Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 181–229 | Cite as

On the status of certain island violations in Korean

  • Younghee Na
  • G. J. Huck
Article

Summary and Conclusion

We have demonstrated in this study that the island phenomena exhibited in Korean complex constructions, such as they are, follow from the strict application of the Argument Condition to the semantic interpretations of those constructions — and not from formal restrictions on the location of the antecedents of gaps. The AC was shown to entail a kind of subjaceny restriction, although it is immaterial to the AC whether a particular gap is locally bound in a clause as long as the head or topic of the clause can find another element of the appropriate type in the proper position in that clause. Long-distance dependencies may then be sanctioned simply by default.

An important assumption of this study is that the AC is a language-specific condition that characterizes the way semantic rules apply to the particular structures produced by the syntactic rules of the Korean grammar; hence, we would not necessarily expect to find an identical condition in languages with markedly different syntaxes. For example, English does not admit Multiple Subject Constructions, and thus, whatever restrictions it places on the distribution of gaps, there can be no English equivalent of the B-clause of the AC. But, as we've seen, that clause is crucial in licensing long-distance dependencies in relatives and topic complements in Korean. If this is correct — and the evidence appears quite persuasive that it is — then the chief difference between Korean and English with respect to whether CNPC violations are tolerated consequently resides not in the typology of gaps in the syntactic structures produced by the two grammars, but rather in the possibility of forming such structures without gaps.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Identical Condition Computational Linguistic Syntactic Structure Formal Restriction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chomsky, Noam: 1973, ‘Conditions on Transformations’, in S. Anderson and P. Kiparksy (eds.),A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, pp. 232–86.Google Scholar
  2. Chomsky, Noam: 1977, ‘On WH-Movement’, in P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian (eds.),Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
  3. Chomsky, Noam: 1981,Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, Noam: 1986,Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Cruse, D. A.: 1986,Lexical Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi and Shalom Lappin: 1979, ‘Dominance and the Functional Explanation of Island Phenomena’,Theoretical Linguistics 6, 41–86.Google Scholar
  7. Farmer, Ann: 1980,On the Interaction of Morphology and Syntax, unpublished MIT dissertation, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Gerdts, Donna B. and Cheong Youn: 1987, ‘An Inversion Analysis of Korean Tough Constructions’, in Susumu Kuno et al. (eds.),Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics II, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Gerdts, Donna B. and Cheong Youn: 1988, ‘Korean Psych Constructions: Advancement or Retreat?’, in Lynn MacLeod, Gary Larson, and Diane Brentari (eds.),Papers from the 24th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Green, Georgia: 1976, ‘Main Clause Phenomena in Subordinate Clauses’,Language 52, 382–97.Google Scholar
  11. Grosu, Alexander: 1981,Approaches to Island Phenomena, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  12. Gueron, Jacqueline: 1980, ‘On the Syntax and Semantics of PP Extraposition’,Linguistic Inquiry 11, 637–78.Google Scholar
  13. Hale, Kenneth: 1980, ‘ Remarks on Japanese Phrase Structure: Comments on the Papers on Japanese Syntax’, in Y. Otsu and A. Farmer (eds.),MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 2, pp. 185–203.Google Scholar
  14. Han, Hak-Sung: 1987, ‘On Case Conversion in Korean’, in Susumu Kuno et al. (eds.),Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 11, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Hasegawa, Nobuko: 1981,A Lexical Interpretive Theory with Emphasis on the Role of Subject, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  16. Hasegawa, Nobuko: 1984, ‘On the So-Called “Zero Pronouns” in Japanese’,The Linguistic Review 4, 289–341.Google Scholar
  17. Hooper, Joan B.: 1975, ‘On Assertive Predicates’, in J. Kimball (ed.),Syntax and Semantics 4, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Huang, C.-T. James: 1982,Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, unpublished MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
  19. Huang, C.-T. James: 1984, ‘On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns’,Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–74.Google Scholar
  20. Huang, C.-T. James: 1987, ‘Remarks on Empty Categories in Chinese’,Linguistic Inquiry 18, 321–27.Google Scholar
  21. Huck, Geoffrey J. and Younghee Na: 1990, ‘Extraposition and Focus’,Language 66, 51–77.Google Scholar
  22. Jackendoff, Ray S.: 1987, ‘The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory’,Linguistic Inquiry 18, 369–411.Google Scholar
  23. Kameshima, Nanako: 1991, ‘On “Aboutness Conditions”’, in Hajime Hoji (ed.),Japanesel Korean Linguistics, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford (distributed by The University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
  24. Kameyama, Megumi: 1988, ‘Japanese Zero Pronominal Binding: Where Syntax and Discourse Meet’, in W. J. Poser (ed.),Paper from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford (distributed by The University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
  25. Kang, Myung-Yoon: 1987, ‘“Possessor Raising” in Korean’, in Susumu Kuno et al. (eds.),Harvard Studies in Linguistics II, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  26. Kang, Young-Se: 1986, ‘Korean Anaphora (I):Caki as a Resumptive Pronoun’,Language Research 22, 215–28.Google Scholar
  27. Kayne, Richard: 1981, ‘ECP Extensions’,Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93–133.Google Scholar
  28. Keenan, Edward L.: 1976, ‘Towards a Universal Definition of “Subject”’, in Charles N. Li (ed.),Subject and Topic, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Kim, Youngjoo and Richard Larson: 1989, ‘Scope Interpretation and the Syntax of Psych-Verbs’,Linguistic Inquiry 20, 681–88.Google Scholar
  30. Kitagawa, Chisato: 1982, ‘Topic Constructions in Japanese’,Lingua 57, 175–214.Google Scholar
  31. Kornfilt, Jaklin, Susumu Kuno, and Engin Sezer: 1980, ‘A Note on Crisscrossing Double Dislocation’, in Susumu Kuno (ed.),Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Harvard University Linguistics Department, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  32. Kuno, Susumu: 1973,The Structure of Japanese, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  33. Kuno, Susumu: 1976, ‘Subject, Theme, and the Speaker's Empathy: A Reexamination of Relativization Phenomena’, in Charles N. Li (ed.),Subject and Topic, Academic Press, New York, pp. 417–44.Google Scholar
  34. Kuno, Susumu and Etsuko Kaburaki: 1977, ‘Empathy and Syntax’,Linguistic Inquiry 8, 627–72.Google Scholar
  35. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki: 1965,Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, MIT dissertation (published by Garland, New York, 1979).Google Scholar
  36. Lakoff, George: 1987,Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  37. Lee, Chungmin: 1973,Abstract Syntax and Korean with Reference to English, Indiana University dissertation (distributed by University Microfilms).Google Scholar
  38. Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson: 1976, ‘Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language’, in Charles N. Li (ed.),Subject and Topic, Academic Press, New York, pp. 457–489.Google Scholar
  39. Massam, Diane: 1989, ‘Part/Whole Constructions in English’, in E. Jane Fee and Katherine Hunt (eds.),Proceedings of the Eight West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford (distributed by The University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
  40. Matsumoto, Yoshiko: 1989, ‘Pragmatic Control of Relative Clauses in Japanese’, ms., Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  41. McCawley, James D.: 1973, ‘Japanese Relative Clauses’,The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago (Reprinted as ‘Relativization’,Japanese Generative Grammar (Syntax and Semantics, 5), Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1976).Google Scholar
  42. McCawley, James D.: 1981, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of English Relative Clauses’,Lingua 53, 99–149.Google Scholar
  43. McCawley, James D.: 1988,The Syntactic Phenomena of English, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  44. Na, Younghee: 1986,Syntactic and Semantic Interaction in Korean: Theme, Topic, and Relative Clause, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  45. Na, Younghee: 1990, ‘Relativizability in Korean’, ms., to appear in D. Gerdts, Chungmin Lee, and James Yoon (eds.),Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  46. O'Grady, William: 1991,Categories and Case: The Sentence Structure of Korean (Current Issues inLinguistic Theory,71), John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  47. Park, Byong-Soo: 1982, ‘The Double Subject Constructions Revisited’, inLinguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, Hanshin, Seoul, pp. 645–57.Google Scholar
  48. Prince, Ellen: 1981, ‘Towards a Taxonomy of Given-New Information’, in Peter Cole (ed.),Radical Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 223–55.Google Scholar
  49. Quirk, Randolph and Sidney Greenbaum: 1973,A Concise Grammar of Contemporary Enlish, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.Google Scholar
  50. Rosch, Eleanor and Carolyn Mervis: 1975, ‘Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories’,Cognitive Psychology 7, 573–605.Google Scholar
  51. Rosch, Eleanor, Carolyn Mervis, Wayne D. Gray, David M. Johnson and Penny Boyes-Braem: 1976, ‘Basic Objects in Natural Categories’,Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439.Google Scholar
  52. Ross, John R.: 1967,Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (published asInfinite Syntax, Ablex).Google Scholar
  53. Sag, Ivan A.: 1976, ‘A Logical Theory of Verb Phrase Deletion’, in Salikoko Mufwene et al.,Paper from the Twelfth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
  54. van Oosten, Jeanne: 1984, ‘A Unified View of Topic’, in C. Brugman and M. Macauley (eds.),Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Department of Linguistics, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  55. Yang, Dong-Whee: 1975,Topicalization and Relativization in Korean, unpublished Indiana University dissertation.Google Scholar
  56. Yang, In-Seok: 1972,Korean Syntax: Case Markers, Delimiters. Complementation, and Relativization, University of Hawaii dissertation (distributed by University Microfilms).Google Scholar
  57. Yoon, James Hye-Suk: 1987, ‘Some Queries Concerning the Syntax of Multiple Subject Constructions in Korean’, in Susumu Kuno et al. (eds.),harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics II, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  58. Xu, Leijong: 1986, ‘Free Empty Category’,Linguistic Inquiry 17, 75–93.Google Scholar
  59. Xu, Leijiong and D. Terence Langendoen: 1985, ‘Topic Structures in Chinese’,Language 61, 1–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Younghee Na
    • 1
  • G. J. Huck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations