Milestone for Null Pronominalization in the Ciman-Construction: A Reply to An (2013)

Doo-Won Lee 한국언어학회 2013 언어 Vol.38 No.3

The marker nun attached to the relevant nominal in the subsequent clause of the ciman construction is not a plain topic one, but rather a contrastive topic one (Lee 2013a). This induces its contrastive counterpart to be retrieved out of the preceding clause. If the counterpart is identified and may be syntactically independent of its following nominal, the next step is that the nun-marked remnant allows null pronominalization. Beyond the multiple case marking construction (i.e., MCM) context, this may even be extended to the non-MCM context. The nominative- or accusative-marked genuine possessor or the adjunct, which can be replaced by the genitive-marked element, acts separately from its immediately following nominal in the sentence-level context, which induces the nun-marked remnant in the second clause to allow null pronominalization. This is also what the nun-marked goal in the subsequent clause of the ciman construction allowing the double accusative construction shows. As a result, the null pronominalization of the Minor Argument (i.e., null pronominalization of sonkalak-ul "finger-ACC" in Tom-uy sonkalak-ul "Tom-GEN finger-ACC" which is Minor Argument Pronominalization (i.e., MAP) in An"s (2012a) term) in the MCM context and the other null pronominalization in the non-MCM context are both the same null argument phenomenon even though the former is involved in the nun-marked remnant"s ownership of the Minor Argument.

Milestone for Null Pronominalization in the Ciman-Construction: A Reply to An (2013)

이두원 한국언어학회 2013 언어 Vol.38 No.3

The marker nun attached to the relevant nominal in the subsequent clause of the ciman construction is not a plain topic one, but rather a contrastive topic one (Lee 2013a). This induces its contrastive counterpart to be retrieved out of the preceding clause. If the counterpart is identified and may be syntactically independent of its following nominal, the next step is that the nun-marked remnant allows null pronominalization. Beyond the multiple case marking construction (i.e., MCM) context, this may even be extended to the non-MCM context. The nominative- or accusative-marked genuine possessor or the adjunct, which can be replaced by the genitive-marked element, acts separately from its immediately following nominal in the sentence-level context, which induces the nun-marked remnant in the second clause to allow null pronominalization. This is also what the nun-marked goal in the subsequent clause of the ciman construction allowing the double accusative construction shows. As a result, the null pronominalization of the Minor Argument (i.e., null pronominalization of sonkalak-ul 'finger-ACC' in Tom-uy sonkalak-ul 'Tom-GEN finger-ACC' which is Minor Argument Pronominalization (i.e., MAP) in An's (2012a) term) in the MCM context and the other null pronominalization in the non-MCM context are both the same null argument phenomenon even though the former is involved in the nun-marked remnant's ownership of the Minor Argument.

Multiple Case Marking and Null Argument Phenomena

이두원 한국언어학회 2012 언어 Vol.37 No.3

This paper deals critically with An's (2012) argument that the second clause (i.e. target clause) of a sentence is derived from the multiple case marking (MCM) construction via null pronominalization (i.e. pro) of the second nominative phrase with the optional introduction of a relevant discourse particle such as the topic marker -nun. This paper identifies the following by examining some empirical phenomena involved in this argument. First, though the genitive construction in the first clause allows MCM counterparts, the target clause does not always permit null pronominalization. Second, only when the genuine grammatical subject or object in the target clause is selected by its predicate, it can undergo null pronominalization. At this point, body-part or kinship expressions are a typical example which can be represented as pro. Third, the target clause may or may not be equivalent to the MCM counterpart when it involves pro. Finally, the genuine grammatical subject or object in question necessarily shows up as a null argument when the target clause involves null pronominalization, regardless of whether one or more genitive elements appear in the genitive construction in the antecedent clause.

영어대명사화에서의 문법성 출현

송효원(Song, Hyowon) 새한영어영문학회 2017 새한영어영문학 Vol.59 No.1

It is a well-known fact that the English gender system marginally remains in personal pronouns such as he, she, and their declension. The gender distinction of these personal pronouns is based on the natural gender system such as he for males and she for females. One of the interesting phenomena about English pronominalization is the use of the feminine personal pronoun she for some special nouns such as ships, countries, airplanes, etc. when they are singular and pronominalized. The present study will introduce such exceptional nouns (optional figure of speech) and their use in pronominalization. To argue that this phenomenon is not a simple option, but an initiation of another shift of the English gender system, this paper presents three approaches to the argument: the exceptional nouns in history of English, semantic approach to the feminine pronoun use of the special nouns, and a possible explanation, a shift theory of the gender system in the English pronouns.

MaxElide vs. MaxPronominalize

Kwang-sup Kim 한국생성문법학회 2011 생성문법연구 Vol.21 No.4

The term ‘MaxElide’ is used to refer to the phenomenon that deletion of the smaller constituent leads to ungrammaticality when the larger constituent can be deleted. This article, however, argues that the so-called MaxElide effects bear no relation with ellipsis, but follow from the constraint ‘MaxPronominalize’. In this article, I claim that pronominalization is subject to the pronominalization economy, according to which the maximal constituents must be pronominalized, with the result that the maximal constituents are not pronounced when the pronoun is realized as a zero form. A consequence of the MaxPronominalize approach is that it sheds light on the question of where the island constraints apply. In an attempt to explain the phenomenon that the elided part is not subject to the island constraints, many linguists, including Fox and Lasnik (2003), Lasnik (2007), Merchant (2001, 2003, 2008), propose that island violation can be repaired via ellipsis, while assuming that the island constraints apply at PF. However, the MaxPronominalize approach shows that the island constraints are not conditions on PF representation but on the syntactic derivation, as Chomsky (2001, 2008) proposes.

Arguments for NP-ellipsis in Korean

박소영 한국언어학회 2016 언어 Vol.41 No.2

Park, So-Young. 2016. Arguments for NP-ellipsis in Korean. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 41-2, 289-311. NP-ellipsis in Korean has often been refuted in the previous literature. This paper, however, presents two pieces of evidence in support of the existence of NP-ellipsis in Korean: evidence from numeral classifier constructions, and one from comparatives capitalizing on complex event and mass nouns. It turns out that NP-ellipsis can take place in Korean licensed by a numeral classifier. Potential alternatives like pronominalization, argument-ellipsis, or stranding are all falsified by the scrutiny of numeral classifier constructions with genitive-marked possessor arguments. Also, null NPs in comparatives, built on complex event and mass nouns, can be properly accounted for only under an NP-ellipsis analysis. (Pusan National University)

Arguments for NP-ellipsis in Korean

So-Young Park(박소영) 한국언어학회 2016 언어 Vol.41 No.2

The existence of NP-ellipsis in Korean has often been refuted in the previous literature. This paper, however, presents two pieces of evidence in support of NP-ellipsis in Korean: evidence from null NPs appearing under numeral classifiers, and ones in pota ‘than’-comparatives that involve complex event and mass nouns. It is argued that NP-ellipsis can take place licensed by a numeral classifier. Alternatives such as pronominalization, argument-ellipsis, or stranding are all falsified by the scrutiny of numeral classifier constructions with genitive-marked possessor arguments. Also, null NPs in comparatives, built on complex event and mass nouns, can be properly accounted for only under an NP-ellipsis analysis.

Nun-Marked Remnant Allowing pro and Beyond in the Ciman Construction

이두원 한국중원언어학회 2013 언어학연구 Vol.0 No.29

The compatibility of the nun-marked remnants in the ciman-construction allowing null pronominalization is attributed to their counterparts' syntactically independent state. The accusative-marked possessor or the adjunct is syntactically independent sate out of its immediately following nominal in the sentence-level context. That is, it is syntactically independent out of its following pro, modifying the verbal predicate, which induces it to allow pro (Lee 2013b). The counterpart of the nun-marked remnant undergoing null pronominalization allows a multiple case marking (i.e., MCM) type or adjunct type construction. The nun-marked remnant entailing the seeming possessum may also show up in the subsequent clause of the ciman construction even when the counterpart of the nun-marked remnant does not allow an MCM or adjunct construction. At this point, it is selected by the verbal predicate, which triggers a bleeding problem.

Nun-Marked Remnant Allowing pro and Beyond in the Ciman Construction

Doo-Won Lee 한국중원언어학회 2013 언어학연구 Vol.0 No.29

The compatibility of the nun-marked remnants in the ciman-construction allowing null pronominalization is attributed to their counterparts’ syntactically independent state. The accusative-marked possessor or the adjunct is syntactically independent sate out of its immediately following nominal in the sentence-level context. That is, it is syntactically independent out of its following pro, modifying the verbal predicate, which induces it to allow pro (Lee 2013b). The counterpart of the nun-marked remnant undergoing null pronominalization allows a multiple case marking (i.e., MCM) type or adjunct type construction. The nun-marked remnant entailing the seeming possessum may also show up in the subsequent clause of the ciman construction even when the counterpart of the nun-marked remnant does not allow an MCM or adjunct construction. At this point, it is selected by the verbal predicate, which triggers a bleeding problem.

Multiple Case Marking and Null Argument Phenomena

Doo-Won Lee 한국언어학회 2012 언어 Vol.37 No.3