Abstract
The question of whether languages like Korean and Japanese possess genuine instances of Subject-to-Object Raising (SOR) has been a matter of debate since Kuno (1976), as a number of the properties of the putative SOR construction in the languages differ from those found in languages like English, while others are shared between the languages. I argue in this paper that the paradoxical properties begin to fall into place once we posit that what undergoes movement in SOR in these languages is not the embedded subject, but the embedded Major Subject. The Major Subject is the initial Nom-marked DP in a Multiple Nominative Construction. It is shown that if we posit that the Major Subject raises in SOR, the unexpected properties of SOR can be accounted for. Under this analysis, SOR in Korean and Japanese conform to known constraints on A-movement taking place from the highest A-specifier (Major Subject) position of the embedded clause. It is the coindexation of the Major Subject with the predicate-internal position that gives rise to the illusion of non-locality. I then compare the analysis with an alternative base-generation analysis. While the two are roughly equal in terms of coverage, only the Major Subject raising analysis is able to account for properties of the raised nominal that could only have been determined in the embedded clause.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Basilico, D. (2003). ‘The topic of small clauses’. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 1–35.
Bruening, B. (2001). ‘Raising to Object and Proper Movement’, ms., University of Delaware.
Chung, D.-H. (2004). ‘What does bare –ko coordination say about postverbal morphology in Korean?’. Lingua, 115, 549–568.
Davies, W. (2005). ‘Madurese Prolepsis and its implications for a typology of raising’, Language, 81, 645–665.
Davies, W., & Dubinsky, S. (2004). The Grammar of Raising and Control, Blackwell Publishing.
Deprez, V. (1992). ‘Raising constructions in haitian creole’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10, 191–232.
Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites, MIT Press.
Doron, E., & Heycock, C. (1999). ‘Filling and Licensing Multiple Specifiers’. In D. Adger et al. (eds.), Specifiers (pp. 69–89). Oxford University Press.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The Dynamics of Focus Structure, Cambridge University Press.
Han, C., & Kim, J. (2004). ‘Are there ‘Double relative clauses’ in Korean?’ Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 315–337.
Heycock, C. (1993). ‘Syntactic predication in Japanese’. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 2, 167–211.
Heycock, C., & Doron, E. (2003). ‘Categorical subjects’. Gengo Kenkyuu, 123, 95–135.
Hiraiwa, K. (2002). ‘Raising and Indeterminate Agreement’, paper presented at WCCFL-21.
Hoji, H. (1991). ‘Raising-to-object, ECM, and the major object in Japanese’, Paper presented at the Japanese Syntax Workshop, University of Rochester.
Hoji, H. (2005). ‘Major object analysis of the so-called Raising-to-Object construction in Japanese’, Paper presented at New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control, Harvard University.
Hong, K.-S. (1990). ‘Subject-to-object raising in Korean’, In K. Dzimirek et al. (eds.), Grammatical Relations: A Cross-linguistic Perspective (pp. 215–226). CSLI.
Hong, K.-S. (1997). ‘Yenge-wa kwuke-uy insang kwumwnun pikyo pwunsek (Subject-to-Object Raising Constructions in English and Korean)’, Language Research, 33, 409–434.
Hong, S.-M. (2005). “Exceptional” case-marking and resultative constructions, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.
Hornstein, N. (1995). Logical Form, Blackwell Publishers.
Kim, Y.-H. (1985). ‘Cwu.e olliki (Subject Raising)’, Kwukehak (Korean Linguistics), 14, 337–360.
Kim, S., & Maling, J. (1993). ‘Syntactic case and frequency adverbials’. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 5, 368–378.
Kotzoglu, G., & Papangeli, D. (2005). ‘Not really ECM, not exactly control: the ‘quasi’ ECM construction in Greek’, paper presented at New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control, Harvard University.
Kratzer, A. (1995). ‘Stage-level and Individual-level Predicates’, In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book (pp. 125–175). University of Chicago Press.
Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press.
Kuno, S. (1976). ‘Subject Raising’, In M. Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Japanese Generative Grammar (pp. 17–49). Academic Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). ‘The categorical judgment and the thetic judgment’, Foundations of Language, 9, 153–185.
Ladusaw, W. (1994). ‘Thetic and Categorical, Stage and Individual, Weak and Strong’, in Proceedings of SALT-IV (pp. 220–229). Cornell University: CLC Publications.
Lee, J.-S. (1992). Case Alternations in Korean: Case Minimality, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Lee, P.-Y. (1992). ‘Wanhyeng pomwun-eyse-uy cwu.e insang-ey tayha.ye (On Subject Raising from Closed Complements)’, Swulyen Emwun Noncip (Swulyen Studies in Language and Literature), 19, 139–171.
Lee, W. (2003). ‘Tense-shared coordination constructions in Korean: Implications for morphosyntax’, Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 10, 609–620.
May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Miyagawa, S. (2001). ‘The EPP, scrambling, and Wh-in-situ’, In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 293–338). MIT Press.
Massam, D. (1985). Case Theory and the Projection Principle, Ph.D dissertation, MIT.
Moore, J. (1998). ‘Turkish Copy-Raising and A-chain Locality’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 149–189.
O’Grady, W. (1991). Case and Categories in Korean, John Benjamins.
Oka, T. (1988). ‘Abstract case and empty pronouns’, Tsukuba English Studies, 7, 187–227.
Potsdam, E., & Runner, J. (2001). ‘Richard returns: Copy Raising and its implications’, Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 37, 453–468.
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality, MIT Press.
Saito, M. (1983). ‘Comments on the papers in generative syntax’, In Y. Otsu et al. (eds.), Studies in Generative Grammar and Language Acquisition (pp. 79–89). Tokyo: International Christian University.
Schütze, C. (2001). ‘On Korean ‘Case Stacking’: The Varied Functions of the Particles Ka and Lul’, The Linguistic Review, 18, 193–232.
Sells, P. (1990). ‘Is there Subject-to-Object raising in Japanese?’, In K. Dziwirek et al. (eds.), Grammatical Relations: A Cross-linguistic Perspective (pp. 445–458). CSLI Publications.
Song, J.-G. (1994). Clause-Embedding Verbs and the Interpretation of WH In-situ, Ph.D dissertation, University of Texas.
Takano, Y. (2003). ‘Nominative Objects as Proleptic Objects’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 779–834.
Takano, Y. (2004). ‘Coordination of verbs and two types of verbal inflection’. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 168–178.
Tanaka, H. (2002). ‘Raising to Object out of CP’. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 637–652.
Ura, H. (2000). Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar, Oxford University Press
Yoon, J. H. (1987). ‘Some queries concerning the syntax of Multiple Nominative Constructions in Korean’, in Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 2, 138–162.
Yoon, J.-M. (1989). ‘ECM and multiple subject constructions in Korean’, in Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3 (pp. 369–382). Seoul: Hanshin.
Yoon, J.-M. (1991). The Syntax of A-Chains: A Typological Study of ECM and Scrambling, Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Yoon, J. H. (1994). ‘Korean verbal inflection and Checking Theory’, Morphology-Syntax Connection (pp. 251–270). MITWPL Volume 22.
Yoon, J. H. (1996). ‘Ambiguity of government and the Chain Condition’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 105–162.
Yoon, J. H. (2004a). ‘The independence of grammatical case from interpretive factors’, paper presented at the 2004 Linguistic Society of Korean International Conference, Seoul, Korea.
Yoon, J. H. (2004b). ‘Non-nominative (Major) Subjects and Case-stacking in Korean’. In P. Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative Subjects, Volume 2 (pp. 265–314). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research reported in this paper has been presented in various incarnations at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (2003), Indiana University (2003), Seoul National University (2004), the summer international conferences of the Linguistic Association of Korea and the Modern Linguistic Society of Korea (2004), the Workshop on Japanese and Korean Linguistics at Kyoto University (2005), and at the LSA workshop ‘New Horizons on the Grammar of Raising and Control’ (2005). A preliminary version of the work was also presented at the Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics (2003) and appears in the proceedings. I would like to thank the audiences at these venues for their critical feedback. Special thanks go to Karlos Arregi, Cedric Boeckx, Youngju Choi, Hajime Hoji, Kisun Hong, JuHyeon Hwang, Ji-Hye Kim, Soowon Kim, Yoshihisa Kitagawa, Peter Sells, Keun Young Shin, Yukinori Takubo, and Yunchul Yoo whose input and criticism shaped and guided the paper. Bill Davies and Stan Dubinsky deserve special thanks for putting together a timely project on a topic of perennial interest to linguists as well as for comments and feedback and to Joan Maling for encouraging the submission of the paper and offering editorial assistance.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yoon, J.H. Raising of major arguments in Korean and Japanese. Nat Language Linguistic Theory 25, 615–653 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9020-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9020-2