겉과 안

최현숙,Choe, Hyeon-Suk 한국대학교육협의회 1993 大學敎育 Vol.64 No.-

화자부인(話者否認)자질과 가부정(假否定)간의 국소성관계에 대하여

최현숙(Choe Hyon Sook) 한국생성문법학회 2015 생성문법연구 Vol.25 No.4

Choe (2015a) suggests that while the negative marker -ci {an-h/ani-ha}- or an(i) can make a clause negative, it can also make a clause non-negative when the sentence-ending marker (= X) bears a lexical feature [Ds] (=[Speaker's Denial]), whose function is to deny the value of the feature [negative] of the negative marker. In Choe 2015a, when the negative marker loses the value of the feature [negative] that it has, it is called nNEG, while it does not, it is called NEG. In this paper, assuming the suggestion in Choe 2015a, I suggest the following: First, nNEG and NEG are lexically different (see also D-S. Kim 1981), and nNEG is defective in that its feature value should be denied by the feature [Ds] in order for it to be properly licensed. Second, X[Ds] can license nNEG across T and/or will, but not across (i) nNEG/NEG or focus markers such as "-to('even')" and "-(n)un" (contrastive focus marker), or (ii) aspectual elements or modal elements other than will (-keyss- or -(u)l-). The second suggestion implies that the licensing relation between X[Ds] and nNEG should be local in a certain sense, and as for the reason why the relation should be local, I suggest/speculate that the locality relation is derived because of the following reason: In Korean obeying the head movement constraint (the HMC), nNEG (a head) should move to the element with the feature [Ds] (i.e. X[Ds]) to be properly licensed, just as the nNEG element (= n't) in English should move to C via head movement.

- {ㄹ/을} - 를 수반하는 종결어미들 의 어휘적 속성

최현숙(Choe, Hyon Sook) 한국생성문법학회 2015 생성문법연구 Vol.25 No.3

In this paper, I examine some sentence-ending markers (= Xs) accompanied with the morpheme -(u)l- ('will') that is ambiguous between non-epistemic will (will 1 ) and epistemic will (will 2 ): -(u)l-lay, -(u)l-kka, -(u)l-kel, etc. Based on empirical data, I try to show that they have the following lexical properties/informations: (a) the person feature information of the subject they allow (b) the speech act information they trigger, (c) their selectional property in relation to whether they select will 1 or will 2, and (d) their lexical property in relation to whether they trigger the opposite polarity readings, which I call nPOS/nNEG (= nominal positive/negative) readings following Choe (2015). During the discussion, I suggest the following two descriptive generalizations: (I) will 2 , but not will 1 , can come with the tense morpheme -(e)ss-, and (II) Xs that come with will 2 allow any person (1 st , 2 nd , or 3 rd person) subject while Xs that come with will may not (probably for lexical/semantic reasons). I also provide evidence in favor of the following generalizations suggested in Choe (2015): (A) Declarative Xs as well as interrogative Xs can trigger nPOS/nNEG readings, and (B) an X with the feature [Speaker's Denial] triggers nPOS/nNEG readings when it is in the same clause as POS/NEG.

연어 ”-을 수 {있/없}-”의 서법성과 중의성에 대하여

최현숙(Choe, Hyon Sook) 한국생성문법학회 2020 생성문법연구 Vol.30 No.1

The collocation -(u)l swu iss-, which triggers the modal meaning of can, is considered ambiguous, triggering the ability interpretation (root modality: RM) and the possibility interpretation (epistemic modality: EM) (see Ha 2007; see also Myeng 2019 and references therein). As for the ambiguity of the collocation, Chung (2007, 2017) assumes that it is derived from that of the noun swu. However, in this paper, I suggest the following, which I assume can also be suggested for the collocation -(u)l swu eps- (‘cannot’): (A) The noun swu has the meaning of pangto (‘way ) or toli ( way ), which means that the clause headed by -(u)l is a relative clause, and that the collocation forms an idiom, triggering the modality of can. (B) -(u)l is the combination of the modal -(u)l- ( will ) and the null C; and the modality of can, which is triggered by the collocation as an idiom, is derived from or based on the modality of the morpheme -(u)l- ( will ), which can be ambiguous between the volition interpretation (RM) and the inference/prediction interpretation (EM). (C) The -(u)l swu {iss/eps}- constructions may or may not undergo optional Restructuring (see Chomksy 1981), primarily depending on whether it triggers RM or EM. By examining other collocation cases that trigger a particular modality, containing -(u)l, I show that (A-C) are on the right track, which leads to the conclusion that except for the modality of will, the modality in Korean is obtained via the form of idiomatic collocation.

초점 의존적인 의문과 복사이론

최현숙(Choe Hyon Sook) 현대문법학회 2000 현대문법연구 Vol.19 No.-

In this paper, adopting a version of Chomsky’s (1971) conception of focus/presupposition (cf. also Dryer 1996), I suggest that yes-no question and wh-question refer to the information of focus and that the extraction of yes-no and wh-question operators (that are lexically inserted on a focus) is involved in yes-no and wh-questions. I also suggest that the concept of focus is both LF- and PF-related and that extraction in yes-no question and wh-question refers to PF-related focus information while yes-no and wh-question operators are lexically inserted on an LF-related focus (a focus category, here) so that only focus categories (which are not presupposed) can be questioned. Based on the above suggestion, I reinterpret the copy theory introduced in Chomsky (1993) by suggesting a notion of selective deletion under an hypothesis that the information on LF- and PF-related focus is syntactically available in terms of formal feature. The hypothesis makes it possible to suggest a copy theory that employs selective deletion but not QR, which is conceptually and theoretically better than a copy theory discussed in Chomsky (1993) and assumed in Chomsky (1995, 1998, 1999).

문 부정의 초점의존성과 이동분석

최현숙(Hyon Sook Choe) 현대문법학회 2001 현대문법연구 Vol.23 No.-

In this paper, I discuss the nature of the focus-sensitivity of sentence negation under a movement approach in Choe (2000), which adopts the following two assumptions: (1) negation is adverbial, negatively modifying either a focus or a quantifier phrase; (2) it moves for checking reasons. While examining the counter-evidence against a movement approach discussed in the literature, which has been discussed in relation to two problems (the “constituency” problem and the “subjacency” problem), I show that the counter-evidence is apparent and that it in fact constitutes evidence in favor of the movement approach adopted here. During the discussion, I suggest that the notion of negating be understood in terms of the notions of feature negating and syntactic negating; and I show that the present suggestion makes it possible to understand both the nature of the focus-sensitivity of negation and the syntax and the semantics of negation in relation to various kinds of foci and in relation to a quantifier phrase.

The Negative Morpheme mal- as an Inherently Negative Predicate

최현숙(Hyon Sook Choe) 한국생성문법학회 2020 생성문법연구 Vol.30 No.3

Assuming that negative commands or requests are expressed in Korean by employing the negative morpheme mal-, not by employing one of the varieties of Neg found in declaratives, Han and Lee (2007) propose a morpho-syntactic analysis of mal-imperatives. This analysis suggests (i) that the morpheme mal- is an allomorphic variant of the string ani-ha- (’Neg-do’; long-form (LF) negation), which appears in the context of the deontic modality that is triggered in imperatives and in certain limited sentence contexts, and (ii) that it appears only in deontic contexts. In this paper, I reject (i-ii) to suggest the following. First, contrary to (i), the morpheme mal- has the meaning of the volitional verb refrain, which exhibits a certain selectional property, requiring an animate subject. Furthermore, it does not behave like LF negation (Neg) in interrogatives. Second, it can easily appear in many non-deontic contexts, contrary to (ii), which may lead to the suspicion that deontic modality is not syntactically involved in imperatives. It has been noted that mal- can be involved in NPI-licensing and in scope ambiguity, like Neg (see Lee 1977, 1978), which can be considered evidence in favor of suggestion (i). However, I argue that it exhibits these two Neg-like properties, simply because it is an inherently negative predicate in the sense of Klima (1964). Suggestion (i) implies that negative imperatives in Korean have the form mal-imperative, but the present discussion suggests that both negative imperatives with LF negation and mal-imperatives are allowed in principle in Korean because mal- and LF negation need not be in complementary distribution, which seems to be empirically supported.

존재 there 대한 두 접근법들의 경험적 문제점들

최현숙(Choe Hyon Sook) 한국영어학회 2008 영어학 Vol.8 No.1

Exceptional Case Marking as Raising

Hyon Sook Choe(최현숙) 성곡언론문화재단 1993 성곡논총 Vol.24 No.-

On Some Distributional Differences between Shortened NEG and Unshortened NEG in Korean

Hyon Sook Choe(최현숙) 한국언어학회 2017 언어 Vol.42 No.4

In the Korean literature, it has been noted or assumed that so-called short-form(SF) and long-form(LF) negations cannot appear in imperatives and exhortatives. In this paper, I discuss the distributional properties of the four varieties of NEG in Korean (i.e., (i) ani-ha-, (ii) an-h-, (iii) ani, and (iv) an) by examining negative imperatives/exhortatives which employ more than one morphological variety of the imperative/exhortative markers. Based on empirical data, I suggest the following: Frist, all the four varieties can appear in imperatives/exhortatives in principle, contrary to what Han and Lee (2007) would suggest. Second, while the two unshortened varieties (= (i,iii)) may not be prohibited in imperatives/exhortatives, making sentences sound old-fashioned, the distribution of the two shortened varieties (= (ii,iv)) may be restricted because of some co-occurrence restrictions they should respect. Third, the distributional difference between (i,iii) and (ii,iv) can be attributed to the diachronic change from (i,iii) to (ii,iv), which partly triggers a tendency for negative imperatives/exhortatives to be replaced by mal-imperatives/exhortatives.