«1. Introduction. In Korean and Japanese Morphology from a lexical perspective, Sells (1995) argues against the view that complex words in Japanese or ...»
Rizzi, Luigi 1999. On the position “Int”(errogative)” in the Left Periphery of the Clause, ms.
Università di Siena.
Schütze, Carson 2001. On Korean "Case stacking": The varied functions of the particles ka and lul. The Linguistic Review 18(3), 193-232.
Sells, Peter. 1995 Korean and Japanese Morphology from a lexical perspective, Linguistic Inquiry, 26. 237-325.
Sells, Peter 1998. Three aspects of negation. Journal of Linguistic Studies 6, 1-15.
Sells, Peter 1998. “Structural relationships within complex predicates” In Byung-Soo Park and James Yoon (eds.) Proceedings of ICKL 11. Seoul, International Circle of Korean Linguistics, 115-147.
Sells. Peter and M. Ida 1991. Subject and Object Honorification in Japanese. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 312-323. Berkeley Linguistic Society, University of Berkeley, California.
Shlonsky, Ur. 1994. “Agreement in Comp”. The Linguistic Review 11:351-375.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1998. Atoms and Partitions of Clause Structure, Routledge, London Sportiche, Dominique. 1997.Reconstruction and constituent structure”, GLOW abstract.
Sportiche, Dominique. 2001 Structural Bonds and Strict Locality, Tools in Linguistic Theory #1, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht.
Webelhuth,Gert 1992. Principles and parameters of syntactic saturation, New York: Oxford University Press.
Whitman, John.2001. Kayne 1994: p. 143, fn. 3, in G. Alexandrova & O. Artunova (eds.), The MinimalistParameter, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 77-100.
Whitman, John. 2003. Preverbal Elements in Korean and Japanese. I G. Cinque and R. Kayne (ed s.) Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Oxford University Press, New York.
Williams, Edwin. (2003) Representation Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
Yim, Changguk, 2001. Subject Agreement in Korean: Move F, Attract F, or Agree? To appear in proceedings of The role of agreement, University of Texas, Austin Texas.
Yoon, J. (1994) "Korean Inflection and Checking Theory," MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, C. Philip & H. Harley eds., Department of Linguistics, MIT, pp. 251-270 Zwart, Jan-Wouter 2001. Syntactic and phonological verb movement. Syntax 4.1 Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: a minimalist approach. University of Groningen PhD thesis.
FOOTNOTES* Many thanks to Sun-Ah Jun, Seungho Nam, Chistina Kim, Youngjoo Lee and Chungmin Lee, to Guglielmo Cinque, Richard Kayne, Greg Kobele, David Schüller, Dominique Sportiche, and John Whitman for extensive feedback, and to two anonymous LI reviewers.
See also Kuroda (2000) who shows that disjunction can be under the scope of causative
suffix, a clear indication of the syntactic nature of the causative suffix: (Kuroda 2000:
445:16) (i) Hanako ga [Masao ni uti o soozisuru] ka [heya-dai o haraw]-aseru koto ni sita
‘Hanako decided to make Masao clean the house or pay room rent’ Otani and Whitman (1991) argue that the null object construction in Japanese and Korean should be analyzed as VP ellipsis, with the verb outside the elided constituent and therefore pronounced. If correct, this would constitute a strong argument in favor of V raising. Hoji (1995), however, shows that the VP ellipsis analysis leads to problems for the interpretation of null objects, and the current consensus seems to be that Japanese and Korean do not have VP ellipsis, but have massive argument drop instead. Japanese and Korean probably have both VP ellipsis and argument drop: it is difficult to see how argument drop could be responsible for the fact that adjuncts etc can be dropped in precisely those contexts that license VP ellipsis, such as elliptical answers to yes-no questions (McCloskey 1991). The phrasal movement approach in the text is entirely compatible with the existence with ellipsis, the constituent data concerning coordination (Koizumi 1995, 2000) and the phrasal affix nature of the verb.
For PP pied-piping, see Koopman and Szabolcsi 2000:42.
I phrase Agreement in terms of copying, instead of checking or Agree, since I think this better describes the basic agreement mechanism. Nothing hinges on this particular choice however.
For expository reasons, the picture is simplified here. If followed through, all functional categories are merged outside of V NP. (See Sportiche 2002).
Müller (2000) argues that this movement is motivated by the Principle of Shape Conservation (Williams 2003) (VO), and that this step does not need to take place in surface OV languages. Ihis step must also occur in strict OV language, however, so as to create a surface PP constituent, which can combine with Topic in the left periphery for example..
This step could be motivated by the Principle of Locality of Selection in the following fashion. If P selects and merges with VP, there would be no motivation for VP movement. However, suppose that P and VP are not in a local relation at the point of merger, with P merging like a C (Kayne, 2000), and P selecting for both VP, and DP.
This will force DP movement and VP movement to positions local to P. As a final possibility, this step may be motivated by the need for the verb to be in a relative shallow structure in Spec, TP. In this sense the motivation for this step (movement to the outer edge) could be similar to the motivation for successive cyclic movement through Spec, CP.
Neg an can also scope in the embedded complement ‘I tried not reading it’. This is irrelevant for the discussion here.
Note that the basic derivation is unaffected if there is intervening structure between VP+ and eP and eP and VP, as argued in Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000).
Long negation ahn can scope over man-focus. This follows from the fact that long negation ahn selects for a clausal complement headed by –ci. This clausal complement can contain its own focus projection, hence the availability of Negman(only).
(i) [CP[ilk-e- man po-ci] anh-ass-ta
context. For those speakers that do accept this combination, the scope reading always includes the focusnegation as the dominant reading. (Many thanks to Chungmin Lee for extensive multispeaker feedback on this issue). Some speakers accept an additional reading where focus can also scope under negation, but only when an accentual phrase follows the focused constituent. (Thanks to Christina Kim for the pointing out that the prosodic structure interacts with available scope readings). I take the variation to reflect whether individual speakers allow focus to be merged within the –e complement of ‘try’ or not. Interestingly, low merger seems to be only possible when the word structure and phonological phrasing is consistent with it. Thus, this reading seems to be unavailable when DP man an V2 V1-forms a single intonational phrase, suggesting that the hierarchical structure underlying this phrasing can only be manan. Merger of focus within the complement must be consistent with the phonological phrasing/word structure, [[.. man ] an]This may in fact be another instance where word structure and syntax determine scopal possibilities (Lee 2004 and section 6). These Korean data resemble Hungarian where embedded focus blocks restructuring (Koopman, and Szabolcsi, 2000).
I will not consider a mixed account where desu and masi are merged in different locations.
In order to account for the fact AP does not Spec-extract, it must be assumed that katta cannot strand. This can be achieved if katta must have overt material in its Spec at spellout.
I assume Focus can be merged in the accusative region (see also section 6). For recursion of the left periphery in lower regions of the sentence, see Hallman 1996, Sportiche 1996, Cecchetto 1998, Koopman (2001), and Belletti (2003) among others.
As an anonymous reviewer points out, X-man-i can be coordinated by hokun ‘or’.
These must be derived from hokun(or) man case, with ATB movement to create the surface constituency. Youngjoo Lee (personal communication) informs me that that
merger and man would lead to the following interpretation, which is inherent:
“Swuni was the unique individual who got an A and Chelswu was the unique individual who got an A, where there is unique A getting event.” Disjunction (orman does not create a problem, and neither does coordination with the sentential coordinator kuliko (the sentential coordinator), in which case we expect two “A getting events”. To derive the latter two cases an ATB account must be adopted.
The data in this section are mostly drawn from Park and Sohn 1993, and references cited therein. I would like to thank Sun Ah Jun and Seungo Nam for additional help.
Some Korean speakers find the sequence ta-tul acceptable, but slightly degraded. Tul can optionally follow adverbs and PPs as long as these are “controlled” by the plural subject, and occur on the projection line between V and the surface position of the plural subject DP. (Yim 2001).These cases will not be discussed in this paper.
(i) hakko-eyse-tul wass-ni-tul
‘ Did they come from school’ man can further attach to the CP (ilk-e-tul man), suggesting (remnant) CP extraction to Focus [ikl-e-tul] man [ilk-e tul ] V.
(i) ilk- e-tul- man po-ass- ta- tul
As an anonymous reviewer points out, the order ilk-e man-tul is also acceptable, though generally less preferred. This might suggest the presence of an additional Agr position just below man, and CP recursion, with VP-e moving through AgrS and triggering plural
agreement under pied-piping:
This analysis predicts that man should have scope over an(negation) in this particular linear string, though not necessarily in the other order. (These predictions can only be
tested with speakers who allow man to be merged within the infinitival (see footnote 11):
judgments are very difficult to make, though they tend to go in the right direction..
Park and Sohn (1993) further show that tul cannot occur in relative clauses nor in noun-complement structures. We leave these out of consideration for reasons of space.
The contrast between (49) and (52) is quite problematic for a templatic view of morphology. If –tul can attach to C1 etc, and if C1 occurs in slot 1,why then cannot it attach to other elements in slot 1?
Turkish data presented by Kural (1994) initially inspired me to pursue this type of analysis. Subject agreement follows what Kural analyzes as a complementizer.
Kornfilt (2002) shows that in certain Turkic languages a post-nominal agreement morpheme agrees with the subject of a pre-nominal relative, and analyzes these in terms of AgrS stranding.
The fact that tul can be followed by Case is expected, as the entire CP can move on to Spec, Case.
These examples show that complements of restructuring verbs can also contain a high AgrS, as well as a C, in accordance with Koopman & Szabolcsi’s (2000) idea that complements of restructuring predicates are always dominated by full CPs, which are made to look small when part of the CP, which is selected by the restructuring predicate, extracts to form a complex predicate, forcing the rest of the clause to raise into the higher clause.
Possibly related to a that-t effect. Alternatively, it may be related to Kayne’s proposal that complements can never move to the Spec of the head that selects it (Kayne 2003b:24-25 ). This implies all derivations should confirm to [ H [XP X [YP Y with YP moving to Spec, HP, possibly transiting through Spec, XP (which would require the presence of another intermediate category ZP between X and YP). Athough some piedpiping derivations in this paper violate this constraint, this may be an artifact of the presentation. It is important to note that the more fully specified derivations in Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000), obey this constraint.
It is of course tempting to extend the treatment of tul as stranded Agr-S to other cases of complementizer agreement. It seems only the SOV Germanic languages have complementizer agreement, and that complementizer agreement is only possible in clauses that have an OV order. This suggests TP movement to C with Agr stranding
underlies AgrS stranding, with additional movement of the C to a higher position:
Embedded verb second is incompatible with complementizer agreement ( cf. Shlonsky 1994, Kayne 1994: p.56, Zwart 1997, Bennis and Haegeman, 1983, Bayer 1983, see in particular Carstens 2003).
This account should extend to other cases where topic and focus markers are incompatible (such as Japanese*ga-wa, *wa/ga, cf. Kayne 1994, p. 143.).
This leaves open the possibility that Merger which does not yield a different linear order is allowed. For general criticism about the postsyntactic mechanisms of Distributed Morphology, see Williams (2003).