Pub Date : 2019-08-01DOI: 10.30961/lr.2019.55.2.315
Soung-U Kim
While clause linkage is a relatively understudied area within Koreanic linguistics, the Korean –ko clause linkage has been studied more extensively. Authors have deemed it interesting since depending on the successive/non-successive interpretation of its events, a –ko clause linkage exhibits all or no properties of what is traditionally known as coordination or subordination. Jejuan –ko clauses may look fairly similar to Korean on the surface, and exhibit a similar lack of semantic specification. This study shows that the traditional, dichotomous coordination-subordination opposition is not applicable to Jejuan –ko clauses. I propose that instead of applying a-priori categories to the exploration of clause linkage in Koreanic varieties, one should apply a multidimensional model that lets patterns emerge in an inductive way.
{"title":"The Morphosyntax of Jejuan –ko Clause Linkages","authors":"Soung-U Kim","doi":"10.30961/lr.2019.55.2.315","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2019.55.2.315","url":null,"abstract":"While clause linkage is a relatively understudied area within Koreanic linguistics, the Korean –ko clause linkage has been studied more extensively. Authors have deemed it interesting since depending on the successive/non-successive interpretation of its events, a –ko clause linkage exhibits all or no properties of what is traditionally known as coordination or subordination. Jejuan –ko clauses may look fairly similar to Korean on the surface, and exhibit a similar lack of semantic specification. This study shows that the traditional, dichotomous coordination-subordination opposition is not applicable to Jejuan –ko clauses. I propose that instead of applying a-priori categories to the exploration of clause linkage in Koreanic varieties, one should apply a multidimensional model that lets patterns emerge in an inductive way.","PeriodicalId":89433,"journal":{"name":"Language research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44716090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-08-01DOI: 10.30961/lr.2019.55.2.281
Chorong Kang
This paper aimed to account for unexpected accusative case on a pronominal associate in there-sentences (there was him). It is unexpected that under the long-standing assumption in generative grammar, agreement coincides with case assignment. Since there-associates appear to agree with T in number (e.g. There was/*were a dog), they are expected to be valued as nominative case. Furthermore, such a pronominal associate with accusative case is not available in there-V type sentences (*There arrived him). In this paper, I propose a multiple-there hypothesis to account for different behaviors of there-V and there-BE. In the proposal, I argue that there-s in there-V and there-BE are base-generated in different positions due to their different “grammatical roles” (semantically null expletive vs. subject argument). Based on the distinction, I further argue that there-s have different feature specifications and show that the proposed system captures different behaviors between there-sentences with respect to sub-extraction and control.
本文旨在说明代词联想词在这些句子中出现的意外宾格(有他)。出乎意料的是,在生成语法中长期存在的假设下,一致性与格分配是一致的。由于联想词在数量上似乎与T一致(例如there was/*are a dog),因此它们被认为是主格。此外,这种与宾格的代词联想在V型句子中是不可用的(*他来了)。在本文中,我提出了一个多重存在假说来解释there-V和there-BE的不同行为。在该提案中,我认为there-s In there-V和there-BE由于其不同的“语法角色”(语义上为空的咒骂语与主语论点)而在不同的位置产生了基础。基于这种区别,我进一步论证了它们具有不同的特征规范,并表明所提出的系统在子提取和控制方面捕捉到了句子之间的不同行为。
{"title":"Two Types of there-sentences and Feature\u0000 Specification","authors":"Chorong Kang","doi":"10.30961/lr.2019.55.2.281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2019.55.2.281","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aimed to account for unexpected accusative case on a pronominal associate in there-sentences (there was him). It is unexpected that under the long-standing assumption in generative grammar, agreement coincides with case assignment. Since there-associates appear to agree with T in number (e.g. There was/*were a dog), they are expected to be valued as nominative case. Furthermore, such a pronominal associate with accusative case is not available in there-V type sentences (*There arrived him). In this paper, I propose a multiple-there hypothesis to account for different behaviors of there-V and there-BE. In the proposal, I argue that there-s in there-V and there-BE are base-generated in different positions due to their different “grammatical roles” (semantically null expletive vs. subject argument). Based on the distinction, I further argue that there-s have different feature specifications and show that the proposed system captures different behaviors between there-sentences with respect to sub-extraction and control.","PeriodicalId":89433,"journal":{"name":"Language research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41651614","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}