惯青扁包 郴 埃青拱

  • 埃青拱 郴 八祸 八祸

积己巩过楷备

八祸搬苞 :
4
傈眉急琶 Endnote Refworks
This paper argues that Korean has genuine clausal comparatives which involve degree operator movement. Kim and Sells (2010) contends that Korean has no clausal comparatives, and that apparent Korean clausal comparatives are in fact phrasal comparatives, which can be analyzed as having relative clause structure (i.e. a relative clause analysis, See Sudo (2015) for a similar analysis of Japanese clausal comparatives.). This paper demonstrates that the relative clause analysis like Kim and Sells (2010) and Sudo (2015) is not sufficient for explaining Korean clausal comparatives. A variety of novel evidence is addressed, coming from the grammaticality of clausal comparatives that must refer to human nouns, the absence of internally-headed relative clauses in comparative context, the availability of singular or plural postpositional phrases combined with pota than , negative island effects, and scope ambiguities. This discussion leads to the conclusion that Korean comparatives allow semantic interpretation of 2-place -er (i.e. degree comparison), along with 3-place -er (i.e. individual comparison) for phrasal comparatives, which, in turn, implies that the parametric variation account suggested by Beck et al. (2004) is too strong for Korean comparatives.
This paper revisits the issue of when re-binding in cases of VP ellipsis in English is degraded, and a new analysis is given that revises the proposal in Hardt (2006) in order to account for the claim made in Takahashi and Fox (2005) that focus plays a role in allowing for re-binding. Although focus plays a role, it appears to do so only when certain conditions are met. A new generalization is proposed according to which the potential of focus to allow for re-binding is crucially limited by (among other factors) whether the focus is on a potential binder of an elided pronoun. An updated version of Hardt’s proposal is given that captures this generalization.
Studies in Generative Grammar, 28-2, 295-346. In this article, I claim that -eykey passives differ from e uyhay passives in that the former involves Voice while the latter does not. Four pieces of evidence are provided for the claim: (a) the animacy condition on the subject holds only for the -eykey passive, (b) modification of ilpule ‘on purpose’ is allowed only in the eykey passive, (c) accusative case is allowed only in the eykey passive, and (d) nominative case is not allowed only in the long-form negation of the eykey passive. I further claim that Voice is merged in the eykey passive as a last resort to save the derivation which would crash when an internal theta-role of a verb is not assigned, which means that subject is base-generated in Spec, VoiceP contrary to the movement analysis (Park 2010, 2013) and that there is no empty category within VP contrary to both the movement analysis and the control analysis (Hoshi 1999, K. Kim 2011, and H. K. Jung 2014, 2016). Finally, the article’s view on the passive is compared with the current views of the Korean passive (Park 2010, 2013) and those of passive in general (Collins 2005 and Breuning 2013).
This squib is a reply to Park s (2017) advocation for the ellipsis approach to the right dislocated construction (RDC), i.e., the bi-clausal analysis accompanied by Move & Delete under the head-final structure. Park intends to maintain his ellipsis approach against Shimoyama, Drummond, Schwarz and Wagner s (2015) claim that the ellipsis approach produces wrong scope facts (in Japanese). This squib examines Park s arguments in detail and shows that they are not viable. It is pointed out that one of his proposals, i.e., argument ellipsis of the moved object in the elliptic clause, is suspicious in that this object carries focus with it, and that disallowing pro movement in gapped RDCs is just arbitrary and is in exclusion of his argument ellipsis, which is contradictory. Particularly, Park s analysis applies the Parallelism condition in a way that is inconsistent with Fox (2000) system about scope interpretation. The resulting problems rather indicate that the head-final bi-clausal approach to RDCs is on the wrong track. By contrast, adopting the head-first mono-clausal analysis to RDCs (Lee 2009, 2010, 2011a), I show that it can straightforwardly account for the scope facts in RDCs at issue without facing the problematic situations in Park s system.
1