Advertisement

Predication and edge effects

  • Heejeong Ko
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the properties of syntactic edges, with special attention being paid to two central issues in cyclic syntax: the domain and the nature of cyclicity. This paper argues for the premise that predication domains form a Spell-out domain, and that Spell-out results in order preservation of the predication domain. It is shown that elements externally merged at the edge of a predication domain observe a special ordering restriction, the Edge Generalization. The ordering restriction is explained by the interaction of two premises of cyclic syntax, coupled with a theory of probe-goal Search. Empirical evidence for the proposal comes from various sub-extraction phenomena out of edges of predication domains in Korean and Japanese. In particular, the interactions between floating numeral quantifier constructions and (primary and secondary) predication constructions are closely examined. The current proposal poses some interesting challenges to the proposition-based-phase system: it argues against the claim that only strong phases undergo Spell-out, and that edges are spelled out separately from the complement. The proposal also has some implications for the structure and typology of resultative and depictive predicates, and for the finer-grained structure of VP including aspectual adverbs and small clause complements.

Keywords

Cyclic spell-out Cyclic linearization Edge generalization Floating quantifiers Predication Small clauses Secondary predicates 

References

  1. Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Google Scholar
  2. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  3. Baker, Mark. 2004. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Bale, Alan Clinton. 2007. Quantifiers and verb phrases: an exploration of propositional complexity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25: 447–483. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, Sigrid, and Kyle Johnson. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 97–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boeckx, Cedric, and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2007. Remark: Putting phases in perspective. Syntax 10(2): 204–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bošković, Željko. 1994. D-structure, θ-criterion, and movement into θ-positions. Linguistic Analysis 24: 247–286. Google Scholar
  8. Bošković, Željko. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59: 1–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bresnan, Joan. 1974. On the position of certain clause-particle in phrase structure. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 614–619. Google Scholar
  10. Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656. Google Scholar
  11. Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  12. Choi, Young-Sik. 1999. Negation, its scope, and NPI licensing in Korean. In ESCOL ’99, eds. Rebecca Dalyand and Anastasia Riehl, 25–36. Ithaca: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, Noam. 2001a. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 2001b. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20: 1–28. Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interface + recursion = language? eds. Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  18. Déchaine, Rose-Marie Anne. 1993. Predicate across categories: towards a category-neutral syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  19. Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006a. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  20. Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006b. A reappraisal of vP being phasal: A reply to Legate. Manuscript, CUNY Graduate Center. Google Scholar
  21. Den Dikken, Marcel. 2007a. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 1–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Den Dikken, Marcel. 2007b. Phase extension: A reply. Reaction to commentaries on ‘Phase extension: contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 133–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Den Dikken, Marcel. 2007c. Phase and successive cyclicity. Lecture notes distributed at the 9th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar. August, 2007. Google Scholar
  24. Doggett, Teal Bissell. 2004. All things being unequal: Locality in movement. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  25. Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
  26. Dowty, David, and Belinda Brodie. 1984. A semantic analysis of “floated” quantifiers in a transformationless grammar. In Proceedings of WCCFL 3, eds. Mark Cobler, Susannah MacKaye, and Michael T. Wescoat, 75–90. Stanford: Stanford University. Google Scholar
  27. Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 355–392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fitzpatrick, Justin. 2006. The syntactic and semantic roots of floating quantification. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  29. Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005a. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–46. In Object shift, ed. Katalin É. Kiss, a special issue. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005b. Cyclic linearization and its interaction with other aspects of grammar: A reply. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 235–262. In Object shift, ed. Katalin É. Kiss, a special issue. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frank, Robert. 2006. Phase theory and tree-adjoining grammar. Lingua 116: 145–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fujita, Naoya. 1994. On the nature of modification: A study of floating quantifiers and related constructions. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. Google Scholar
  33. Gill, Kook-Hee. 2001. Floating quantifiers, case and scrambling. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 9: 328–337. Google Scholar
  34. Haig, John. 1980. Some observations on quantifier floating in Japanese. Linguistics 18: 1065–1083. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from building 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 53–109. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  36. Han, Chung-hye, and Jong-Bok Kim. 2004. Double relative clauses in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry 35: 315–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Han, Chung-hye, Jeffrey Lidz, and Julien Musolino. 2007. V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 1–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74: 101–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoji, Hajime. 1998. Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 127–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hong, Soo-min. 2005. Exceptional Case-marking and resultative constructions. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Google Scholar
  41. Hornstein, Norbert, Howard Lasnik, and Juan Uriagereka. 2007. The dynamics of islands: Speculations on the locality of movement. Linguistic Analysis 33: 149–175. Google Scholar
  42. Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  43. Ishii, Yasuo. 1998. Floating quantifiers in Japanese: NP quantifiers, VP quantifiers, or both? In Grant-in-Aid for COE research report 2: Researching and verifying on advanced theory of human language, 149–171. Chiba: Kanda University of International Studies. Google Scholar
  44. Jäger, Gerhard, and Reinhard Blutner. 2003. Competition and interpretation: The German adverb wieder (“again”). In Modifying adjuncts, eds. Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, 393–416. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  45. Jang, Youngjun. 1997. On the so-called adjunct predicates in Korean. Texas Linguistic Forum 38: 149–159. Google Scholar
  46. Jang, Youngjun, and Siyoun Kim. 2001. Secondary predication and default case. In ZAS working papers in linguistics 26: Papers on the syntax of predication, 113–126. Berlin: ZAS. Google Scholar
  47. Kang, Beom-Mo. 2002. Categories and meanings of Korean floating quantifiers—with some references to Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 375–398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kang, Eungyeong. 2001. The -key constructions in Korean: Predicate head or complementizer. In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 9, eds. Susumu Kuno, Ik-Hwan Lee, John Whitman, Joan Maling, Young-Se Kang, and Young-Joo Kim, 433–442. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  49. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  50. Kim, Jong-Bok. 1993. Syntax and semantics of Korean resultative constructions. In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics V, eds. Susumu Kuno, John Whitman, Young-Se Kang, Ik-Hwan Lee, and Sung-Yun Bak, 471–482. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  51. Kim, Jong-Bok. 1999. Constraints on the formation of Korean and English resultative constructions. In Proceedings of NELS 29, eds. Pius Tamanji, Masako Hirotani, and Nancy Hall, 137–151. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  52. Kim, Young-Joo. 1990. The syntax and semantics of Korean case: The interaction between lexical and syntactic levels of representation. PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  53. Kim, Soowon, and Joan Maling. 1997. A cross-linguistic perspective on resultative formation. In Texas linguistic forum 38: The syntax and semantics of predication, eds. Ralph Blight and Michelle Moosally, 189–204. Austin: University of Texas. Google Scholar
  54. Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntactic edges and linearization. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  55. Ko, Heejeong. 2007. Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 49–83. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ko, Heejeong. 2008. A numeral classifier on the edge: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea 51: 3–28. Google Scholar
  57. Ko, Heejeong. 2009. Multiple case sharing and syntactic structure. Studies in Generative Grammar 19: 423–451. Google Scholar
  58. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1994. Secondary predicates. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 25–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2000. String vacuous verb movement. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9: 227–285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Koopman, Hilda. 2006. Agreement: in defense of the “Spec head configuration”. In Agreement systems, ed. Cedric Boecks, 159–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  61. Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Building resultatives. In Event arguments in syntax, semantics, and discourse, eds. Claudia Maienborn and Angelika Wöllenstein-Leisten, 177–212. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar
  62. Kučerová, Ivona. 2005. The T-extension condition. In Proceedings of WCCFL 24, eds. John Alderete, Chung-hye Han, and Alexei Kochetov, 227–235. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  63. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1983. What can Japanese say about government and binding? In Proceedings of WCCFL 2, eds. Michael Barlow, Daniel P. Flickinger, and Michael T. Westcoat, 153–164. Stanford: Stanford University. Google Scholar
  64. Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–392. Google Scholar
  65. Lee, Ju-eun. 2004. Ditransitive structures and (anti-)locality. PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  66. Lee, Mijung. 2006. Transitive-based resultative patterns and a case alternation. In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics XI, eds. Susumu Kuno, Ik-Hwan Lee, John Whitman, Joan Maling, Young-See Kang, Peter Sells, and Hyang-Sook Sohn, 631–641. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  67. Lee, Junkyu and Chungmin Lee. 2003. Korean resultative constructions. In The Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on HPSG, eds. Jong-Bok Kim and Stephen Wechsler, 169–186. Stanford: Stanford University. Google Scholar
  68. Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 506–516. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Legendre, Géraldine. 1997. Secondary predication and functional projections in French. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15: 1–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  71. Maling, Joan, and Soowon Kim. 1992. Case assignment in the inalienable possession construction in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 37–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Martin, Samuel E. 1992. A Korean reference grammar. Rutland, VT/Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle. Google Scholar
  73. Matushansky, Ora. 2000. The instrument of inversion: instrumental case in the Russian copula. In Proceedings of WCCFL 19, eds. Roger Billerey and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen, 281–301. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  74. Matushansky, Ora. 2005. Going through a phase. In MIT working papers in linguistics 49: perspectives on phases, eds. Martha McGinnis and Norvin Richards, 157–181. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  75. McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Phases and the syntax of applicatives. In Proceedings of NELS 31, eds. Min-Joo Kim and Uri Strauss, 333–349. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  76. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  77. Miyagawa, Shigeru, and Koji Arikawa. 2007. Locality in syntax and floated numeral quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 645–670. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2003. The semantics of measure phrases. In Proceedings of NELS 33, eds. Makoto Kadowaki and Shigeto Kawahara, 225–244. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  79. Nam, Seungho. 2005. Directional locatives in event structure: Asymmetry between goal and source. Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea 43: 85–117. Google Scholar
  80. Nissenbaum, Jon. 2000. Investigations of covert phrase movement. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  81. Otani, Kazuyo, and John Whitman. 1991. V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 345–358. Google Scholar
  82. Park, Myung-Kwan, and Keun-Won Sohn. 1993. Floating quantifiers, scrambling, and the ECP. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3, ed. Soonja Choi, 187–203. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  83. Pesetsky, David. 2007. Property delay (Remarks on “Phase extension” by Marcel den Dikken). Theoretical Linguistics 33: 105–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The syntax of time, eds. Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme, 495–538. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  85. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, eds. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy K. Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  86. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  87. Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77: 766–797. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic agree. Syntax 6: 156–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Richards, Norvin. 2004. Against bans on lowering. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 453–463. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rothstein, Susan. 1983. The syntactic forms for predication. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  92. Sabbagh, Joseph. 2007. Ordering and linearizing rightward movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25: 349–401. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  94. Saito, Mamoru, and Keiko Murasugi. 1999. Subject predication within IP and DP. In Beyond principles and parameters: essays in memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli, eds. Uli Kyle Johnson and Uli Ian Roberts, 167–188. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  95. Shim, Ji Young, and Marcel den Dikken. 2007. The tense of resultative—The case of Korean. Manuscript, CUNY Graduate Center. Google Scholar
  96. Simpson, Andrew, Heeju Hwang, and Canan Ipek. 2009. The comparative syntax of distransitive constructions in Japanese, Korean, and Turkish. In Proceedings of the 5th workshop on Alatic formal linguistics (WAFL 5), eds. Ryosuke Shibagaki and Reiko Vermeulen, 41–62. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  97. Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. In Papers in lexical-functional grammar, eds. Lori Levin, Malka Rappaport, and Anne Zaenen, 143–157. Bloomtington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Google Scholar
  98. Son, Minjeong. 2008. Resultatives in Korean revisited: Complementation versus adjunction. In Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 35, eds. Peter Svenonius and Inna Tolskaya, 89–113. Tromsø: CASTL. Google Scholar
  99. Son, Minjeong, and Peter Svenonius. 2008. Microparameters of cross-linguistic variation: Directed motion and resultatives. In Proceedings of WCCFL 27, eds. Natasha Abner and Jason Bishop, 388–396. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  100. Song, Hongkyu. 2005. Causatives and resultatives in Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Google Scholar
  101. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–450. Google Scholar
  102. Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  103. Takezawa, Koichi. 1993. Secondary predication and locative/goal phrases. In Japanese syntax in comparative grammar, ed. Nobuko Hasegawa, 45–87. Tokyo: Kurosio. Google Scholar
  104. Takezawa, Koichi. 2000. kuukan hyoogen-no toogoron: Koo-to jutubu-no tairitu-nimotozuku apurooti [Syntax of spatial expressions: an approach based on the argument/predicate distinction]. In kuukanhyougen-no gengogaku [linguistics of spatial expressions], eds. Saburo Aoki and Koichi Takezawa, 163–214. Tokyo: Kurosio. Google Scholar
  105. Ueda, Masanobu. 1990. Japanese phrase structure and parameter setting. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  106. Ura, Hiroyuki. 1996. Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  107. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism, eds. Samuel D. Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 251–282. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  108. von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. The different readings of wieder “again”: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13: 87–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wechsler, Stephen and Bokyung Noh. 2001. On resultative predicates and clauses: Parallels between Korean and English. Language Sciences 23: 391–423. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203–238. Google Scholar
  111. Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  112. Yeo, Seungju. 2006. Some notes on resultatives in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 16: 687–706. Google Scholar
  113. Yoon, Jae-Hak. 2007. ‘Tasi’wa tto. Language and Information 11: 1–22. Google Scholar
  114. Yoon, James Hye-Suk. 1994. Korean verbal inflection and checking theory. In MIT working papers in linguistics 22: The morphology-syntax connection, eds. Heidi Harley and Colin Phillips, 251–270. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations