On Inalienable Possession Constructions: A Reply to Ogawa (2001)
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
초록
Korean allows only inalienable possessor to be marked with accusative case. This phenomenon raises a crucial question abou서 the relation betwen possession type and case licensing type. Although Ogawa (2001) captures the interesting correlation between possession type and the distribution of secondary predicates, it has several problems. In this paper, I critically review Ogawa (2001) and propose an analysis of inalienable possession constructions. My proposals are as follows: (i) Availability of multiple accusative case marking in inalienable possession constructions follows from their status as ECM constructions; (ii) EC< structures of this kind require individual-level properties and relations in the complement; (iii) inalienable possession is an individual-level predicate whereas alienable possession is a stage-level predicate.
Abstract
Korean allows only inalienable possessor to be marked with accusative case. This phenomenon raises a crucial question abou서 the relation betwen possession type and case licensing type. Although Ogawa (2001) captures the interesting correlation between possession type and the distribution of secondary predicates, it has several problems. In this paper, I critically review Ogawa (2001) and propose an analysis of inalienable possession constructions. My proposals are as follows: (i) Availability of multiple accusative case marking in inalienable possession constructions follows from their status as ECM constructions; (ii) EC< structures of this kind require individual-level properties and relations in the complement; (iii) inalienable possession is an individual-level predicate whereas alienable possession is a stage-level predicate.