Pre- Vs. Post-Verbal Asymmetries and the Syntax of Korean RDC
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Pre- vs. Post-verbal Asymmetries and the Syntax of Korean RDC Daeho Chung Hanyang University [email protected] (1) a. Cheli-ka Yuni-lul manna-ess-ta (SOV) Abstract Ch.-Nom Y.-Acc meet-Pst-DE 'Cheli saw Yuni.' Among various important issues pertaining to the so-called right dislocated construction b. Yuni-lul Cheli-ka manna-ess-ta (OSV) (RDC) in Korean are the basic word order and (2) a. Cheli-ka manna-ess-ta Yuni-lul (SVO) the grammatical relation the right dislocated b. Yuni-lul manna-ess-ta Cheli-ka (OVS) (RDed) element assumes to the rest of the c. manna-ess-ta Cheli-ka Yuni-lul (VSO) structure. In his series of papers, J.-S. Lee d. manna-ess-e Yuni-lul Cheli-ka (VOS) (2007a,b, 2008a, 2009a,b, 2010, 2011, 2012) proposes a mono-clausal analysis of Korean The RDC in Korean has recently received a great RDC, according to which the RDed element is deal of attention as to the architecture of the a direct dependent of the preceding predicate structure. (See J.-S. Lee 2007a,b, 2008a, 2009a,b, and Korean conforms to Kayne's (1994) 2010, 2011, 2012, Chung 2008a, 2009b, 2010, universal SVO word order hypothesis due to the very existence of the RDC. In contrast, 2011, Lee and Yoon 2009, C.-H. Lee 2009, 2011, Chung (2008a, 2009b, 2010, 2011) advocates a among others.) non-mono-clausal approach, as in Tanaka (2001) Among various issues around the RDC are the and Kato (2007) for Japanese RDC, according basic word order in Koran and the grammatical to which the RDed element is taken as a relation the RDed element in the post-verbal fragment of a continuing sentence to which position assumes with the rest of the construction. massive ellipsis has applied, while the head- Lee (2007a,b, 2008a, 2009a,b, 2010, 2011, 2012) finality is preserved. The current work tries to proposes a mono-clausal structure based on show that RDed elements cannot be viewed as Kayne's (1994) universal SVO hypothesis and direct dependents of the preceding predicate treats the RDed element as a direct dependent of due to various asymmetries observed between pre- vs. post-verbal positions, favoring a non- the preceding predicate. According to this analysis, mono-clausal analysis of Korean RDC. (2a) is taken as the base word order and all other structures in (1) and (2) are derived from (2a), In 1. Introduction contrast, Chung (2008a, 2009b. 2010, 2011), basically following Tanaka's (2001) analysis of Predicates in Korean are generally fixed at the Japanese RDC, advocates a non-mono-clausal clause final position, although the dependents are analysis, according to which the RDC is derived as freely ordered, as in (1). It is observed in Nam and follows:1 Ko (1986: 250-251) and Huh (1988: 263) among others, however, that Korean allows the so-called 1 See also Kuno (1978), Whitman (2000), and Kato (2007), right dislocated construction (RDC), in which among others, for non-mono-clausal approaches. Chung some apparent part of the sentence may show up at (2008a, 2009b, 2010) postulates a null conjunction that the post-predicate position, as in (2). conjoins two root clauses: [Root ... ei ... ] & [Root XPi [ ... ti ... ]]. This paper does not opt for any particular version of non- mono-clausal analysis since the discussions may go through as far as the RDed element is taken as a fragmental expression. 219 Copyright 2012 by Daeho Chung 26th Pacific Asia ConferenceCopyright on Language,Information 2012 by Daeho Chung and Computation pages 219–228 26 th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation pages 219-228 (3) a. Parataxis of Clausal Copies, S1 and S2 expectation is not borne out. It will be illustrated [S1… ei … Pred], [S2 … XPi … Pred] that there are various asymmetric behaviors b. Fronting in S2 displayed between an RDed element in a post- [S1… ei … Pred], [S2 XPi [S2 … ti … Pred]] verbal position and its pre-verbal counterpart. c. Ellipsis in S2 These asymmetric behaviors will be shown to [S1… ei …Pred], [S2 XPi [S2 … ti …Pred]] indicate that the RDed element (the post-verbal expression) is best analyzed as a fragmental First, two clauses/sentences, S1 and S2, are put element of a continuing sentence, not as a direct together in an asyndetic form, as schematically dependent of the overtly realized predicate. represented in (3a). 2 Then, the RDed element undergoes fronting in S2, as in (3b). Finally, S2 2. Asymmetry in the Locus of RDed undergoes a massive ellipsis, deleting all its Elements content except for the fronted element, as in (3c), along the similar lines of Merchant's (2004) An interesting restriction the RDC in Korean analysis of sentence fragments. displays is that RD is only to the right of a matrix A crucial difference between the mono- vs. predicate, i.e., only to the right of a matrix mood. non-mono-clausal approaches lies in the treatment For example, RD is banned in an embedded of the RDed element. A mono-clausal analysis as context. Consider the following examples. in J.-S. Lee (2007a,b, 2008a, 2009a,b, 2010, 2011, 2012) views it as a direct dependent of a predicate (4) a. na-nun [Cheli-ka Yuni-lul manna-ess-ta-ko] that precedes it. In contrast, a non-mono-clausal I-Top Ch.-Nom Y.-Acc see-Pst-DE-C analysis as in Chung (2008a, 2009b. 2010, 2011) sayngkakha-n-ta treats it as a fragmental element of a continuing think-Pres-DE sentence/clause.3 Thus, under the latter approach, (Intended) 'I think that Cheli saw Yuni.' an RDed element has no direct thematic or b.*na-nun [Cheli-ka ei manna-ess-ta-ko modifying relation to the preceding predicate. I-Top Ch.-Nom see-Pst-DE-C They are only indirectly related due to the semantic Yuni-luli] sayngkakha-n-ta identity of the two conjuncts of a paratactic Y.-Acc think-Pres-DE coordinate structure. (Intended) 'I think that Cheli saw Yuni.' It is expected under the former approach that c. na-nun [Cheli-ka ei manna-ess-ta-ko] I-Top Ch.-Nom see-Pst-DE-C the RDed element in a post-verbal position 4 behaves like a pre-verbal counterpart except for the sayngkakha-n-ta Yuni-luli positional difference, i.e., the existence vs. lack of think-Pres-DE Y.-Acc an EPP or edge feature in a certain functional (Intended) 'I think that Cheli saw Yuni.' category. This paper will show, however, that this (4a) is a normal word order under the traditional SOV word order hypothesis. (4b) results from 2 The RDed part can be overtly realized in the preceding placing the embedded object Yuni-lul at the right clausal expression: [S1… XPi … Pred], [S2 XPi [S2 … ti … edge of the embedded clause. In (4c), RD placed Pred]]. I will ignore the issue how XPi in S1 becomes a null element in the RDC. Pronominalization or NP deletion may be the embedded object to the right of the matrix responsible. Yoon and Lee (2009) claim that there exists no predicate. Sentences like (4b) are ungrammatical, null element at all in syntax. while those like (4c) are grammatical. One may be curious about the raison d’être for the clausal The right edge restriction on the RDC is self- copy, especially in relation to the interpretation of the event doubling due to the clausal copy. I do not have any definite explanatory under a non-mono-clausal analysis. As answer for this question, but I would like to point out the fact schematically represented in (3), the RDed element that natural languages do allow reduplication of expressions is analyzed as being positioned at the left periphery including a clausal element. of a continuing sentence/clause, the second 3 The architecture proposed in Yoon and Lee (2009) also implies no direct grammatical relation between the RDed conjunct of a paratactic structure. The RDed element and the predicate. See also C.-H. Lee (2009, 2011), who claims that an intonation break may intervene between 4 To the best of my knowledge, Choe (1987) first observed the predicate and the post-verbal element. that an element can be RDed out of an embedded clause in Korean. 220 element is uniquely pronounced at the second (7) A: ne cikum mwe-la-ko malha-ess-ni? sentence/clause to which massive ellipsis has you now what-be-C say-Pst-QE applied, suppressing all other elements. In short, `What did you say a moment ago?' being a fragmental element, an RDed element B: [ei Yuni-lul cohaha-n-ta-ko] [Cheli-ka]i cannot be embedded, which accounts for the Y.-Acc love-Pres-DE-C Ch.-Nom contrast in grammaticality between (4b) and (4c). 'That Cheli loves Yuni.' J.-S. Lee's (2007a,b, 2008a, 2009a,b, 2010, 2011, 2012) mono-clausal analysis under the SVO The surface order in (6) and (7B) does not conform word order hypothesis makes a special assumption to Lee's suggestion in (5), according to which the to account for the right edge restriction on the whole MP has to be located in the specifier RDC. To rule out the sentences like (4b), Lee position of a complementizer. (2010: 113, 2012:101) makes the following One might try to derive these sentences by suggestion:5 locating the two RDed elements at specifier positions of two different functional categories and (5) ... the Comp -ko signaling embeddedness raising the predicate to the head of a third selects its whole TP complement to be in its functional category.