• International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• 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constraints and the constraint hierarchy developed to explain the 'relatively' simple cases of 'It'-Extraposition are no longer valid for the more complicated cases of 'It'-Extraposition in configuration of 'CP-V-CP'.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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Language and Information Conference
• /
• 2002.02a
• /
• pp.237-248
• /
• 2002

This paper investigates the internal structure of finite small clauses (FSC). I will propose that a FSC is base-generated at Spec-CP and a null operator is involved to check the formal features of the embedded T and turn a sentence into a predicate.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2015

This paper is primarily intended to provide a new insight on which the structural properties of As-Parenthetical constructions shown by Potts (2002) might be regarded as cross-linguistically common one. As a first attempt, it introduces the characteristics of Korean As-Parenthetical by carefully investigating them through the data, focusing on the similarities or differences between two languages with a constructional theoretical perspective. The paper here provides three properties of Korean as-clauses in the morphological and syntactic aspects. First, the morpheme 'as' in English as-clause would be realized as three different morphemes as a bound one. Korean as-clauses can be introduced by three different morphemes, '-tusi, -chelem, -taylo' and unlike that in English as-clauses, they behave as bound morphemes which do not stand alone. Even though they are attached into different morpho-syntactic stems, they do not make any meaning change only under this clause. Secondly, two syntactic types of as-clauses can also be found in Korean, similarly to those of English: CP-As type and Predicate-As type, depending on which types of gap they involve in. English has one more subtype of Predicate-As type (called inverted Predicate-As clause), while Korean does not show this subtype. Thirdly, the various mismatches attributed by the gap and the antecedent come from the constructional restrictions of as-clauses in Korean. In addition, the paper attempts to display various ambiguities from the as-clauses through disjoint references or negative sentences in As-Parenthetical constructions.

• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.353-358
• /
• 2021

This study provides the syntactic analysis for the agreement attraction by proposing three types of syntactic subject-verb agreement. Because subject-verb number agreement codifies the link between a predicate and its subject, it must be the purely syntactic processes of the head-to-head agreement or the feature percolation, where relevant agreement features percolate upward or downward through the hierarchical syntactic structure. The agreement errors are not affected by linear proximity or minimal interference, but instead are affected by the hierarchical relationship between an agreement target and a local attractor. The data in this paper includes the complex noun phrases with a modifier PP or a relative clause CP. Here, the [+PL] feature is suggested to be a local attractor for subject-verb agreement errors as a strong feature. Therefore, speakers tend to erroneously produce plural agreement for a singular subject in a main clause due to a plural NP in a modifier PP or plural agreement for a singular subject in a relative clause due to plural main subject.