On the Syntax of Unusual Subjects: Exceptional Case Marking Constructions

Kim, Sun-Woong

doi:10.30961/lr.2023.59.2.93

Lang. Res. 59(2):93-114

pISSN: 0254-4474, eISSN: 2586-7113

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2023.59.2.93

Article

On the Syntax of Unusual Subjects: Exceptional Case Marking Constructions

Sun-Woong Kim ¹ ^, ^†

Author Information & Copyright ▼

¹Kwangwoon University

^†Corresponding Author: Professor Department of English and Industry Kwangwoon University 20 Kwangwoon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul 01897, Korea E-mail: swkim@kw.ac.kr

ⓒ Copyright 2023 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Mar 06, 2023 ; Revised: May 18, 2023 ; Accepted: Jun 08, 2023

Published Online: Aug 31, 2023

ABSTRACT

This study aims to explain the mixed properties of the ECM subject in Korean and Mongolian in terms of the Relator Phrase (RP) analysis proposed by den Dikken (2007, 2017a, 2017b). The embedded subject in the Korean ECM is known to exhibit both higher/lower and A/A' properties. How can an XP have several locus properties at the same time? To address this question, the present study proposes the following insights: Predication relations constitute an inherent RP phase (den Dikken 2007, 2017a, 2017b; Wurmbrand, 2021); The ECM subject is base-generated in the Spec-RP position in Korean, which is an A-position by definition; R assumes a null state or becomes C+R if C is elevated to R; A null operator (O) binds the overt/covert pronoun in the embedded TP; The ECM subject is related to the embedded CP in terms of predication, akin to Browning's (1991) perspective. The proposed analysis explains the Korean ECM and its difference from Mongolian. The proposal resolves the ongoing discourse on whether the ECM subject moves or stays in situ. Additionally, significant similarities between ECM construction and the multiple nominative constructions (MNC) in Korean are also explained in terms of RP, a correlation previously understudied in previous studies.

Keywords: ECM; relator phrase (RP); phase; null operator; predication

References

Bošković, Z. (2023). On wh and subject positions, the EPP, and contextuality of syntax. Ms., UCONN, Storrs: CT.

Branigan, P. (1992). Subjects and complementizers. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Browning, M. A. (1991). Null operator constructions. New York: Garland.

Choe, H-S. (1988). Restructuring parameters and complex predicates: A transformational approach. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Choi, K. (2017). Generative syntax: Case and markers in Korean [In Korean]. Hankook Pub.: Seoul.

Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1993). In N. Chomsky, ed., The minimalist program, ch.1. 1995, 13-127. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.

Davies, W. (2005). Madurese prolepsis and its implications for a typology of raising. Language 81:3, 645-665.

Dikken, M. D. (2006). Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and the copula. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Dikken, M. D. (2017a). Dependency and directionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Dikken, M. D. (2017b). Predication in the syntax of hyperraising and copy raising. Acta Linguistica Academica 64:1, 3-43.

12.

Fong, S. (2019). Proper movement through Spec-CP: An argument from hyperraising in Mongolian. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics 4:1, 30. 1-42.

13.

Hong, K-S. (1992). Argument selection and case marking in Korean. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

14.

Kang, B-M. (1988). Functional inheritance, anaphora, and semantic interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, Brown University, Providence, RI.

15.

Lasnik, H. (1992). Case and expletives. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 381-405.

16.

Lasnik, H., & Saito, M. (1999). On the subject of infinitives. In Howard Lasnik, ed., Minimalist analysis, 7-24. Oxford: Blackwell.

17.

Lee, J-S. (1992). Case alternation in Korean: Case minimality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

18.

Lohninger, M., Kovač, I., & Wurmbrand, S. (2022). From prolepsis to hyperraising. Philosophies 7:2, 32 (1-40).

19.

Takano, Y. (2003). Nominative objects in Japanese complex predicate constructions: A prolepsis analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 779-834.

20.

van Koppen, M., Seuren, L., & de Vies, M. (2016). The proleptic accusative as an exceptional case marking construction. Ms. University of Groningen, Utrecht.

21.

Wurmbrand, S. (2021). From prolepsis to hyperraising. Invited talk at the Abralin ao vivo series, Brazilian Association of Linguistics, live stream and video series.

22.

Yoon, J. (2007). Raising of major arguments in Korean and Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, 615-653.