English Raising Constructions and Their Korean Translations

Kiseong Park 한국중원언어학회 2015 언어학연구 Vol.0 No.34

This paper was to investigate subject-to-subject [SS] raising and subject-to-object [SO] raising constructions in English as well as the linguistic factors which affect the Korean translations of the raising constructions. This study mainly discussed four main concerns. First, there is difference in the markedness of the raising depending on the SS or SO raising in terms of the frequency of tokens in English and Korean. Second, SS raising constructions in both languages are prominently used for the topicality of the raised subject, and the topicality in the SS raising is reflected in the Korean translations by the choice of the topic marker or nominative marker. However, the topicality in the SO raising in English is not clearly reflected by the SO raising in the Korean translations. Third, it is claimed that the modality predicates in English induce much more SS raising than their corresponding non-raising construction. In the translated version, almost all instances of the SS raising are translated with the raising construction in Korean. Fourth, the SO raising in the translations are conditioned by the feature of contrastive meaning.

English Raising Constructions and Their Korean Translations

박기성 한국중원언어학회 2015 언어학연구 Vol.0 No.34

This paper was to investigate subject-to-subject [SS] raising and subject-to-object [SO] raising constructions in English as well as the linguistic factors which affect the Korean translations of the raising constructions. This study mainly discussed four main concerns. First, there is difference in the markedness of the raising depending on the SS or SO raising in terms of the frequency of tokens in English and Korean. Second, SS raising constructions in both languages are prominently used for the topicality of the raised subject, and the topicality in the SS raising is reflected in the Korean translations by the choice of the topic marker or nominative marker. However, the topicality in the SO raising in English is not clearly reflected by the SO raising in the Korean translations. Third, it is claimed that the modality predicates in English induce much more SS raising than their corresponding non-raising construction. In the translated version, almost all instances of the SS raising are translated with the raising construction in Korean. Fourth, the SO raising in the translations are conditioned by the feature of contrastive meaning.

스페인어 인상 구문(Spanish raising construction) 연구

김준한 한국스페인어문학회 2020 스페인어문학 Vol.0 No.95

This paper aims to explore the properties of raising and hyper raising constructions and to provide appropriate analysis for them. In this paper, we have proposed a novel analysis of raising and hyper raising constructions, based on the Phase cancellation proposed by Chomsky(2015). More specifically, we have proposed for the raising construction that T to C movement forms a structure [T [T C]], which causes CP to lose its phasehood and allows a subject DP to continue moving to main clause. One of the consequences obtained from this analysis is that raising verbs such as parecer/seem do not subcategorize TP(=IP), but CP. We have also proposed for the hyper raising construction that T moves to C too, but in this case, C forms a structure [C [C T]], based on the fact that this construction should have a lexical complementizer que/that. Under this hypothesis, we have accounted for the difference in grammaticality between Spanish and English hyper raising construction.

영어 주어-주어 상승구문과 주어통제구문의 코퍼스 기반 연구

박기성 ( Ki Seong Park ),전지현 ( Ji Hyun Jeon ) 대한언어학회 2012 언어학 Vol.20 No.4

The purpose of this paper is to provide a corpus- based analysis of (i) the differences between the raising constructions and the corresponding non-raising constructions, and (ii) the semantic and functional differences between subject-to- subject raising constructions and subject control constructions. The following findings are discussed. First, subject-to-subject raising constructions are shown to be unmarked compared to the corresponding non-raising constructions in terms of distributional frequency. Second, while subject-to-object raising constructions are used for the topicality of raised elements, the claim does not apply to the subject-to-subject raising constructions. Third, the animacy of the subjects for control constructions was predominant, while that of raised subjects for subject-to-subject raising constructions was not. Fourth, the control subjects are more definite than the raised ones, and the raised subjects of seem are more definite than those of (be) likely. Fifth, complement clauses in raising constructions are longer than those in the control constructions. Sixth, the complement verbs in the control constructions are more eventive than those in the raising constructions.

주어 인상 구문과 예외적인 격 표시 구문에 대한 벼교언어학적 고찰

엄홍준(Um, Hong-Joon),김용하(Yong-Ha Kim) 한국언어학회 2009 언어 Vol.34 No.3

This paper examines the Subject Raising and Exceptional Case Marking Constructions in English, Turkish and Korean. The Subject Raising in English is possible if the complement clause is non-finite, whereas it is impossible if the complement clause is finite. In Turkish, Dialect A shows the properties similar to those of English. on the other hand, in the case of Dialect B the Subject Raising is possible in both finite and non-finite clauses. When NP (Noun Phrase) is raised or moves, it leaves trace which is called NP-trace. While in the raising in non-finite clause, the trace can be treated as NP-trace normally, in the raising in finite clause, the trace can not be treated as NP- trace because the trace is placed in the position in which the case is licensed. In oder to solve the problem mentioned the above, Moore (1998) adopts the Copy-Raising Analysis under which A-chain can include (silent) pronominal as its tail. Since there is no non-finite clause in the Subject Raising Constructions in Korean, unlike in English and Turkish, it follows that A-Move occurs only in the finite clause. While in the case of the finite clause, most of the native speaker do not allow the Subject Raising, some of the speakers do allow it. The latter case is much the same as the one of Dialect B in Turkish. The fact that the subject is raised or moves in the finite clause means that the case-licensed element is raised or moves. Accordingly the empty category can not be NP-trace in this subject position but be (silent) pronominal as in Turkish. Besides, it is observed that the phenomenon similar to the one in the Raising Construction is discovered in the Exceptional Cases Marking Construction. The difference is that in the former the subject in the complement clause is raised to the subject position in the matrix sentence, whereas in the latter the subject in the complement clause is raised to the object position in matrix sentence. Under such an analysis, Raising or Move violates Chain Condition which requires the tail of A-chain is the single theta-position while the head is the single Case-marked position. In order to overcome this difficulty we adopt Revised Chain Condition which permits the tale of A-chain to have Case and theta-role at the same time. The remaining potential problem is about Resumptive Pronoun Strategy used in A" -Move. We demonstrate that the strategy can be and is being used in A-Move cross-linguistically.

Object-to-Subject Raising in English and Semantic Properties of the Constructions

Keeseok Cho 담화·인지언어학회 2023 담화와 인지 Vol.30 No.1

Object-to-subject raising constructions are special constructions not only in English but also in other languages such as Spanish, Dutch, and German. Object-to-subject raising constructions are constructions of great academic interests both in theoretical and educational aspects. Numerous previous studies have discussed the object-to-subject raising and yet have not come up with the distinctive properties of the constructions that allow objects to raise to subject positions in comparison with other constructions that do not allow objects to raise to subject positions. The aim of this study is to investigate object-to-subject raising in English and find out the semantic properties that the constructions of the object-to-subject raising have. On the basis of the results of empirical survey with native and nonnative speakers of English, this study puts forth a conclusion that predicates of affecting constructions, predicates of polar opposite constructions, and predicates of necessity constructions allow object-to-subject raising in adjective-toinfinitive constructions. The results of this study will make a contribution not only to theoretical developments but also to educational application.

부정사 구문의 통제와 이동

황춘식(Hwang Choon-shik) 새한영어영문학회 2003 새한영어영문학 Vol. No.

Hornstein (2001)'s proposal to control in terms of movement has two serious problems as follows: First, PRO is eliminated in favor of trace, and second, the θ -Criterion must be abandoned. The purpose of this study is to give the systematic explanations of Control and Movement in the infinitival constructions. To do so, I differentiate between raising constructions and control constructions, analyzing Culicover & Jackendoff (2001), Martin (2001), and Carnie (2002). Following Chomsky and Lasnik (1995), I assume that PRO has null Case, where null Case is licensed by non-finite Ts. Collins (1997) postulates two types of null Case (TPRO and Tnull) and relies on the assumption that checking of null Case can be asymmetric to allow ECM and successive cyclic movement to satisfy Last Resort. I also assume that there are two types of null Case feature. Here, I refine the Collins' types and suggest that all the infinitival non-finite T have TPRO/trace; TPRO represents features which check features of PRO in control construction and Ttrace represents traces which license A-movements in raising construction. In terms of TPRO, we can find it possible to raise control construction in matrix verb, while in terms of Ttrace, find it possible to raise construction if the accusative Case is externally checked by the matrix verb.

부정사 구문의 통제와 이동

황춘식 새한영어영문학회 2003 새한영어영문학 Vol.45 No.1

Hornstein (2001)'s proposal to control in terms of movement has two serious problems as follows: First, PRO is eliminated in favor of trace, and second, the θ-Criterion must be abandoned. The purpose of this study is to give the systematic explanations of Control and Movement in the infinitival constructions. To do so, I differentiate between raising constructions and control constructions, analyzing Culicover & Jackendoff (2001), and Carnie(2002). Following Chomsky and Lasnik(1995), I assume that PRO has null Case, where null Case is licensed by non-finite Ts. Collins (1997) postulates two types of null Case (TPRO and Tnull) and relies on the assumption that checking of null Case can be asymmetric to allow ECM and successive cyclic movement to satisfy Lase Resort. I also assume that there are two types of null Case feature. Here, I refine the Collins' types and suggest that all the infinitival non-finite T have TPRO/trace; TPRO represents features which check features of PRO in control construction and Trace represents traces which license A-movements in rasing construction. In terms of TPRO, we can find it possible to raise control construction in matrix verb, while in terms of Ttrace, find it possible to raise construction if the accusative Case is externally checked by the matrix verb.

Midway Coordination: ATB and RNR vs. PG Constructions in English

Park, Myung-Kwan 서울대학교 언어교육원 (구 서울대학교 어학연구소) 2006 語學硏究 Vol.42 No.2

This paper investigates three constructions in English which apparently contain two gaps: (i) the across-the-board (ATB) construction; (ii) the parasitic gap (PG) construction; (iii) the right node raising (RNR) construction. Examining a new set of data involving interwoven dependency, identity, and a functional construal of the two gaps in these three constructions, I argue in favor of an approach which unifies the ATB and RNR constructions. I argue that the ATB construction cannot be reduced to a PG construction, or the other way around, though there have been recent endeavors to do so (cf. Ha?k 1985; Williams 1989, 1990; Munn 1998, 2001; Hornstein and Nunes 2002). Specifically, I propose that the two elements which are ATBmoved and ?RNRed? in the ATB and RNR constructions undergo conjunction under coordination in the course of derivation. In the PG construction, on the other hand, there is no movement out of the adjunct clause, obviating the conjunction under coordination which is found in the other two constructions.

Possession and Location Structures in the Copula-like iss Construction

이두원(Lee Doo-Won) 강원대학교 인문과학연구소 2010 인문과학연구 Vol.0 No.25

영어 이중목적어 구문의 간접목적어(목표)와 직접목적어가 전치사구(PP)를 형성하고 목표요소는 PP의 지정어 위치에 나타나며, PP의 핵(head)은 소유와 처소의 어휘상 의미인 PHAVE나 PLOC가 점유한다는 주장이 있다 (Harley 2002). 이 주장은 한국어의 연계사(copula) '있' 구문 분석 적용의 촉발을 일으킨다 (Park 2010). 헝가리어와 일본어의 소유 의미에 관한 Szabolcsi (1983)와 Tsujioka (2001)의 연계사 구문 분석이 한국어의 소유 의미의 연계사 구문 분석 적용의 촉발을 또한 일으킨다 (Lee 2004). 이 글에서는 이들 주장의 이론적 틀을 수정하여 소유와 처소 의미를 갖는 한국어 연계사의 구조를 제시한다. 한국어 연계사 구문에서 처소의 어휘상 의미인 PLOC를 관할하는 PP는 v의 연계사 '있'에 의해 성분통어되는 구조를 갖는다. 핵 PLOC가 v-BE로 핵 이동을 하여 처소 의미의 연계사 '있'으로 통사상 실현된다. 이 때, SPEC-v의 여격 요소나 주격 대상은 SPEC-T로 이동하여 통사상 주어로 기능한다 (예, 김 교수에게 그 책이 있다/그 책이 김 교수에게 있다). 반면에 소유의미의 연계사 '있' 구문에서 어휘상 소유 의미의 VHAVE는 v의 '있'으로 인상되고 소유자는 '있'의 자매위치의 DP의 SPEC을 통해 도출되고 SPEC-T로 인상되어 통사상 주어 위치를 점한다. 이 때, 대상 요소는 SPEC-T로 이동할 수 없다 (예, 김 교수가 딸이 있다/'딸이 김 교수가 있다). Harley (2002) argues that in the dative construction, the verb can be decomposed into two components: that is, null P(ostposition)HAVE/LOC and vCAUSE. Unlike her proposal, however, in the dative constructions, the verb can be decomposed into null P(ostposition)LOC and vCAUSE in the sense that the location of the theme is always available to the goal in the dative constructions. The example in (A) comes to have the meaning of (B) ((A) John gave Mary a picture/(B) John placed a picture to Mary). In Korean, the dative verb cwu 'give' is spelled out on v through the successive raising of PLOC to v (to T). The subjecthood test that establishes an honorific agreement with the syntactic subject position shows that the postpositional phrase can be in the subject position; hence, the postpositional phrase (i.e., Kim kyoswu-eykey 'Kim-professor-DAT') can be a syntactic subject. When PLOC and VHAVE raise to BE on v, the meaning of location and possession of the abstract postposition be realized on v respectively. This is what the copula-like iss shows. The subject raising is motivated by the EPP-feature on T; hence, the dative-marked element or the nominative-marked theme can raise to SPEC- T; hence, the postpositional phrase and nominative theme in the iss construction can both appear in the syntactic subject position. On the other hand, when the copula-like iss has the meaning of possession, its theme cannot raise to the syntactic iss, the possessor within the theme DP of the copula-like iss raises out of the DP through SPEC-D to the subject position. The case maker is realized in the PF.