David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (2):181 - 229 (1993)
We have demonstrated in this study that the island phenomena exhibited in Korean complex constructions, such as they are, follow from the strict application of the Argument Condition to the semantic interpretations of those constructions — and not from formal restrictions on the location of the antecedents of gaps. The AC was shown to entail a kind of subjaceny restriction, although it is immaterial to the AC whether a particular gap is locally bound in a clause as long as the head or topic of the clause can find another element of the appropriate type in the proper position in that clause. Long-distance dependencies may then be sanctioned simply by default.An important assumption of this study is that the AC is a language-specific condition that characterizes the way semantic rules apply to the particular structures produced by the syntactic rules of the Korean grammar; hence, we would not necessarily expect to find an identical condition in languages with markedly different syntaxes. For example, English does not admit Multiple Subject Constructions, and thus, whatever restrictions it places on the distribution of gaps, there can be no English equivalent of the B-clause of the AC. But, as we've seen, that clause is crucial in licensing long-distance dependencies in relatives and topic complements in Korean. If this is correct — and the evidence appears quite persuasive that it is — then the chief difference between Korean and English with respect to whether CNPC violations are tolerated consequently resides not in the typology of gaps in the syntactic structures produced by the two grammars, but rather in the possibility of forming such structures without gaps
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Noam Chomsky (1986). Barriers. The Mit Press.
D. A. Cruse (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
George Lakoff (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Thing: What Catergories Reveal About the Mind. University of Chicago Press.
Eleanor Rosch & Carolyn B. Mervis (1975). Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology 7 (4):573--605.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kasper Lippert-rasmussen (1996). Moral Status and the Impermissibility of Minimizing Violations. Philosophy and Public Affairs 25 (4):333–351.
Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (2009). Kamm on Inviolability and Agent-Relative Restrictions. Res Publica 15 (2):165-178.
Hye-Jeong Baek (2002). A Comparative Study of Moral Development of Korean and British Children. Journal of Moral Education 31 (4):373-391.
Shin-yong Chun (ed.) (1979). Korean Thoughts. International Cultural Foundation.
Ji-Moon Suh (2001). Propelled by the Force of Memory: New Directions in Korean Literature in the 1990s. [REVIEW] Human Studies 24 (1-2):149-170.
So-Young Lee (2008). Korean Environmental Thought and Practice. Environmental Ethics 30 (2):115-134.
Yang-Seok Yoo (2007). The Book of Korean Tea: A Guide to the History, Culture and Philosophy of Korean Tea and the Tea Ceremony. Myung Won Cultural Foundation.
Ki-Sang Lee (2005). The “Happening of Being” and the Horizon of Being. Enowning of the Understanding of Being in Korea. Studia Phaenomenologica 5:185-200.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #452,991 of 1,099,730 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #303,379 of 1,099,730 )
How can I increase my downloads?