• International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.168-178
• /
• 2019

In this paper I discuss a more complicated case of 'It'-Extraposition in English in the Optimality Theory [1] by further modifying and extending the analysis done in Khym (2018) [2] in which only the 'relatively' simple cases of 'It'-Extraposition such as 'CP-Predicate' was dealt with. I show in this paper that the constraints and the constraint hierarchy developed to explain the 'relatively' simple cases of 'It'-Extraposition are no longer valid for the more complicated cases of 'It'-Extraposition in configuration of 'CP-V-CP'. In doing so, I also discuss two important theoretic possibilities and suggest a new view to look at the 'It'-Extraposition: first, the long-bothering question of which syntactic approach between P&P (Chomsky 1985) [3] and MP (Chomsky 1992) [4] should be based on in projecting the full surface forms of candidates may boil down to just a simple issue of an intrinsic property of the Gen(erator). Second, the so-called 'It'- Extraposition phenomenon may not actually be a derived construction by the optional application of Extraposition operation. Rather, it could be just a representational construction produced by the simple application of 'It'-insertion after the structure projection with 'that-clause' at the post-verbal position. This observation may lead to elimination of one of the promising candidates of '$It_i{\ldots}[_{CP}that{\sim}]_i$' out of the computation table in Khym [2], and eventually to excluding the long-named 'It'-Extraposition case from Extrsposition phenomena itself. The final constraints and the constraint hierarchy that are explored are as follows: ${\bullet}$ Constraints: $^*SSF$, AHSubj, Subj., Min-D ${\bullet}$ Constraint Hierarchy: SSF<<>>Subj.>> AHSubj.

• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.49-65
• /
• 2010

It has been widely accepted that English object extraposition can be easily accounted for. However, recent research exhibits the fact that various cases of English object extraposition lead to many empirical and theoretical problems in generative grammar. To account for such cases, the previous lexical constraint-based analyses including Kim & Sag (2006, 2007) and Kim (2008) attempt to give an explanation on the phenomenon. They, however, seem to be unsuccessful in providing an appropriate analysis of object extraposition, mainly due to the mistaken data generalizations. Unlike the previous analyses, we claim that all verbs selecting CP objects allow object extraposition and propose a unified constraint-based analysis for the various cases of the construction. Further, it is shown that as a consequence, this analysis of object extraposition can be naturally extended to subject extraposition. Hence, this unified analysis enables us to further suggest that all verbs selecting CP allow subject and object extraposition in English.

• International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology
• /
• 제6권4호
• /
• pp.58-64
• /
• 2018

The Extraposition phenomenon in English has been analyzed mainly through two approaches: a derivational approach under the Principles & Parameters framework (P&P) and a representational approach under the early Minimalist framework (MP). The first one tries to understand the phenomenon as a result of the movement of a Big Subject first to the end of a sentence which is then followed by the insertion of an expletive 'it' to the empty Subject position. On the other hand, the second one tries to understand it by way of assuming a Big Subject originally base-generated at the end of a sentence which is followed by the insertion of an expletive 'it' to the empty Subject position. The two approaches, however, are not free from theoretical defects at all: the full derivational approach was under controversy in terms of (1) the failure of the Binding Theory and (2) its inability to suggest anything about the marginal reading issue. On the while, the representational approach has been argued (1) to violate the thematic hierarchy that should be kept in D-structure, and (2) to be also unable to suggest the slightest difference in marginal reading issue as the first one. In this paper I focus mainly on analyzing the 'It'-Extraposition phenomenon in the Optimality Theory. I will show that by way of (i) some newly developed constraints such as Subj., and AHSubj. and (ii) a constraint hierarchy of Subj.>>AHSubj., the controversies of 'It-Extraposition' such as (1) the analysis of construction and (2) the very closely related issue of 'marginal reading issue' can be explained properly.

• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제5권1호
• /
• pp.35-53
• /
• 2001

As a subtype of English relative clause constructions, free relative constructions like what John ate in I ate what John ate exhibit complicated syntactic and semantic properties. In particular, the constructions have mixed properties of nominal and verbal: they have the internal syntax of sentence and the external syntax of noun phrase. This paper provides a constraint-based approach to these mixed constructions, and shows that simple constructional constraints are enough to capture their complexities. The paper begins by surveying the properties of the constructions. In discusses two types(Specific and nonspecific) of free relatives, their ,lexical restrictions nominal properties and behavior with respect to extraposition, piped piping and stacking Following these it sketches the basic framework of the HPSG(Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar) which is of relevance in this paper. As the main part, the paper presents a constraint- based analysis in which tight interactions between grammatical constructions and a rich network of inheritance relations play important roles in accounting for the basic as well as complex properties of the constructions is question.

• 영어영문학
• /
• 제55권6호
• /
• pp.1245-1261
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to show the internal structure of the socalled sentential subject constructions in English. The constructions that we examine in this paper are such as It seems that John failed in the syntax exam vs. *That John failed in the syntax exam seems and It really stinks that the Giants lost the World Series vs. That the Giants lost the World Series really stinks. As seen above, the English verb seem does not tolerate the sentential subject. This is in sharp contrast to other English verbs such as suck, blow, bite, and stink, which do allow the sentential subject. There are several issues regarding these constructions. First, where is the sentential subject located? Second, is the sentential subject assigned structural Case? Third, is the sentential subject extraposed or does it remain in its base-generated complement position? Fourth, is the sentential subject a base-generated topic in the specifier position of CP, as Arlenga (2005) claims? In this paper, we argue that sentential subjects are base-generated in the specifier of the verbal phrase in case of stink-type verbs, while they are licensed as a complement to verbs like seem. We also argue that a sentential subject can be raised in the seem-type verbal constructions, if it were part of the complement small clause.

• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.127-143
• /
• 2009

Tough-construction is, undoubtedly, one of the most puzzling syntactic problems in the history of transformational grammar. Various approaches have been proposed including Deletion approaches (Akmajian, 1972; Lasnik and Fiengo, 1974) and movement approaches. Among the movement approaches, Chomsky (1977; 1981) argues for movement of null Operator, and Hornstein (2001) argues for a two-step movement equipped with Sideward movement. Most recently, Schueler (2004) and Hartman (2009) each have also argued for a kind of movement approach. With the development of the Minimalist syntax (Chomsky, 1995; Chomsky, 2000; Chomsky, 2001), tough-construction, an age old problem in the description of grammar, turns into another round toward to a more satisfactory answer. By examining the most recent competing analyses of tough-constructions, this paper defends and extends Schueler's (2004) analysis, rather than Hartman's (2009) two step movement approach. Furthermore, this paper proposes that tough-subject originates from the intermediate CP internal Spec-TopicP position rather than from the iterated CP layer (Authier, 1992). This approach has more descriptive power than it was originally argued for in Schueler (2004) and is a step closer toward Minimalism insofar as the conception of government is no longer utilized.