Some Notes on Korean Resultative Small Clauses: Focused on Ko’s (2015b) Typology

정대호(Daeho Chung) 현대문법학회 2018 현대문법연구 Vol.99 No.-

Daeho Chung. 2018. Some Notes on Korean Resultative Small Clauses: Focused on Ko’s (2015b) Typology. Studies in Modern Grammar 99, 43-64. Ko (2015b) classifies Korean resultative small clause (RSCs) into four sub-types, due to combinations of two factors, i.e., the RSC s functional status (complement vs. adjunct) and the RSC subject s phonological status (overt vs. covert). She accounts for typological differences, especially movement-related behaviors, RSCs display, in terms of the theory of cyclic spell-out (Fox and Pesetsky 2005, Ko 2005). It will be shown in this paper, however, that her system faces non-trivial problems. First, the RSC subject s phonological status in fact does not contribute to the RSC typology, as subjects in any type can be suppressed in principle, given an appropriate context. Second, -key RSCs may function as a complement (not unambiguously as an adjunct). Third, no proper theory is provided for the ellipsis restrictions that the RSC displays. The present work proposes a control based RSC typology and tries to provide a unified explanation of restrictions on ellipsis as well as movement in RSCs, basically following Chung’s (2007, 2009, 2011) constituency based account of the syntactic restrictions.

Elliptical Contrastive Topic Construction and Theories of Multi-elemental Fragments

정대호(Daeho Chung) 한국생성문법학회 2021 생성문법연구 Vol.31 No.1

To account for the positional (final vs. non-final) asymmetry observed in elliptical contexts (Park 2005, 2013, Park and Shin 2014, Ku and Cho 2014, Chung 2015a, b, among others), several proposals have been made in the literature including An’s (2016, 2018) extra deletion approach, Ahn and Cho’s (2017a, b) repetitive gapless right dislocation analysis, and Chung’s (2015a, b) oblique merge approach. This article addresses a novel type of fragment called an elliptical contrastive topic construction (ECTC, Chung 2020) and examines which of the theories proposed thus far best accounts for the characteristics of the construction. In particular, it will be shown that neither An’s nor Ahn and Cho’s theory properly captures certain important syntactic and semantic properties of the ECTC, while there is some room for Chung’s approach to accommodate them.

On WH-Doublets in Korean

Daeho Chung(정대호) 사단법인 한국언어학회 1999 언어학 Vol.0 No.25

Semantics and Syntax of Correlative Adverbs

정대호(Daeho Chung) 한국생성문법학회 2004 생성문법연구 Vol.14 No.3

This paper concerns the syntax and semantics of a set of adverbs, dubbed as Correlative Adverbs (CAs), that apparently have no semantic content but pair with particular functional elements in Korean. For example, adverbs simcie and tanci pair with delimiters -kkaci/-to/-mace 'even' and -man 'only', respectively, and adverbs pilok and manil cooccur with a concessive complementizer and a conditional complementizer, respectively. (See Kim 1996, Park 1996, Ym 1999, and Chae 2002a,b, ChlU1g 2003, among others.) It will be observed that such CAs function as focus scope barriers. Their status as focus scope barriers is ascribed to the syntactic position they assume, i.e., at the edge (SPEC) of the associated functional categories, marking the left edge of the focus scope, analogous to Sahn's (1995) positioning negative polarity items at the left edge of NegP. Two alternative approaches, i.e., Chae's (2002a,b, 2004) IPSG (Indexed Phrase Structure Grammar) analysis and an LF raising/agree analysis will be discussed but ultimately rejected due to some empirical and theoretical problems they bear.

Korean Modal V-(u)l swu/li iss/eps and Polarity Licensing

Daeho Chung(정대호) 한국생성문법학회 2007 생성문법연구 Vol.17 No.4

  Polarity licensing in the context of Korean modal CAN, i.e. V-(u)l swu iss/eps and V-(u)l li eps, is affected by the modal interpretation (root vs. epistemic). Ha (2007) tries to account for the constrained NPI distribution by analyzing root CAN as a possessive existential construction with a control structure, while epistemic CAN as an absolute existential construction with a raising structure. He crucially assumes that the adnominal clause in root CAN is an aspectual phrase, while that in epistemic CAN is a full-fledged CP, hence affecting the clause-mate condition. This paper shows that Ha"s (2007) generalization and his account in terms of the structural assimilation and of the projectional size are to be rectified, although his control vs. non-control dichotomy is basically correct. This paper argues for an alternative structural analysis, which also relies on a control vs. non-control dichotomy, but is simpler and free of the problems that Ha"s (2007) analysis faces. NPIs are claimed to be licensed at Neg-SPEC even in the modal context, with the help of the "surprising constituent" formation and the clause-crossing scrambling.

Left Node Raising as a Shared Node Raising

정대호(Daeho Chung) 한국생성문법학회 2010 생성문법연구 Vol.20 No.1

Nakao (2009a, b) analyzes the so-called Left Node Raising construction (LNR) as an instance of across-the-board (leftward) scrambling. She favors the across-the-board scrambling analysis (ASA) over a pro-drop analysis due to the isomorphic properties (case and honorification matching requirements) displayed by the LNRed pivot; and over a deletion or multi-dominance analysis (MDA) due to the obligatory movement property of the pivot. The current work claims, however, that MDA is favored over ASA since the former not only accommodates the isomorphic properties but also the distribution of plural dependent elements (relational modifiers and dummy plural markers). It will be also argued that the obligatory movement property of LNRed pivots follows from Wilder's (1999, 2008) revised version of LCA. Cf. Citko (2005)

Neural Signatures of Intervention Effects in Korean way ‘why’ Questions: An ERP Study

Park, Myung-Kwan(박명관),Wonil Chung(정원일),Daeho Chung(정대호) 한국언어학회 2021 언어 Vol.46 No.4

In this paper we use event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate the time course of comprehending the so-called intervention effect (IE) that negative polarity items (NPIs) induce on the wh-adverbial way ‘WHY’ in Korean. In keeping with Tomioka’s (2009) presupposition-based account for Ko’s (2005) paradigm of empirical data on the IE of NPIs on WHY, we construct three types of minimal pairs involving the WHY - NPI or the reverse orders. Type [1] with an NPI in the matrix clause and with WHY in the embedded clause elicited sustained positivity or P3b and P600. Type [2] with an NPI and WHY in the embedded clause evoked only P3b. Type [3] with negation on an embedded verb complex and Q-particle on a matrix one recorded sustained negativity. Following the lead by Jouralvlev et al. (2016), the P3b is taken as a neural marker of accommodating the presupposition or focus reduction on the NPI occurring before WHY, while the P300 is a neural signature of extending the domain of presupposition from embedded to matrix clause. On the other hand, the sustained negativity observed in Type [3] is a neural index of retaining the result from processing the embedded anomalous NPI-WHY order. Taken together, from experimental perspectives this paper demonstrates that presupposition accommodation interacting with word order and structural make-up plays an instrumental role in accounting for the various aspects of the IE in WHY questions.

'-이나'와 '-도'의 의미론 : 분류사구와 결합하는 경우를 중심으로

정대호,이정민,남승호 서울대학교 어학연구소 2002 語學硏究 Vol.38 No.1

This paper concerns the syntactic, semantic, prosodic, and pragmatic differences that Classifier Phrase(CLP)-ina and CLP-to display in Korean. We first characterize the syntactic-semantic differences between CLP-ina and CLP-to in positive/negative sentences, after/before-clauses, and their relative order in a negative sentence. Further we note the two reveal different scope behavior with other scope bearing elements: e.g., CLP-ina has scope over the negation or the comparative operator, while CLP-to has scope under these operators. To account for these, the paper analyzes CLP-to as a negative polarity expression and CLP-ina as a positive polarity expression. As a positive polarity expression, CLP-ina is interpreted as a focus and receives a focal accent. In contrast, as a negative polarity expression, CLP-to is interpreted as a presupositional or topical element in the discourse and does not receive a focal accent. Extending the claim of Lee, Chung, and Nam's (2000), we claim that both CLP-ina and CLP-to denote a lower bound in the likelihood scale that is pragmatically determined in the discourse context.