Two Types of there-sentences and Feature Specification

Abstract

This paper aimed to account for uneWhile clause linkage is a relatively understudied area within Koreanic linguistics, the Korean –ko clause linkage has been studied more extensively. Authors have deemed it interesting since depending on the successive/non-successive interpretation of its events, a –ko clause linkage exhibits all or no properties of what is traditionally known as coordination or subordination. Jejuan –ko clauses may look fairly similar to Korean on the surface, and exhibit a similar lack of semantic specification. This study shows that the traditional, dichotomous coordination-subordination opposition is not applicable to Jejuan –ko clauses. I propose that instead of applying a-priori categories to the exploration of clause linkage in Koreanic varieties, one should apply a multidimensional model that lets patterns emerge in an inductive way.xpected accusative case on a pronominal associate in there-sentences (there was him). It is unexpected that under the long-standing assumption in generative grammar, agreement coincides with case assignment. Since there-associates appear to agree with T in number (e.g. There was/*were a dog), they are expected to be valued as nominative case. Furthermore, such a pronominal associate with accusative case is not available in there-V type sentences (*There arrived him). In this paper, I propose a multiple-there hypothesis to account for different behaviors of there-V and there-BE. In the proposal, I argue that there-s in there-V and there-BE are base-generated in different positions due to their different grammatical roles (semantically null expletive vs. subject argument). Based on the distinction, I further argue that there-s have different feature specifications and show that the proposed system captures different behaviors between there-sentences with respect to sub-extraction and control.