대한언어학회 전자저널

Park, Myung-Kwan & Park, Jong Un. (2018). Labeling, Cartography, and the Left-periphery of Korean Clauses. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 26(4), 151-176. The main goal of this paper is to provide a cartographic approach to two salient interpretations, an 'exhaustive listing focus' (ELF) and a 'neutral description of event' (NDE) reading, from the initial Nominative Case-marked subject NP in matrix Multiple Nominative Case (MNC) constructions, as well as the Accusative Case-marked subject NP in Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) constructions. Regarding this so-called first-position effect, we first argue, assuming Rizzi's (1997) cartographic view of clausal structure, that Korean does not have the [Spec,TP] position, and that the ELF reading is obtained when the clause-initial subject NP in both constructions ends up in the [Spec,FocP] position while the NDE reading is possible when the first subject NP stays low in the clause, namely in the [Spec,FinP] position. Second, following Chomsky's (2014, 2015) Labeling Algorithm, we argue that given the absence of phi-features in Korean, subject NPs are licensed by predication in Heycocks (1994, 2008) sense, and that labeling of a discourse-related projection like FocP becomes possible because of prominent feature sharing after the subject NP raises to the specifier position of the functional projection. To support this claim, we present crosslinguistic evidence from English.

# cartography # labeling # exhaustive listing focus (ELF) # neutral description of event (NDE)

• Cardinaletti, A. (1997). Agreement and control in expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 521-33.
• Cardinaletti, A. (2004). Toward a cartography of subject positions. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP (pp. 115-165). Oxford University Press.
• Chesi, C., & Bianchi, V. (2014). Subject islands, reconstruction, and the flow of the computation. Linguistic Inquiry, 45(4), 525-569.
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
• Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures (volume 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33-49.
• Chomsky, N. (2015). Problems of projection: Extensions. In E. Domenico, C. Hamann, & S. Matteini (Eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honor of Adriana Belletti (pp. 1-16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Chung, D. (2005). What does bare -ko coordination say about post-verbal morphology in Korean? Lingua, 115, 549-568.
• Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Heycock, C. (1991). Layers of predication: The non-lexical syntax of clauses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
• Hiraiwa, K. (2002). Indeterminate agreement and raising in Japanese. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 21).
• Hoji, H. (1991). Raising-to-object, ECM, and the major object in Japanese. Paper presented at the Japanese Grammar Workshop. University of Rochester.
• Hoji, H. (2005). Major object analysis of the so-called raising-to-object constructions in Japanese. Paper presented at New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control Workshop. LSA Summer Institute, Harvard University.
• Hong, K.-S. (1990). Subject-to-object raising in Korean. In K. Dziwirek, P. Farrell, & E. Mejías-Bikandi (Eds.), Grammatical relations: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 215-225). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
• Hong, S.-M. (2005). “Exceptional” case-marking and resultative constructions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
• Kim, K.-S. (1990). Where do the contrastive and focus readings come from? In H. Hoji (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics (pp. 395-412). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
• Kim, S.-W. (1996). ECM and AGRoP in Korean. Journal of the Institute of Humanities & Social Sciences, 25, 39-49.
• Kuroda, Y. (1972). The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language, 9, 153-185.
• Kuroda, Y. (1988). Whether we agree or not. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 12, 1-47.
• Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Lee, J.-S. (1992). Case alternation in Korean: Case minimality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UConn, Storrs, CT.
• Miyagawa, S. (2005). Unifying agreement and agreement-less languages. Proceedings of WAFL. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
• Miyagawa, S. (2010). Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Oka, T. (1988). Abstract case and empty pronouns. Tsukuba English Studies, 7, 187-227.
• Park, M.-K. (1995). A morpho-syntactic study of Korean verbal inflection. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UConn, Storrs, CT.
• Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281-337). Netherlands: Springer.
• Rizzi, L. (2005). On some properties of subjects and topics. In L. Bruge, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, W. Schweikert, & G. Turano (Eds.), Contributions to the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa (pp. 203-224). Cafoscarina, Venezia.
• Rizzi, L. & Bocci, G. (2017). The left periphery of the clause - primarily illustrated for Italian. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Rizzi, L. & Shlonsky, U.. (2006). Satisfying the subject criterion by a non subject: English locative inversion and Heavy NP Shift. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (pp. 341-61). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
• Saito, M. (1983). Comments on the papers in generative syntax. In Y. Otsu, H. van Riemsdijk, K. Inuoe, A. Kamio, & N. Kawasaki (Eds.), Studies in generative grammar and language acquisition (pp. 79-89). Tokyo: International Christian University.
• Saito, M. (1985). Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
• Saito, M. (1992). Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 1, 69-118.
• Saito, M. (2014). Case and labeling in a language without φ-feature agreement. In A. Cardinaletti, G. Cinque, & Y. Endo (Eds.), On peripheries: Exploring clause initial and clause final positions (pp. 269-297). Tokyo: Hitsuzi Syobo Publishing.
• Saito, M. (2016). (A) Case for labeling: Labeling in languages without phi-feature agreement. The Linguistic Review, 33, 129-175.
• Samek-Lodovici, V. (2006). When right dislocation meets the left-periphery: A unified analysis of Italian non-final focus. Lingua, 116, 836-873.
• Sells, P. (1990). Is there subject-to-object raising in Japanese? In K. Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell, & E. Mejías-Bikandi (Eds.), Grammatical relations: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 445-457). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
• Takano, Y. (2003). Nominative objects in Japanese complex predicate constructions: A prolepsis analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 779-834.
• Tanaka, H. (2002). Raising to object out of CP. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 637-652.
• Whitman, J. (1991). String vacuous I to C. A paper presented at GLOW.
• Yoon, J. H. (2004). Non-nominative (major) subjects and case-stacking in Korean. In P. B. Haskararao & K. V. Subbarao (Eds.), Non-nominative Subjects, vol. 2, pp. 275-324. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Yoon, J. H. (2007). Raising of major arguments in Korean (and Japanese). In W. D. Davies & S. Dubinsky (Eds.), New horizons in the analysis of control and raising (pp. 71-108). Dortrecht: Springer.