Korean Gapping constructions are examined in this paper, following Johnson (1994, 2003) and Lopez and Winkler (2003). Based on the observation that the Korean honorific si appears in the second conjunct only, it is argued that the operation AGREE takes place in the second conjunct while the ATB movement occurs out of both conjuncts. The first conjunct is accordingly analyzed as the vP conjunct where si never appears. It is claimed that Nominative Case in the gapped conjunct is a default case. The CSC violation does not occur in Korean Gapping due to the weak EPP features which do not raise the subject to the Spec, TP. The negation scope and NPI facts are discussed to show that Gapping is the vP/NegP coordination rather than the CP coordination. The binding facts are argued for the vP coordination analysis against Sohn (2001). The residue of Gapping constructions including wh-phrases and topicalized phrases is analyzed to provide evidence for the vP coordination.

In this squib, I will show that the structure of agentive -er nominals in English would be very much like the cannonical clausal structure assumed in the literature, contrary to what Lieber (1983) proposes. That is, the functional head -er, which we assume to suppress external theta role, takes vP as its complement. Assuming that V raises to v, and the complex [V-v] in turn raises to -er, as a usual head movement, the complement of V (or more specifically the element in the specifier of V) raises to the specifier of erP, for sort of EPP requirements. Adopting the structure proposed in this paper, we can readily account for the phonological order in agentive -er nominals and avoid some theoretical and empirical problems confronted by Lieber's (1983) structure.

There are two opposing views on the status of Structural Case (SC) particles in Korean. One view claims that the particle has its own lexical meaning which is usually discourse-related. The other holds just the opposite and claims that the particle is a realization of Case which is uninterpretable. In this article, I show that all arguments presented in Ko (2002) for the former view do not hold. Noting that the widely-held view that an SC particle corresponds to a D runs counter to the latter view, I also show that such a view cannot be correct. Finally, I suggest an alternative structure, in which an SC particle is not allotted any structural position in narrow syntax.

In this paper, with new sets of data I argue that, among several previous works on the right node raising (RNR) construction, the multi-dominance approach is on the right track to accounting for the peculiar properties of the construction, but demonstrate that the approach needs a certain modification. In particular, I argue that the multi-dominance structure of the construction results from adding up the first-conjunct right edge element to the second-conjunct one. I also show that the resulting multi-dominance structure of the construction allows two separate singular DPs in each conjunct to contribute together to a plural interpretation.

In this paper, I discuss where result clauses are positioned in English sentences. A number of factors affect their position. Firstly there are semantic properties such as scope. If these are the only factors, then we have a compositional structure. This turns out not to be the case, since there is c-command test evidence that the finiteness of the result clause is relevant. Infinitival result clauses are attached lower down than finite ones are. However, the degree word and result clause in narrow-scope readings are part of a constituent, with the former selecting the latter. I therefore propose that covert movement is required to explain the c-command data. With wide-scope readings, on the other hand, the degree word and result clause do not form a constituent. A problem arises with how selection holds, and I propose that covert movement is required.

This paper tries to give a unified account to different syntactic behavior between main verbs and auxiliaries with respect to VP ellipsis. This paper assumes that the deletion under identity condition is intuitively natural and empirically motivated. Under this assumption, this paper tries to find a solution that keeps the identity condition intact. By adopting a most developed version of Affix Hopping as PF Merger in the sense of Bošković and Lasnik (2003) and Bošković (2003), the present paper gives a unified account to the difference regarding VP ellipsis. The present analysis can also do away with ad hoc devices either like Lasnik's division of word formation process with respect to main verbs and auxiliary verbs or like Potsdam's (1997) X^0 and XP trace distinction with respect to interpretation.

English employs an extraposition process that places a heavy constituent to the sentential final position. This process can be applied not only to the subject but to the object as well. The paper first performs a corpus search and identifies canonical examples that we believe can represent the main patterns of English extraposition. The paper, after a brief review of the previous theoretical approaches, then tries to provide a constraint-based analysis that treats extraposition as a nonlocal dependency. The present analysis, placing an emphasis on the interaction among different grammatical components, seems to serve as a viable alternative to the previous analyses.

In this paper we discuss three related issues. First, we are concerned with the extraposition constructions in English. After reviewing the formal explanation, mostly, that of feature-checking analysis, of this phenomenon, we adopt Kuno's (1987) functional account. Especially, we apply and extend Kuno's ban on non-sentence-final clauses and explore the possibility of modifying the constraint in various constructions in English. After that, we show cases where the functional constraint seems to be violated. We propose a modified version of the functional constraint for cases in which various discontinuous constituents are involved such as comparative, relative, and adjunct clauses. This kind of functional explanation, we believe, follows from a more general principle of information structure.

We argue that the way a predicate is morphosyntactically structured influences the availability of the morphological means of expressing Voice, and that the periphrasis is a last resort kicking in when the morphological means is blocked due to independently motivated morphosyntactic constraints on how verbs are structured. For all intents and purposes, the morphological causative is a single predicate, however complex it may be, and it is sensitive to the morphological constituency of the base to which it is applied. On the other hand, the periphrastic causative involves sentential embedding and is not subject to the morphosyntactic constraint. The asymmetry in terms of the agentivity of the causee and the possibility of idiomatic readings stems from this difference.

The goal of this paper is to discuss the phonological processes undergone by English loanwords, concentrating on the phonology of liquid gemination and variation pattern observed in Korean English loanwords within the framework of OT. I have argued that the occurrence of l-gemination in loanwords is evidence that native phonology governs the adaptation of foreign words and that this pattern of l-gemination motivates the hypothesis that this liquid consonant in gemination context is underlyingly moraic in Korean. That is, Weight by Position would apply to a coda consonant only if it were not singly linked to a Root Node. In this way of analysis, a geminate would be assigned a mora from Weight by Position since it is doubly linked, while a single coda consonant would not be assigned a mora.

This article argues for a simple hypothesis of VPE (VP Ellipsis) licensing in English--VPE is licensed only by the first auxiliary verb in both infinitival and finite clauses. This is made possible in part by showing that the infinitive to, control or ECM/raising, regarded as a kind of auxiliary verb, can (non)locally license VPE in infinitival clauses. The apparent difference between control to and ECM/raising to in licensing VPE is shown to follow from different phonological properties of the two--the former is an “enleaner” (cf. Zwicky 1982) similar to an enclitic, but the latter is a “proleaner” similar to a proclitic. In particular, this article argues that the sentential not does not license VPE, as opposed to common belief. The advocated hypothesis entails nonlocal VPE licensing by the first auxiliary verb over one or more auxiliary verbs and/or the negator not, which is elaborated in a way sensitive to Case.

This study considers infinitives such as ECM (Exceptional Case Marking) structures and raising structures, and suggests an alternative analysis to explain the relation between the Spec position and Tdef, concentrating on agreement of the features of expletive there in the Spec position. Suggesting that the expletive there has an agreement with associate within the propositional infinitive and that the position that there is located in is a DP position, I attempt to remove the need for long-distance agreement, an additional constraint, and related computational complexity.

This paper examines Appositive Antecedent Containment (AACD) construction, in which VP-ellipsis appears within an appositive relative clause, and argues that Parallelism plays a role in accounting for AACD (cf. Fiengo and May 1994, Fox and Lasnik 2003). However, contra the standard assumption, the paper proposes to modify Parallelism in such a way that it needs to be satisfied more locally. More accurately, it argues that ellipsis is licensed only up to the point that satisfies Parallelism. In some cases, the modified Parallelism has effects of licensing ellipsis, which would not be permitted by the standard Parallelism. The proposed analysis also provides an account for the typical ACD construction, where VP ellipsis appears in a restrictive relative clause.

The cross-linguistic variations in passivization of ditransitive verb phrases are given a locality-based analysis. We show that passivization of the lower internal argument is possible only when two types of locality circumvention strategies are utilized. We, in particular, propose that escape hatch type of locality circumvention strategy responsible for the observed passivization asymmetry can be explained in terms of (anti-)locality. The variations in passivization patterns are yielded by interaction between applicative (VP) structures and movement constraints, namely standard locality and anti-locality. (Anti-)locality also confirms the distribution of phases in applicative heads.

The purpose of this article is to present an analysis for locative inversion constructions in Korean. It will be argued that the inversion involves A- movement, and proposed that movement of the locative to SpecυP and subsequently to SpecTP is triggered by the optional EPP-features on υ and T (Bowers 2002, Collins 1997). A theoretical implication will be addressed with respect to Case-valuing and Φ-agreement. Furthermore, it will be proposed that the inverted constituent is, in fact, Kase Phrase (KP) selecting PP, based on the fact that the fronted locative displays certain nominal properties in Korean.

This paper concerns Chomsky's (2005) peripheral movement of nun-marked nominals to [Spec, CP] in Korean. The complementizer system minimally consists of a specification of force, accessible to higher selection (Rizzi 1997). In this vein, it is observed that the contrastive topic of the nun-marked object undergoes peripheral movement, which is traditional A'-movement without feature checking, to [Spec, CP] thru the outer Spec of v, whereas the first nun-marked subject in the multiple subject construction undergoes peripheral movement from [Spec, TP] to [Spec, CP]. It is also noted that the nun-marked object is assigned Chomsky's (2001) Int in the outer Spec of v, but that the first nun-marked subject in the multiple subject construction is not involved in the assignment of Int. The contrastive topic of the nun-marked object cannot undergo peripheral movement to [Spec, CP] in the multiple subject construction, because there arise intervention effects. On the other hand, the multiple application of peripheral movement can occur within the edge of a phase since no intervention effect occurs (Yang 2005a).

In this paper, we confirm Han and Romero's observation that English and Korean are different in availability of alternative questions, show that only a CP conjunction can function as an alternative question, and propose that lexicalization must have the Coordination Marker Parameter or a version of it for the different availability of alternative questions to be explained in a principled way.