It is well-known that the domain of case assignment extends beyond the arguments of a predicate to a range of adverbials in some languages, including Korean. In this paper we concentrate on case-marked Duration/Frequency adverbials which are characterized as ‘extensive measures’ by Wechsler and Lee (1996).∗ In some languages, case-marked adverbials are in the accusative and provide a boundedness to an event (cf. Kuryłowicz (1964), Kiparsky (1998), Kratzer (2004)). However, in Korean, the D/F adverbials can show accusative or nominative, with (...) no apparent difference in their temporal or aspectual semantic contribution. (shrink)
In Optimality Theory, recent work has been exploring the idea that the order of constituents in syntax is determined by alignment constraints, developed within the theory of Generalized Alignment ). Costa and Samek-Lodovici present general overviews, and both have specifically argued that OT analyses are superior to proposals expressed in terms of the parameterized “directionality” of movement or ordering. In Korean, the ordering options for major clausal constituents have been explored in Choi and Lee, who discussed the ordering of a (...) verb’s arguments as an interaction between constraints on canonical ordering and constraints on information structure. In this paper, I will discuss extending the ideas of ordering as alignment into the core clausal syntax, concentrating on the non-phrasal clausal elements.. (shrink)
This paper addresses the correct analysis of Korean examples like those in (1).∗ An event is presented against a contrastive or negative implication, through either a copy of the verbal lexeme, or the use of the supporting verb ha-ta.
Like many languages, Korean has a special form of negation that is used in imperative clauses (see (1)c), to the exclusion of the usual clausal negation in (1)b: (1) a. ka-la b. *ka-ci anh-ala c. ka-ci mal-ala go-Imp go-Comp Neg-Imp go-Comp Neg-Imp ‘Don’t go!’ ‘Don’t go!’ ‘Go!’ Sadock and Zwicky (1985) noted that negation in imperative(-like) clauses shows special morpho-syntax in many languages, a fact documented in more detail by Zanuttini (1997) or Han (2000). In this paper I will consider (...) the semantic properties of Korean clauses that use the negative form mal-, and suggest a more indirect relationship to the morpho-syntax than has been assumed in previous work.∗ In section 2 I present the basic account of clausal semantics in the HPSG framework of Ginzburg and Sag (2000), and then in section 3 I return to a fuller consideration of data like that in (1). (shrink)
In this paper I will discuss certain cases in Japanese and Korean morphosyntax where forms compete to express the same semantic and grammatical information, and attempt to show that in each instance the most economical form is chosen. Presenting an account in terms of Optimality Theory (OT; see Prince and Smolensky (1993), Grimshaw (1995)), I will argue that constraints such as ‘Avoid Word’ and ‘Avoid Afﬁx’ (as in (1)) are motivated as the forces behind the economization. (1) Avoid Word, Avoid (...) Afﬁx. In OT, constraints are violable and ranked. For a given input—in this paper, abstract grammatical and semantic information—the optimal output is the morpho-syntactic expression which best satisﬁes the constraints in their ranking, even if some constraints are violated. If the constraints in (1) were the only forces on grammatical expression, the optimal output would be silence; but such an output would fail to express any of the information in the input. Hence, there are constraints on what is called ‘Faithfulness’ in OT, constraints which require linguistic material to faithfully express the abstract input information. In the next section of the paper, I discuss cases where a single word competes with a syntactic formation to express the same input information, illustrating a case where ‘Blocking’ extends from morphology into syntax. (shrink)
While the copula in Korean may attach to various consituents built around nominal hosts, it is not totally unconstrained as to the nature of its host. In particular, there are some post-nominal particles with which it cannot co-occur. Based on the classification of Yang, and following much other work, Cho and Sells adopt the well-known template in for the nominal system, with each position exemplified by the particles shown in and.
Studies 6, 1–15. Korean has three forms that express negation: short-form negation, long-form negation and inherently lexical verbs. The goal of this paper is to argue that there are three separate notions related to the expression and interpretation of negation in Korean, which must be kept separate. They are the notions of a negative clause, of the surface c-command domain of a negative element, and of the semantic scope of a negative element. The main arguments derive from the interactions of (...) the negative-sensitive adverb yekan with different forms of negation, and of the interaction of examples with both yekan and a negative-sensitive item like awmu-to (‘anyone’). (Stanford University). (shrink)
I consider some of the claims that have been made for and against the nature of the INPUT in OT syntax as developed within the assumptions of the Minimalist Program, leading to suggestions for further specification of the architecture of this approach. Comparing with the role of faithfulness in the OT approach developed from Lexical-Functional Grammar, I argue that specific linguistic analyses crucially involve reference to faithfulness constraints (MAX and DEP in correspondence-based OT) which apply across different parts of the (...) output structures, but do not need to refer to the INPUT. I conclude that while OT syntax does not need INPUTs per se, it does need faithfulness constraints. (shrink)
This chapter focuses on the frameworks of Head‐Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) as it developed from Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG), and Lexical‐Functional Grammar (LFG). Declarative frameworks are not generative, as they do not ‘generate’ anything in the sense of the preceding paragraph. Pullum refers to that kind of approach as Generative‐Enumerative Syntax and differentiates it from Model‐Theoretic Syntax: GPSG, HPSG, and LFG essentially fall in the latter category. It describes some key aspects of declarative frameworks, and the motivation for (...) them. The chapter considers how declarative frameworks instantiate a view of Generative Grammar directly inspired by Noam Chomsky's early work, but without the procedural component. It presents some of the core design features which motivate declarative frameworks, and explores how syntactic phenomena are factorized and formalized in declarative frameworks, with a view to comparison with Minimalist Program analyses. (shrink)