A Constraint-Based Approach to Some Multiple Nominative Constructions in Korean

A Constraint-Based Approach to Some Multiple Nominative Constructions in Korean Jong-Bole Kim School of English, Kyung Hee University 1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemoon-gu Seoul, Korea 130-701 jongbokAnms.kyunghee.ac.kr Abstract The so-called multiple nominative constructions (MNC) have been one of the puzzling phe- nomena in topic-prominent languages like Korean, Japanese, and Chinese. This paper first investigates the basic syntactic properties of three MNCs and then provides a constraint-based analysis within the theory of HPSG (Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar). The analysis presented here is lead-driven' and 'constraint-based' in the sense that properties of lexical heads and tight interactions among declarative constraints play crucial role in the formation of puzzling MNCs. Some appealing consequence of this analysis is a straightforward account of long standing problems, such as getting the semantics right and generating multiple nominative constructions without resorting to a mechanism that allows unlimited valence increase. 1 Introduction Much attention has been paid to the generation and structure of the so-called multiple nominative constructions (MNC). Some of the constructions I will discuss in this paper are given in (1). (1) a. Mary-ka� son-i� yepputa. (Whole-Part Pattern: WPP) Mary-NOM hands-NOM pretty `Mary's hands are pretty.' b. Mary-ka� emeni-ka� yepputa. (Focus Pattern: FP) Mary-NOM mother-NOM pretty `It is Mary whose mother is pretty.' c. Mary-ka� John-i� twulyepta (Psych-Pattern: PP) Mary-NOM John-NOM fearsome `Mary fears John.' These three patterns seem to be identical types. However, a careful examination of these apparently similar constructions reveals that each of these patterns has its own syntactic, semantic, and even pragmatic properties. These differences have not been recognized by much literature. This paper will first examine their properties and then suggest the syntactic structures of each type. 2 Basic Properties 2.1 Properties of the First Nominative NP Let us begin with some basic properties of the first nominative NP in these three patterns. As shown by O'Grady (1991) and others, the three types behave differently with respect to honorification, binding, and equi-phenomena. For example, in the whole-part pattern (or often called inalienable pattern) and psych pattern, it is the first NP that triggers honorific agreement, whereas in the focus pattern it is the second NP that determines the agreement. This is illustrated in the examples (2). (2) a. WPP: sensayng-nim-i� elkwul-i yeyppu-si-ta. teacher-HON-NOM face-NOM pretty-HON-DECL `The teacher's face is pretty.' b. FP: *Sensayng-nim-i� sonca-ka� yeyppu-si-ta. teacher-HON-NOM grandchild-NOM pretty-HON-DECL `It is the teacher whose grandchild is pretty.' c. PP: sensayng-nim-i� John-i� twulyep-usi-ta. teacher-HON-NOM John-NOM fearsome-HON-DECL `The teacher fears John.' Another difference comes from binding. In the whole-part pattern and in the psych, the first NP can serve as the antecedent of the anaphor caki. In the focus pattern, the antecedent is not the first but the second NP in a normal context as shown in (3)b. ( 3) a. WPP: Maryi-ka nwun-i� cakii pan-eyse ceyil yeypputa. Mary-NOM eyes-NOM self class-LOC most pretty `Mary's eyes are the prettiest in her class.' b. FP: Sensayngnimi-i soncai-ka� cakiii*j pan-eyse ceyil yeypputa. teacher-NOM grandchild-NOM self� class-LOC most pretty `It is the teacher whose grandchild is the prettiest in …

Content truncated to 500 words