Head-NP raising analysis of Korean relative clauses

Choi, Kiyong

doi:10.30961/lr.2024.60.2.107

Lang. Res. 60(2):107-126

pISSN: 0254-4474, eISSN: 2586-7113

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2024.60.2.107

Article

Head-NP raising analysis of Korean relative clauses

Kiyong Choi ¹ ^, ^† ^, ^*

Author Information & Copyright ▼

¹Department of Korean Language and Literature, Kwangwoon University

^†Corresponding author: Professor Emeritus Department,\ of Korean Language and Literature Kwangwoon University, 20 Kwangwoon-ro Nowon-gu, Seoul 01897, Korea, E-mail: kiyongchoi@kw.ac.kr

^* An earlier version of the paper was presented at the poster session of the 24th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar (Seoul, 2022). I am grateful to the audiences of the Conference and the three anonymous reviewers of this journal for many helpful (and challenging) comments and questions. Of course, all errors are my own.

ⓒ Copyright 2024 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, 2024 ; Revised: Aug 02, 2024 ; Accepted: Aug 06, 2024

Published Online: Aug 31, 2024

ABSTRACT

There are three approaches to the structure and derivation of Korean relative clauses, among which the no-relative (NR) approach claims that no operator is involved and that the gap in the clause is not a variable but rather a pronominal as in a canonical Korean sentence. The other two approaches assume the involvement of a null operator. They differ from each other on the issue of whether a null operator moves. In this paper, we claim that the movement approach is on the correct track. However, departing from earlier studies that have ascribed the movement to a null operator. we assert that a Korean relative clause undergoes two-step movement: First, a DP including a head NP moves into the relative clause's [Spec, CP], and then the head NP moves rightward out of the relative clause.

Keywords: head-NP raising; Korean relative clauses; SCO; island constraints; WCO; numeral classifiers; amwu NPI

References

Baltin, M. (2006). Extraposition. In M. Everaert, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The blackwell companion to syntax 2, 237-271. Oxford: Blackwell publishing.

Bhatt, R. (2002). The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics, 10, 43-90.

Chae, H.-R. (2012). Hankwukeey kwayen kwankyeyceli concayhanunka: pwunsacel pwunsek (Are there relative clauses in Korean: A participle clause analysis). Korean Journal of Linguistics, 37(4), 1043-1065.

Choe, H.-S. (1985). Case, the X-bar theory and Korean syntax. Ms., MIT.

Choi, K. (1996). Hankwuke thukswucosakwusenguy kwuco (The structure of the delimiter construction in Korean). Korean Journal of Linguistics, 21(1, 2), 611-650.

Choi, K. (1998). Hankwukeuy pwucengkuke 'amwu'ey tayhaye (On a negative polarity item amwuin Korean). Studies in Generative Grammar, 8(2), 313-341.

Choi, K. (2001). Hankwuke swulyangsa kwusenguy kwucowa uymi (The structure and interpretation of numeral classifier constructions in Korean). Language Research, 37(3), 445-482.

Choi, K. (2013). Hankwukeuy 3inching cisi phyohyen 'ku'ey kwanhan soko (A note on a 3rd person referring expression ku in Korean). Studies in Generative Grammar, 23(3), 527-558.

Choi, K. (2023, May). Hankwukeuy cisisanun cinceng myengsakwuuy kinung hayki aninka; Eswuney tayhan pan-senhyeng tayung konglicek cepkunpep (Is a Korean demonstrative a functional head or not: Towards an anti-LCA approach to word order). Paper presented at the Joint conference of SM.

10.

Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

11.

Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33-49.

12.

Chomsky, N. (2014). Minimal recursion: Exploring the prospects. In R. Tom, & M. Speas (Eds.), Recursion: Complexity in cognition (pp. 1-15). New York: Springer.

13.

Chomsky, N. (2020). The UCLA lectures (April 29-May 2, 2019) with an introduction by R. Freidin. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005485.

14.

Chomsky, N. (2023). The Miracle Creed and SMT. Available online at https://www.icl.keio. ac.jp/news/2023/Miracle%20Creed-SMT%20FINAL%20%2831%29%201-23.pdf.

15.

Choo, M. (1994). A unified account of null pronouns in Korean (Doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.

16.

Han, C. (2013). On the syntax of relative clauses in Korean. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 58(2), 319-347.

17.

Han, C., & Kim, J.-B. (2004). Are there "double relative clauses" in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry, 35(2), 315-337.

18.

Han, J. (1992). Syntactic movement analysis of Korean relativization. Language Research, 28(2), 335-357.

19.

Higginbotham, J. (1980). Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 679-708.

20.

Hong, Y.-T. (2010). Hankwuke myengsa oykwak swusikuetuluy eswunkwa myensakwu kwuco (Peripheral nominal modifiers and noun phrase structure in Korean). Studies in Generative Grammar, 20(1), 549-576.

21.

Kang, M.-Y. (1985). Kwukeuy kwankyeyhwa (Relativization in Korean) (Master's thesis). Sogang University, Seoul.

22.

Kang, Y.-S. (1986). Korean syntax and Universal Grammar (Doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

23.

Kayne, R. (1994). Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

24.

Kim, M.-J. (2019). The syntax and semantics of noun modifiers and the theory of Universal Grammar: A Korean perspective. New York: Springer.

25.

Kwon, N. (2008). Processing of syntactic and anaphoric gap-filler dependencies in Korean: Evidence from self-paced reading time, ERP and eye-tracking experiments (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, San Diego.

26.

Lasnik, H., & Stowell, T. (1991). Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687-720.

27.

Lee, E.-J. (2012). A raising analysis of the relative head in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar, 22(2), 323-357.

28.

Lee, S.-H. (2004). A lexical analysis of select unbounded dependency constructions in Korean (Doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

29.

Nam, K.-S. (2001). Hyentay kwuke thongsalon (Modern Korean Syntax). Seoul: Taehaksa.

30.

Postal, P. M. (1971). Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

31.

Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax (Doctoral dissertation). MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

32.

Safir, K. (1986). Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 663-689.

33.

Yang, D.-W. (1987). Cangpyek ilonkwa kwankyeyhwa (Barriers and relativization). Language Research, 23(1), 1-37.

34.

Yang, H.-K. (1990). Categories and barriers in Korean (Doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin, Texas.

35.

Yoon, J.-H. (1993). Different semantics for different syntax: Relative clauses in Korean. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 42, 199-226.

36.

Yoon, J.-M. (2011). Double relativization in Korean: An explanation based on the processing approach to island effects. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 36(1), 157-193.