2002 for discussion). Making merger of AgrSpl optional, an option that is always available in Korean, will yield convergence, since it removes the phonological problem of having overt material dominated by the head on a right branch.
6. On the interaction between scope and word structure.
In this section, we further examine the interaction between scope and word structure. If word structure is derived in the syntax, and scope is determined by the merger of the heads that determine scope, word structure should interact with available scope possibilities as a consequence of the syntactic derivation that underlies the linear order.
Lee (2004a, 2004b) makes exactly this point. Lee shows that an accusative object that precedes a universal subject cannot scope over a subject QP, but a preceding PP can either scope over or under the quantified subject.
(60) John man-ul motun-salam-i salangha-ta (everyonly *onlyevery) John FOCUS-ACC every person-NOM love-DECL ‘Everyone loves John (and no one else)’ (61) John hako-man motun-salam-i akswuhay-ss-ta (everyonly and onlyevery) John with only every-person-NOM shook.hands-PAST.DECL ‘Everyone shook hands with only John’ ‘John is the only one with whom everyone shook hands’ Lee argues that word structure accounts for these scope interactions. Lee proposes that man is an agreement morpheme, that triggers movement of the focus marked constituent to a silent Focus head ONLY, where semantic interpretation is determined. The silent focus head can be merged at several points in the hierarchy. If ONLY is merged low universal focus results, if ONLY is merged higher than the universal, in the left periphery, the reading is focusuniversal. DP-man-acc cannot scope over universal subjects because the linear order DP-man-acc signals the silent Focus head must be merged below accusative hence universalonly is the only available reading. Lee appeals to the Mirror Principle (“check inner affixes before you check outer affixes”), to force the low position of the silent Focus head with accusative case. A PP (61) can scope either over universals, or below universals, because the linear order is consistent with both high or low merger of ONLY. Lee thus presents an extremely strong case for the syntactic relevance of affix ordering.
As far as I can tell, these scope facts fall out in very similar ways in the proposal made in this paper, where man is merged directly as a focus head, higher than accusative, provided of course that we accept head complement order. The linear string man-acc shows that man (only) must be merged immediately above accusative, in conjunction with the universal hierarchy FocusCase, since this is the only way to form this particular surface constituent. Hence DP-man-acc will scope under universal (and preposing to the left of the universal must be achieved by scrambling which does not affect scope). There is simply no other derivation that Korean speakers can converge on given the primary
data (DP-man-ul) than the derivation in (62):
Consider, for example, what outputs would result from merger of man higher than the subject QP. This derivation would necessarily yield the reading onlyevery.
(63) Merge man (focus):
Neither string corresponds to the input strings that native speakers are asked to judge in (61).
How can these strings be ruled out? An accusative can scramble higher than a universal, suggesting the (63b) is not due to a basic syntactic problem (i.e. DP-acc can move around). This derivation yields an overt case marker preceding focus, and this is simply never observed in Korean, neither for focus nor for topic. These heads simply cannot contain a CaseP in their Spec, which suggests a language specific filter. (63c) results in a stranded accusative –ul. It is reasonable to assume that this violates a phonological condition on ul: it can not be a sole remnant in a loacal domain because it needs to lean on overt phonological material in that domain. Interestingly, not pronouncing ul is a way to remove the phonological restriction, and as expected, both high scope (=high merger of man) and low scope (=low merger of man) are possible in this case. (Lee 2004a, ex. (26))26
Finally, as in Lee’s account, Case markers must be part of the “narrow” syntax, since they interact with the derivations in specific ways forcing decisions about the location of scope bearing heads, and hence making very specific predictions about scope interactions.
In this paper, I have argued in favor of a syntactic view of Korean (and Japanese) morphology, which derives the surface constituency of “words” from an underling Spec H complement order by means of local phrasal movements, providing strong support for Kayne (1994). My primary concern has been to show that syntactic analyses can be motivated, contra Sells 1995, and that the vocabulary necessary to describe word structure is the usual syntactic vocabulary: i.e. underlying universal hierarchies, with hierachical merger determining scope, local movement from Spec, stranding heads, pied-piping, and generalized Spec head agreement under pied-piping. Inflected words in Japanese and Korean, are derived by phrasal movement, with many, but not all, words mirroring the syntactic hierarchy of merger. Underlying head complement order surfaces in particular instances, with heads to the left of their complement, thus directly supporting antisymmetry. Phrasal movement straightforwardly accounts for the fact that the affixes behave as phrasal affixes. Thus there are no fundamental differences between the syntax of Korean (and Japanese) “words” and the phrasal syntax (Koopman and Szabolsci 2000, and Julien 2002). This
view is compatible with the basic ideas of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993):
syntax is responsible for word structure and not the lexicon, and late insertion. Phonological material is selected on the basis of syntactic structures, for the cases we discussed local Spec head configurations: i.e. the input of V-T in Korean and Japanese is not a single head, but a small syntactic configuration. Secondly, I have assumed that syntactic structure directly feeds the phonology/linearization, and that at least the postsyntactic mechansism of structure building (insertion) and linear reordering (Merger or movement) are disallowed27. The view developed in this paper is incompatible with the hypothesis that agreement nodes and Case are outside “the narrow syntax”. Indeed, section 6 presents Lee’s (2004) argument that Case at least must be part of the narrow syntax, since the word structure interacts with where scopal heads can be merged.
The way the derivations intertwine, and combine to yield morphological structures, surface constituencies and semantic structures, leads to skepticism that some types of movements could be taking place in the phonology. However, certain strings that the syntactic derivations generate are filtered out by “phonological” properties of individual lexical items (complexity filters) which operate when phonological material is inserted. These seem to be appropriately located at the syntax/phonology interface, as the phonological insertion seems sensitive to the syntactic hierarchy. Sometimes not inserting phonological material can salvage particular derivations.
Finally, the important theoretical question what drives the movements needs further exploration (see Kayne 2003b, and Koopman and Szabolsci (2000). To a large extent, movement is driven by Sportiche’s Principle of Locality of Selection, and the intertwined nature of the derivations.
Movement is ubiquitous, simply because in most cases movement to a local Spec is the only way in which selection can be satisfied.
Overall then, this paper yields a quite different understanding of Korean and Japanese syntax, one in which all Spec positions need to be filled in the course of the derivation (Kayne 1998 and later work, and Koopman 2000). Within this view, however, it is not the case that there will be massive movements in Korean or Japanese, but not in English or in French. If indeed V selects for NP, and not for DP, there will be massive movements in all human languages, as one of the tasks performed by Merge is taken over by Move. Future research thus shifts to determining the laws that govern what can merge with what, and how a simple computational system can yield the network of multiple selectional relations.
References Baker, Mark. 1985 “The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation, “ Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373-415.
Bayer, Josef. 1984 “ COMP in Bavarian syntax,” The Linguistic Review 3, 209-274.
Belletti, Adriana. 2002. Aspects of the low IP area. In L. Rizzi (ed) The Structure of IP and CP.
The Cartography of Syntactic Structures" vol.2. Oxford University Press.
Carstens, Vicky. 2003 ‘Rethinking Complementizer Agreement: Agree with a Case-Checked Goal’ Linguistic Inquiry, 34.3. 393-413.
Cecchetto, Carlo. 1999. A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica 53, 40-67.
Cho, Young-mee Yu, and Peter Sells. 1995. A lexical account of inflectional suffixes in Korean.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4, 119–174.
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional projections: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Cinque, G. 2002 Complement and Adverbial PPs: Implications for clause structure. GLOW abstract.
Fukui, N and H. Sakai 2003. The Visibility Guideline for Functional Categories: Verb Raising in Japanese and Related Issues. Lingua, 113. 321-375.
Fromkin, Victoria. 2000. Linguistics: an Introduction to Linguistic Theory. Blackwell Publications.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991 Extended Projections, ms. Brandeis.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. 'Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.' In The View from Building 20, ed. Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser. MIT Press, Cambridge, 111Hallman, Peter. 1997. “Reiterative Syntax”. In Clitics, pronouns, and movement, J. Black and V.
Motapanyane (eds).87-131, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Julien, Marit. (2002) Syntactic heads and Word Formation, Oxford University Press.
New York Kayne, Richard S..1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 1998. “Overt vs. covert movement.” Syntax 1: 128-191.
Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and Universals. New York.: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 2003a “Antisymmetry and Japanese”, English Linguistics, 20, 1-40.
Kayne, Richard. 2003b. “Some Notes on Comparative Syntax, with Special Reference to English and French”. ms. NYU Koizumi, M. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Koizumi, M., 2000. “String vacuous overt verb raising”. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9, 227–285.
Koopman, Hilda. 2000. The syntax of specifiers and heads. Routledge, London Koopman, Hilda. 2001 “Topics in Imperatives” to appear in Imperatives in Generative Grammar.
W. van der Wurff (ed). Benjamins Publications Koopman, Hilda. 2002. ‘Derivations and Complexity Filters’ in Dimensions of Movement: from features to remnants. Alexiadiou A, Anagnostopoulou E, Barbiers S, Gaertner H (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Koopman, Hilda. 2003. Inside the Noun in Syntax at Sunset : Head Movement and Syntactic Theory. A. Mahajan (ed). pp. 77-116. UCLA/Potzdam Working Papers Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche. 1989. Pronouns, Logical Variables and Logophoricity in Abe, Linguistic Inquiry 20 (p555- 589) Koopman, Hilda and Anna Szabolcsi. 2000, Verbal Complexes. Current Studies in Linguistics 34, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2002. Agreement and its Placement in Turkic Non-Subject Relative Clauses, ms.
Kural, Murat. 1994. Inf and Comp in Turkish subordinate clauses. WCCFL 12, p. 339-354.
Kuroda, S,-Y.2003 Complex predicates and predicate raising. Lingua, 113, 447-480.
Lee, Youngjoo. 2004a. Exhaustivity as Agreement: The case of Korean man 'only'. to appear in Natural Language Semantics.
Lee, Y. 2004b The syntax and semantics of focus particles' MIT PhD dissertation.
Marantz, Alec, 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure.
In: M. Hammond, M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 253-70. San Diego: Academic Press.
McCloskey, Jim. 1991 Clause structure, ellipsis and proper government in Irish. Lingua 85, 259-302.
Müller, Gereon. 2000. Shape conservation and remnant movement Proceedings of NELS 30 Nkemnji, Micheal. 1996. Heavy Pied-Piping. PhD thesis, UCLA.
Otani, K. and John Whitman (1991). V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 345-358.
Park Myung-Kwan and Keun-Won Sohn (1993) A Minimalist Approach to Plural Marker Licensing in Korean, in MITWPl, 20, p. 193-209.
Poletto Cecilia and Jean-Yves Pollock. 2003. On the Left Periphery of some Romance Wh-questions.” In Cinque (ed) The Structure of IP and CP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2" New York: Oxford University Press.
Rizzi, Luigi 1997.On the fine structure of the left-periphery. in Elements of Grammar. Haegeman L. (ed.) 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Also in Rizzi, L. 2000.Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition, London: Routledge].