• Language and Information
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.171-185
• /
• 2002

I claim that the asymmetry of locality effects in wh-questions involving Complex Noun Phrase Island in Korean follows from the proposal for the asymmetric mode of scope taking between way (why) and the other wh-words in Korean as laid out in Choi (2002). 1 will show that the present proposal is superio. to the LF pied-piping approach in Nishigauchi (1990) and WH-structure pied-piping in von Stechow(1996) in that it does not have the fatal problem of wrong semantics in Nishigauchi and Subjacency violation problem in von Stechow. The crossed reading in examples involving Wh-island has an interesting implication for the mechanism of unselective binding, suggesting that Heim's (1982) quantifier indexing mechanism, which requires the local unselective binding of the indefinite by the unselective binder, may be too strong.

• International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology
• /
• v.10 no.4
• /
• pp.576-582
• /
• 2022

In this paper, we discuss the relative positioning of Wh-related English prepositions in a Wh-interrogative construction within the Optimality Theory [1-2]. By employing the two key constraints such as ^*Prep-Str and Align which are developed for the positioning of Wh-related prepositions from Romance languages such as French and Italian [3] and for the positioning of Wh-related prepositions from the middle English prose from 1500 to 1900 [4-6], and by slightly modifying the constraint hierarchy of ^*Prep-STR >>Align into ^**PrepSTR <<>>Align, Choi argues that his new theory can properly explain the unique behaviors of English Whrelated prepositions being able to take two 'optional' operations such as pied-piping and stranding to find legitimate landing sites in a Wh-interrogative construction [7]. However, this new analysis again reveals the following critical problems: (1) Unlike the 'light' English Wh-related prepositions which can two optional operations for legitimate landing sites in a Wh-interrogative construction, 'heavy' Wh-related English prepositions are not allowed to have such two options: they take just one option of pied-piping only. Thus, (2) his argumentation based on the existing constraints and the modified constraint hierarchy is neither general enough nor proper to explain the issue of the relative positioning for all English Wh-related preposition cases. To include such exceptional syntactic property of the 'heavy' preposition cases within the Optimality Theory, we suggest a new constraint of ^*HPrep-STR ranked at the highest position of the constraint hierarchy to disallow a 'heavy' or multi-syllabic Wh-related English preposition to stay alone at the end of a sentence. The new final hierarchy of constraints we suggest to explain the exceptional positioning of 'heavy' Wh-related prepositions together with the other 'light' Wh-related prepositions in English Wh-interrogative construction will be as follows: ^*HPrep-STR>>Align<<>>^*Prep-STR.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Language and Information Conference
• /
• 2001.06a
• /
• pp.237-257
• /
• 2001

This paper investigates the idiosyncratic understanding of universal quantifiers such as every, each or all by young children at the ages of 4 to 7, and argues that the phenomenon is explicable in terms of the maturation of both the cognitive system and the linguistic system. Evidence for this dual explanation comes from the fact that the visual input, a picture, plays a key role in determining the children’s conceptual representation, suggesting the need for the central integration of visual and linguistic elements; and from the fact that a quantifier in the linguistic input has an intrinsic property, i.e. a <+focus> feature. I have tried to explain the nature of the cognitive factors in terms of the function of the central system, suggesting a modified form of Smith & Tsimpli’s (1995) version of Fodor’s (1983) modularity hypothesis. Conceptual representations of two kinds are in competition with each other and they are integrated into a neutral LOT (Language of Thought) representation at some point . In the process of this integration, the representations from the visual input predominate over those from the auditory input, though the quantize. (treated as new information provided by the latter) is salient in the final representations. When visual conceptual representations predominate over purely linguistic ones, quantifier spreading errors occur. By contrast, when the relevant grammatical knowledge has developed sufficiently to counteract the conceptual representations, this peculiar behaviour by children should disappear. It is argued that children have to learn two kinds of grammatical fact with regard to universal quantification: (i) they have to learn the status of the quantifier as a functional head of DP so that it has to be positioned inside DP; and (ii) they have to learn the Left-Branch Condition which specifies that movement of an element in the left-branch position is possible only by pied-piping the entire phrase.