우전위 요소의 영역
On the Scope of the Right-dislocated Elements
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This squib is a reply to Park's (2017) advocation for the ellipsis approach to the right dislocated construction (RDC), i.e., the bi-clausal analysis accompanied by Move & Delete under the head-final structure. Park intends to maintain his ellipsis approach against Shimoyama, Drummond, Schwarz and Wagner's (2015) claim that the ellipsis approach produces wrong scope facts (in Japanese). This squib examines Park's arguments in detail and shows that they are not viable. It is pointed out that one of his proposals, i.e., argument ellipsis of the moved object in the elliptic clause, is suspicious in that this object carries focus with it, and that disallowing pro movement in gapped RDCs is just arbitrary and is in exclusion of his argument ellipsis, which is contradictory. Particularly, Park's analysis applies the Parallelism condition in a way that is inconsistent with Fox' (2000) system about scope interpretation. The resulting problems rather indicate that the head-final bi-clausal approach to RDCs is on the wrong track. By contrast, adopting the head-first mono-clausal analysis to RDCs (Lee 2009, 2010, 2011a), I show that it can straightforwardly account for the scope facts in RDCs at issue without facing the problematic situations in Park's system.
Abstract
This squib is a reply to Park's (2017) advocation for the ellipsis approach to the right dislocated construction (RDC), i.e., the bi-clausal analysis accompanied by Move & Delete under the head-final structure. Park intends to maintain his ellipsis approach against Shimoyama, Drummond, Schwarz and Wagner's (2015) claim that the ellipsis approach produces wrong scope facts (in Japanese). This squib examines Park's arguments in detail and shows that they are not viable. It is pointed out that one of his proposals, i.e., argument ellipsis of the moved object in the elliptic clause, is suspicious in that this object carries focus with it, and that disallowing pro movement in gapped RDCs is just arbitrary and is in exclusion of his argument ellipsis, which is contradictory. Particularly, Park's analysis applies the Parallelism condition in a way that is inconsistent with Fox' (2000) system about scope interpretation. The resulting problems rather indicate that the head-final bi-clausal approach to RDCs is on the wrong track. By contrast, adopting the head-first mono-clausal analysis to RDCs (Lee 2009, 2010, 2011a), I show that it can straightforwardly account for the scope facts in RDCs at issue without facing the problematic situations in Park's system.
참고문헌 (12)
- Chung, Daeho, "An oblique merge analysis of multi-elemental fragment answers in Korean", Proceedings of the 17th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar: Case and agreement, pp.68~93 (2015), Kyung Hee University
- Fox, Danny, "Economy and semantic interpretation" (2000), MIT Press
- 이정식, "A Verb-Initial Single Clause Analysis of Right-dislocated Constructions in Korean", 현대문법연구, (57), pp.127~157 (2009), 현대문법학회
- 이정식, "Why only Predicate-final in Embedded Clauses in Korean?", 현대문법연구, (61), pp.99~138 (2010), 현대문법학회
- 이정식, "Some Loopholes of the Double Clause Approach to the Right Dislocated Construction in Korean?", 현대문법연구, (63), pp.113~146 (2011), 현대문법학회
- 이정식, "Layered VP and Inner Aspect", 현대문법연구, (65), pp.45~72 (2011), 현대문법학회
- 이정식, "국어 우전위 요소와 조각구", 생성문법연구, 26(2), pp.115~141 (2016), 한국생성문법학회[DOI]
- 이정식, "우전위구문 재고", 생성문법연구, 27(1), pp.1~36 (2017), 한국생성문법학회[DOI]
- 이정식, "A Resumption Strategy for Gapless Multiple Right Dislocation", 어학연구, 53(1), pp.23~58 (2017), 언어교육원
- 이정식, "Two Types of VP-ellipsis in Korean", 언어학, 25(2), pp.85~120 (2017), 대한언어학회[DOI]
- 박범식, "Disguised Multiple Remnants in the Right Dislocation Construction and Fragments", 생성문법연구, 27(2), pp.431~456 (2017), 한국생성문법학회[DOI]
- Shimoyama, Junko, "Movement and ellipsis in afterthought right dislocation, sluicing and fragments", Proceedings of the 2015 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistics (2015)