On the Structure of the So-called Head Internal Relative Construction

Language, Information and Computation(PACLIC 11), 1996, 393-402 On the Structure of the So-called Head Internal Relative Construction Daeho Chung University of California, Los Angeles daeho@humnet.ucla.edu Abstract There have been two opposing views on the so-called head internal relative construction (HIRC) in Korean/Japanese, i.e., a view that analyzes the HIRC categorially as a nominal projection and functionally as an argument (Kuroda 1992, Watanabe 1992, Hoshi 1994, Jhang 1991/1994, among others) vs. a view that analyzes the HIRC categorially as an adjunct clause and functionally as a non-argument (Murasugi 1994). This paper on the one hand points out several phenomena indicating that Murasugi's analysis is more viable, while on the other hand proposing a more complex structure than Murasugi's to account for other facts as well. The no/kes clause in the HIRC will be analyzed as the complement of a null perception verb whose projection constitutes part of an adjunct clause. 1. Introduction There have been two opposing views on the structure of the HIRC in languages like Korean and Japanese, e.g., a in (1) below: (1) a. John-un sakwa-ka cepsi-wiey iss-nun kes]-ul J.-Top� apple-Nom dish-on exist-Adn C-Acc pick;up `John picked up an apple which was on a plate, and ...' b. Taroo wa ringo ga sara no ue ni atta no o] totte, T. Top apple Nom dish Gen on at exist NO Acc pick;up `Taro picked up an apple which was on a plate and ...' Kuroda (1992:147) Kuroda (1992), . Watanabe (1991, 1992), Hoshi (1994), and Jhang (1991, 1994) analyze a categorially as a nominal projection and functionally as an argument of the matrix predicate, albeit they differ as to the internal structure of a. Murasugi (1994), however, analyzes a as a circumstantial adjunct (Harada 1973) and posits pro as a matrix argument, which is anaphorically related to an NP within a. Their schematic structures are provided below: 393 (2) Argument Analyses of a a. Kuroda (1992)�b. Jhang (1991:271)� c. Hoshi (1994) V'� V'� V' 7N NP, V� NP; V� NP� V S� totte� S'� totte�NP-case NP totte 7N, ...NP,...� S� Comp�IP� N pro, ...NPi...� ...NP;...� no d. Watanabe (1992) SS:� V'� LF:� V' NP� V� NP V CP� NP totte� CP� NP totte VN C'� Op; e;� C'� DP; e; 7* IP� IP� C ...DP,...� ...t,... t,� D' (3) Murasugi's (1994) Adjunct Analysis:� VP ADJ VP VN NP pro;� V IP� NP ...NP,� no This paper, on the one hand, points out several phenomena indicating that Murasugi's analysis is more viable, while on the other hand proposing a more complex structure than Murasugi's to account for other facts as well. The no/kes clause will be analyzed as the complement of a null perception verb whose projection constitutes part of an adjunct clause. 2. Some Facts in Favor of Murasugi's Analysis In this section we take several phenomena which points in favor of Murasugi's adjunct analysis of the HIRC. 394 2.1. Split Antecedence As Kuroda (1992) observes, a 'split pivot (head)' is possible in Japanese head internal relative construction, …

Content truncated to 500 words