Publications
Detailed Information
Two Types of there-sentences and Feature Specification
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Kang, Chorong | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-09-17T15:01:19Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-09-17T15:01:19Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019-08-01 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Language Research, Vol.55 No.2, pp. 281-314 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0254-4474 | - |
dc.identifier.other | 44-000012 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10371/160860 | - |
dc.description.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. | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | Language Education Research Center, Seoul National University | - |
dc.subject | There-sentences, feature specification, pronominal associate, long-distance agreement, accusative case | - |
dc.title | Two Types of there-sentences and Feature Specification | - |
dc.type | SNU Journal | - |
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor | 강초롱 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.30961/lr.2019.55.2.281 | - |
dc.citation.journaltitle | 어학연구(Language Research) | - |
dc.citation.pages | 281-314 | - |
- Appears in Collections:
- Files in This Item:
Item View & Download Count
Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.