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.

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.

On Polarity Licensing in the -ul swu iss Construction

Daeho Chung 한국생성문법학회 2017 생성문법연구 Vol.27 No.3

Chung, Daeho. 2017. On Polarity Licensing in the -ul swu iss Construction. Studies in Generative Grammar, 27-3, 457-483. Polarity licensing has been a central topic for the syntactic structure of the -ul swu iss modal construction in Korean since Choe (1988) first raised the issue. To deal with this issue, various theories have been proposed in the literature (Choe 1988, Ha 2005, 2007, Chung 2006, 2007, Kim 2014, 2015, Tchoe 2015, among others). This article evaluates the theoretical and empirical mileage those theories cover, specially examining how they account for the apparent violation of the clause mate condition in polarity licensing and the semantic restrictions that the modal construction displays. It will be shown that no theories thus far advanced are able to perfectly accomodate the polarity licensing in the modal construction, soliciting further research for a more complete theory.

Factivity Alternation of the Verb ‘Know’ in Korean, Turkish and Hungarian

Chungmin Lee,Daeho Chung 현대문법학회 2018 현대문법연구 Vol.100 No.-

Chungmin Lee and Daeho Chung. 2018. Factivity Alternation of the Verb ‘Know’ in Korean, Turkish and Hungarian. Studies in Modern Grammar 100, 1-40. The cognitive attitude verb KNOW in most languages typically selects for a factive complement (Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970). It is noted in the literature (Lee 1978, 1999; Kiefer 1978, Őzyildiz 2017, a.o.), however, that KNOW in some languages may take various forms of complements and that factivity varies depending on the complement types. An obvious generalization made is that nominalized complements tend to convey a factive reading, while non-nominal ones tend not to (Kastner 2015). This work makes it clear that for a clause selected by KNOW to have a factive reading, it not only bears a nominal feature but also carries a structural case. This paper additionally points out the following three issues and discusses their theoretical implications as to the syntax and semantics of attitudinal predicate constructions: (i)Cognitive attitude verbs may simultaneously take a nominalized clause and a predicational clause; (ii) The non-factive KNOW in the three languages commonly displays neg-raising and naturally anti-rogativity, siding with doxastic (belief) verbs; (iii) Lexically negated forms of these verbs select only for a nominalized (factive) clause.

Why is HOW in Korean Insensitive to Islands?:

Daeho Chung 현대문법학회 2005 현대문법연구 Vol.39 No.-

Korean HOW, i.e. ettehkey, unlike its English counterpart, i.e. how, does not show island effects. There have been several approaches entertained in the literature to account for the island insensitivity:T. Chung s (1991) VP adjunct analysis and an ECP account; D. Chung s(1996) nominal analysis and a binding account; Yang s (1997) d-linking analysis and an ECP account; and D. Chung s (2000a) predicate analysis and an ECP account. As reviewed in Chung (2000a), the first two analyses bear some critical empirical and/or theoretical problems. Pointing out that the third and fourth approaches also face some empirical and/or theoretical problems, this paper proposes an alternative analysis, a revised nominal analysis, in which ettehkey is decomposed into four sub-parts: e-tte-ha-key, Det-N-do-adverbializer . The second element, i.e. -tte, is diagnosed as a nominal element because the first element, i.e. e-, as a determiner, requires a nominal complement and the third element, i.e. -ha, as a transitive verb, requires a nominal complement. The proposed analysis gains support from the morphological paradigms that Korean WH-elements display. Given this revised nominal analysis, the scope of HOW in Korean can be licensed via binding, accounting for the lack of island effects.

Ettehkey "how" As a Small Clause Head

( Daeho Chung ) 한국언어정보학회 1998 국제 워크샵 Vol.1998 No.-

WH-words are not uniform in their syntactic behaviors. Adjunct WH-words such as HOW and WHY are said to be more restricted in their distribution than argument WH-words such as WHO and WHAT. It is observed, however, that HOW in some East Asian languages behaves more like argument WH-words and does not display ECP effects. In this paper, I try to account for the HOW vs. WHY difference in Korean. First, I briefly review two previous attempts. T. Chung (1991) ascribes the difference to the positional variance: ettehkey ``how`` is generated VP-internally, whereas way ``why`` is generated in an IP(AgrP)-adjoined position, i.e., above subject. The trace of island internal ettehkey, but not of way, satisfies the ECP under the assumption that subject (or INFL) is a (special) antecedent governor for adverbs, which he motivates based on the fact that adverbs agree with subject in number and may take plural morpheme tul when subject is plural. Now the trace of ettehkey, but not of way, is antecedent governed by subject due to the hierarchical (c-command) relation. Another attempt was made by D. Chung (1996), who proposes to decompose ettehkey into etteh-ki-ey and attributes the lack of the ECP effects to the nominal feature associated with the nominalizer ki contained in ettehkey. Both approaches fail when more data is considered. Crucially, it will be shown that etteh, the main part of ettehkey, is a predicate, (i,e., it is neither an adjunct nor a nominal element,) but it does not show the ECP effects. I extend the predicate analysis to ettehkey, anaIyzing it as the predicate head of an adjectival small clause. Now the question is why predicate WH-words do not show the ECP effects like argument WH-words. I provide a theta-theoretic account under the assumption that the theta-identification between a predicate and its arguments is a bilateral relation in the sense that they identify or restrict each other. Thus, ettehkey/etteh as predicates, are theta-identrfied and do not show the ECP effects. In contrast, way, as a pure adjunct, is not theta-identified and does show the ECP effects. As for the ECP effects that English how displays, I suppose that it is not a predicate but a pure adjunct, based on the observation that adjectival small clause heads are replaced by what, but not by how, in WH-questions or echo-questions.

WH-Ellipsis and the Theory of Ellipsis

Daeho Chung 한국생성문법학회 2003 생성문법연구 Vol.13 No.3

Korean has a special form of ellipsis construction, [xp...N]-un/nun, which produces a WH-question reading with a WH-word elided, as observed in Chung (2000). To account for various interesting syntactic and semantic properties that such a WH-ellipsis construction (WEC) displays, Chung (2000) proposed a structure, where the remnant XP is generated in IP-SPEC and then moves to the topic position. This paper proposes to modify the structure such that (i) the remnant in the WEC is generated as a nominal predicate in a small clause complement of a copular verb and moves to the topic position; (ii) the silent WH-element functions as the subject in the small clause; and (iii) its content is copied from the head of the remnant XP. With the newly proposed structure, this paper accounts not only for the syntactic and semantic properties observed in Chung (2000), some of which were not satisfactorily explained there, but also for some newly observed facts. This paper also addresses theoretical implications that the WEC gives rise to as to the theory of ellipsis: (i) the LF-copy approach is favored over the PF-deletion approach and (ii) some subpart of an X。can be copied, as far as the result of the copy is licensed as another X。, as in the relation between a pronoun and its antecedent.

ON THE DISTRIBUTION AND SCOPAL BEHAVIORS OF NUMERAL CLASSIFIER-TO/-(I)NA IN KOREAN

DAEHO CHUNG 사단법인 한국언어학회 2002 언어학 Vol.0 No.33

On the syntax of multi-focused fragment answers in Korean : An oblique merge analysis

Daeho Chung 경희대학교 언어연구소 2015 언어연구 Vol.32 No.3

This paper first shows that the restriction is merely a subcase of a superordinate constraint, which states that a focus element in a non-final position pied-pipes the minimal node that dominates it and c-commands the following focus element(s), whereas a focus element in the final position optionally pied-pipes its dominating node(s). It is argued then that the pied-piping for non-final focus elements is caused by an economy-driven oblique merge operation that clusters elements with a focus feature before the complex focus element formed in this way moves to the focus licensing functional phrase. Focus clustering due to the same oblique merge operation is attested in other constructions containing multiple focus elements.

A Complement Analysis of the Head Internal Relative Clauses

( Daeho Chung ) 한국언어정보학회 1999 언어와 정보 Vol.3 No.2

There have been two opposing views on the structure of the so-called head internal relative Construction (HIRC) in Korean/Japanese, i. e. a view that analyzed the HIRC categorially as a nominal projection and functionally as an argument (Kuroda 1992, Watanabe 1992, Hoshi 1996, Jhang 1991/1994, among others) vs. a view that analyzes the HIRC categorially as an adjunct clause and functionally as a non-argument (Murasugi 1994). This paper on the one hand points out several phenomena indicating that Murasugi’s analysis is more viable, while on the other hand proposing a more complex structure than Murasugi’s to account for other facts as well. The no/kes cluse in the HIRC will be analyzed as the complement of a null perception verb whose projection constitutes part of an adjunct clause. (Hanyang University)