Tough-Constructions

This dissertation examines how intensional content, i.e., belief ascription, constrains antecedentgap chains. I defend the proposal that antecedent-gap chains are intensionally uniform: the antecedent and the gap must refer to the same thing. The core focus is defective intervention . Previous accounts have attributed defective intervention to syntactic mechanisms . These accounts are shown to be at best entirely stipulative and at worst empirically inadequate.

Author(s): Gluckman, John Daniel | Advisor(s): Sportiche, Dominique | Abstract: This dissertation examines how intensional content, i.e., belief ascription, constrains antecedent- gap chains. I defend the proposal that antecedent-gap chains are intensionally uniform: the an- tecedent and the gap must refer to the same thing. The core focus is defective intervention in antecedent-gap chains(Chomsky, 2000, 2001). Previous accounts have attributed defective inter- vention to syntactic mechanisms (Chomsky, 2001; Nevins, 2004; Preminger, 2014). These ac- counts are shown to be at best entirely stipulative and at worst empirically inadequate.I make two new generalizations concerning defective intervention. The first is that defective interveners are all attitude holders. I support this generalization by closely examining the class of tough-predicates, which permit various kinds of arguments to be projected in the syntax between the antecedent and the gap. The second generalization is that...

Still, we have a poor understanding of why some predicates participate in the alternation above (difficult, easy) but other things don’t (tall, quick). Here I address this issue by exploring what defines the natural class of tough-predicates (ToughPreds), and what this tells us about the types of embedded clauses that appear in the tough-construction (for-CPs). I first show that many types of phrases (APs, DPs, VPs) can participate in the tough-alternation. Based on this expanded data set, we can define the class of ToughPreds using two semantic factors: modality and eventivity. Finally, I explore the connection between ToughPreds and for-CPs, arguing that for-CPs describe properties of contentful events, adopting ideas from Hacquard (2006); Moulton (2009). I will not attempt to derive the alternation in (1). The goal here is simply to define the class of ToughPreds and their connection to for-CPs. I leave the derivational link between (1) open for now. See Gluckman (2018) for an an...

This paper focuses on Portuguese adjetival constructions akin to English contructions with tough movement – e.g., "este problema é difícil de resolver" ‘this problem is tough to solve’. In standard European and Brazilian Portuguese, the infinitival clause tipically contains a transitive verb, and no explicit external argument. However, some other – poorly studied, and arguably non-canonical – variants of these constructions occur in corpora of newspaper writing of both European and Brazilian Portuguese. These will be the focus of this paper. Three variants will be assessed: constructions with explicit external arguments; constructions with clear subject raising (of external arguments, or internal arguments of inacusative verbs); (non-tough-)constructions with unmotivated insertion of the preposition de ‘to’. All in all, it is possible to conclude that Portuguese adjectival constructions with tough-movement are prone to substantial language variation and are occasionally affected by linguistic anomaly, even in relatively formal written registers

In this paper', we will examine several different types of tough-and similar constructions. They have A -positon fillers and show unbounded dependency between filler and gap. Problems with the rule-based approach of GKPS arise when the triggering element of the construction concerned is not the head of the local structure and when the same lexical items in different constructions carry their gap-licensing properties with them. I propose a new gap licensing mechanism, which introduces a FOOT feature [<GAP a) LICENSOR], which is specified in the lexicon as a part of the syntactic information of those lexical items which trigger the construction. We will see that the present analysis can handle all the problems posed by the GKPS approach and can account for some recalcitrant data, which are too tough to handle in other approaches. ( i ) The book is impossible for Tom to read. (easy-type) ( ii ) ?* The book is an impossible thing (stuff) for Tom to read. ( ill) ?* That is an impossible book for Tom to read.

Although there is a lot of literature dealing with the classification and distribution of Korean adverbials, there does not seem to be any satisfactory work. This is partly due to the properties of the adverbials themselves, whose classification and distribution vary depending not only on the lexical properties of each adverbial but also on its distributional environment. However, the distinction between "regular adverbials" and "concord adverbials (CAs)" is very clear and plays a significant role in elucidating the properties of the adverbials as a whole. The former have only the function of modifying other phrases, while the latter show a correspondence to some specified elements in the sentence. One of the major differences between them is that a CA and what it corresponds to can be separated from each other unboundedly across clausal boundaries. CAs are comprised of such "modality adverbials" as those indicating 'concession,' 'condition, ' 'possibility,' 'necessity,' and so on (Chae 2002). These adverbials require the existence of a verb with a particular ending ("VE," henceforth) in the sentence, as in (1): (1) a. pilok yengca-ka ttena-ess-telato, CA Youngja-Nom leave-Past-VE/although, The Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on HPSG.

Concord adverbial constructions in Korean show unbounded dependency relationships between two non-empty entities. There are two different types of unboundedness involved: one between a concord adverbial and a verbal ending and the other between the adverbial as a modifier and a predicate. In addition, these unboundedness relationships exhibit properties of "downward movement" phenomena. In this paper, we examine the Indexed Phrase Structure Grammar analysis of the constructions presented in Chae (2003, 2004), and propose to introduce a new feature to solve its conceptual problem. Then, we provide an analysis of conditional-concessive constructions, which is a subtype of concord adverbial constructions. These constructions are special in the sense that they contain a seemingly incompatible combination of a conditional adverbial and a concessive verbal ending. We argue that they are basically conditional constructions despite their concessive meaning.

Tough-constructions (henceforth TC, Rosenbaum 1967 a.o.) involve a subjective predicate (like tough, easy, impossible, important, annoying) embedding an infinitival clause, and taking an optionally overt EXPERIENCER argument, as shown in (1) for English. In both English and French, TCs famously alternate between a "gapped" variant (1a)/(2a) and an "impersonal" variant (1b)/(2b). The former features a DP-like subject and a gapped infinitival clause. The latter features a subject proform (English it, French il/c'), and a gapless infinitive. Unlike English, which makes use of the clause-introducing preposition to across the board, French exhibits an alternation between two prepositions: à in gapped TCs (2a) vs. de in impersonal TCs (2b), the latter being optionally preceded by the complementizer que. 2 We dub gapped TCs like (2a) à-TCs, and impersonal TCs like (2b), de-TCs. What is the reason behind the prepositional alternation in French TCs, and what further differentiates them from English TCs?

Les adjectifs tough et le marquage de l'infinitif en néerlandais 1. Les marqueurs sans correspondant en français seront gardés tels quels. Il s'agit de : HET (pronom personnel neutre) ; ER (pronom clitique locatif correspondant à la fois à en et y) ; OM (préposition pour mais également complémenteur infinitival) ; TE (marque flexionnelle de l'infinitif). Langages 218 rticle on line rticle on line

Le point de départ de cet article est la proposition soutenue dans Lagae & Van Peteghem (2020) de distinguer deux constructions tough en néerlandais, dont l'une n'est compatible qu'avec un nombre restreint d'adjectifs tough prototypiques (facile, difficile), tandis que l'autre, en plus des adjectifs tough, est aussi compatible avec une série variée d'adjectifs évaluatifs (agréable, amusant). Je poursuivrai cette discussion pour soutenir qu'en russe, où il n'y a pourtant pas de construction tough à montée, une distinction similaire caractérise les structures impersonnelles à argument interne antéposé. Je soutiendrai que les restrictions sélectionnelles sur les adjectifs sont imposées, à la base, par l'aspect sémantique, perfectif (ponctuel) ou imperfectif (processif), qu'il soit grammaticalisé, comme c'est le cas en russe, ou lexical, comme en français ou en néerlandais, du verbe à l'infinitif. 1. a. Il (lui) est difficile de lire ce livre. b. Ce livrei est [difficile à lire ti] (pour lui).

Looking back at the last 5 and a half years, I realize how tough and painful it has been. When my wife, my son and I came here, my son was only 11 months old. I don't remember how many nights I had to wake up at 3am in the morning to get things done while constantly disrupted by my son waking up, crying. I have caused a lot of troubles to my wife who couldn't go anywhere in this rural area without having a driver's license, which caused me a lot of bigger problems. I am exhausted… At the same time, I keep realizing that I couldn't have done anything without many people's help, so, here, I want to try gathering my last strength to write down my gratitude to all the people who have helped me go through this. First of all, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the chair of my dissertation committee, Željko Bošković, for continuous help and encouragement throughout my time at UConn. He taught me how exciting linguistics is and helped me a lot in developing the ideas in this dissertation. He is the one who has always got me motivated and back on track when I encountered difficulties. My appreciation also goes to my other committee members, Jonathan David Bobaljik and William Snyder. Jonathan's insightful observation and critical comments always helped me to improve my work and my critical thinking skills. William trained me to conduct experiments on child language acquisition from the scratch. I greatly appreciate him for letting me join in his project as a research assistant, too. Also, their knowledge on cross-linguistic variation in comparatives greatly helped me to collect and analyze the data.

This linguistic textbook by Peter Culicover provides a broad introductory overview of various topics in the study of syntax. Its major objectives are to show how natural language makes use of various syntactic and morphosyntactic devices, and to lay out the conceptual structures that correspond to particular aspects of linguistic form (xi). The title of the book is thoughtprovoking : rather than Introduction to syntax, Syntactic theory or the like, Culicover chose the title Natural language syntax, which can be interpreted twofold. First, it may be regarded as a direct response to recent research in syntax, especially the Minimalist program (Chomsky 1995), emphasizing that linguistic theory needs to place greater emphasis on accounting for actual language data rather than indulge in purely formalistic investigation. Another possible reading of the title is that the syntactic theory proposed in this book is natural, intuitive and simple, and that the title alludes to Culicover's previous book Simpler syntax (Culicover & Jackendoff 2005). In general, the discussions in this book are framed in theory-neutral terms, supplemented with comparisons between Culicover & Jackendoff's 'simpler syntax ' (SS) approach and so-called mainstream generative grammar (MGG). Chapter 1, 'Overview ', defines syntax as 'the system that governs the relationship between form and meaning in a language' (1) ; and states that the goal of linguistic theory is 'to understand what the properties of human languages are, and why they are that way ' (3). Culicover compares the SS and MGG approaches for the treatment of displacement. Instead of pursuing a derivational analysis, as in MGG, SS directly specifies 'correspondence rules ' between syntactic positions and meanings. Chapter 2, ' Syntactic categories ', provides a detailed description of various syntactic and morphosyntactic categories, and introduces the notational device of an attribute value matrix (also employed in Lexical Functional Grammar and Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar), which displays the features and values of lexical items. To Culicover, a lexical item expresses the correspondences between mophosyntactic categories, semantic values and phonological representation, as exemplified in (1).

The dissertation offers an illustration of how pragmatically-aware investigation of longstanding linguistic problems can result in fresh progress. The approaches here could be extended or applied to other areas, other constructions, other languages. The major findings
are as follows:
(1) The tough construction enables a speaker to express a perspective-sensitive (subjective) meaning, commenting on or evaluating an event or class of events, should that event occur. The construction’s function differs in small but clear ways from related constructions such as the middle, or gapped degree phrases. Importantly, there is no unique or
special semantic component associated with the tough construction. Tough construction sentences have no systematic meaning not captured by a related it-sentence together with the fact that tough construction sentences have a contentful subject (Topic).
(2) Utterances of tough construction sentences regularly make certain inferences available pragmatically. This dissertation isolates six pragmatic inferences associated with the tough construction, some of which are also present in related it-sentences, categorizes them, and demonstrates how they operate. The pragmatic factors are shown to meet the definition
of generalized conversational implicatures, but are quite diverse, motivated by a number of separate considerations that are explained in detail.
(3) This dissertation presents a deep review and new analysis of the “intervention” phenomenon in the tough construction, where some tough construction sentences sound bad for unclear reasons. I find that the phenomenon is fundamentally pragmatic and have pinpointed two reasonable paths for explanation. One path suggests that intervention effects stem from the making of a dysfunctional implicature that is not desired but cannot be avoided. The other path suggests that intervention effects stem from a wording that is ordinarily acceptable but becomes problematic when it clashes with principles of logophoricity.

This article addresses the syntax of the notorious tough(-movement) construction (TC) in English. TCs exhibit a range of apparently contradictory empirical properties suggesting that their derivation involves the application of both A-movement and Ā-movement operations. Within previous principles-and-parameters models, TCs have remained “unexplained and in principle unexplainable” (Holmberg 2000:839) because of incompatibility with constraints on θ-role assignment, locality, and Case. This article argues that the phase-based implementation of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2004) permits a reanalysis of null wh-operators capable of circumventing the previous theoretical difficulties. Essentially, tough-movement consists of A-moving a constituent out of a “complex” null operator that has already undergone Ā-movement, a “smuggling” construction in the terms proposed by Collins (2005a,b).

The 'multiple subject constructions' (=MSCs) in Korean and Japanese display peculiar language specific phenomena which can not be easily explained, either syntactically or semantically. These phenomena are syntacticaJIy interesting in that all NPs in MSCs have a unique syntactic case, namely nominative case. From the semantic point of view, it is also interesting to note that there are various semantic and pragmatic relationships between the NPs in MSCs. Until now we have seen no plausible explanation as to why there are MSCs in Korean and Japanese and why they are necessary. I propose in this paper that MSCs are derived due to the incompleteness of the meaning of the subject. If the subject is semantically incomplete, it requires another NP for semantic saturation. This process continues until no NP can be added upon past a certain point; at this stage the MSC has become semantically complete. I assume further that the nominative case of the NPs in MSCs is due to the case assignment of the AGR of INFL category in the underlying structure. This conflicts with the assumption of quite a few GB-grammarians, who treat the MSCs as a result of scrambling phenomena of NPs, i.e. via cyclic NP movement from the attribute position of the subject NP into the IP-adjunction position. Detailed descriptions of syntactic derivation and semantic interpretation of MSCs are given in this paper. * I am indebted to R. Dietrich, W. Klein, and A. von Stechow for their helpful suggestions on my first version of this paper. I would like also to thank M. Bierwisch, B. Comrie and J. Weissenborn for their comments given during the conference at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Theo Vennemann suggested a discourse analysis on MSCs in Korean for wlrich I am exceedingly grateful but which is unfortunately beyond the scope of this paper. I will treat this problem in a future work.

Although researches have been conducted on the polysemous nature of some Korean psych-adjectives, no consensus has been made on the criteria used for evaluating the polysemy. Furthermore, few formalizations (semantic structures) have been proposed for the polysemous phenomena. The purpose of this paper is twofold: 1) to propose new criteria for distinguishing polysemous psych-adjectives from monosemous ones, and 2) to provide exact semantic structures for the polysemous psych-adjectives. For the second goal in particular, I will work under the framework of Jackendoff's Conceptual Semantics.

This paper focuses on different behaviors of missing arguments and adjuncts. More specifically, this paper shows that interpretations of missing arguments can be freely recovered regardless of their environments while those of missing adjuncts can be recovered in very restricted environments. With respect to this difference, we suggest that missing arguments are syntactically present as silent forms. Hence, their interpretations are relatively less influenced by pragmatic processes. We also suggest that missing adjuncts can be classified into two types. Adjunct reading of one type is obtained through mandatory pragmatic enrichment processes like saturation, and that of the other type is obtained through optional free pragmatic enrichment. Hence, interpretations of missing adjuncts are more influenced by context. We further show that the analysis advanced here can provide a solid explanation for the data pointed out by Yim (2020). We also discuss some advantages of pronoun analysis in comparison to argument ellipsis analyses and Verb-Stranding VP ellipsis analyses.

Basic Data Given the common assumption that there is at most one subject per clause, the multiple occurrence of subject-like, nominative-marked NPs is puzzling. This puzzling phenomenon can be noticed in various constructions in Korean, notably including inalienable possession constructions (1a) and adjunct nominative constructions (1b). 1 (1) a. [ thokki-ka] [ kuy-ka] kil-ta.

Yekan is typically used with a long-form negation, and the negation is interpreted like a metalinguistic negation. But I show that the negation associated with yekan is not metalinguistic but descriptive. The reason that descriptive negation gets the effect of metalinguistic negation is that yekan is focused and that when yekan is used with a gradable predicate, we only consider individuals that have positive degrees in the property denoted by the predicate. Yekan covers the lower half of the positive degrees in the scale of the property. The only meaning we get from a negative sentence with yekan is the upper half of the positive degrees, which is expressed with the corresponding affirmative sentence with very. And a focused expression is not negated by a short-form negation or negative predicate because it has to be in the scope of negation. On the other hand, if a contrastive topic-focus relation is involved, yekan can be associated with a short-form negation or negative predicat...

ion. Regarding Korean psych-adjectives and their -e hacounterparts, e.i., [psychadjective + -e ha-] constructions, what is at issue is how to capture the semantic difference and similarity between the two. Concerning this issue, one of the most controversial and difficult problems is whether the psych-construction has Action (Agency) as part of its meaning. The purpose of this paper is to solve this problem by answering the question why psych-constructions are much more natural when they are used as negative imperative than when they are used as positive imperative. First, in order to figure out why positive imperative is not allowed, we show that –e haadds the meaning of non-volitional action to psych-adjectives, using Jackendoff’s Conceptual Semantics. Secondly, in accounting for why negative imperative is so natural, we show, with Talmy’s Force Dynamics theory, what the speaker requires from the hearer is internal volitional action.

Some examples of non-object TCs are given as follows. i Lazarusj-ka [ j shyophingha-ki ]-ka/ey swipta (Locative) Lazarus-nom do shopping-nml-nom/for easy 'Lazarus is easy to do shopping (in)' ii yenphilj-i [ j kulssi-lul sseu-ki ]-ka/ey himtulta (Instrumental) a pencil-nom letters-acc write-nml-nom/for tough 'A pencil is tough to write letters (with).'

Some examples of non-object TCs are given as follows. i Lazarusj-ka [ j shyophingha-ki ]-ka/ey swipta (Locative) Lazarus-nom do shopping-nml-nom/for easy 'Lazarus is easy to do shopping (in)' ii yenphilj-i [ j kulssi-lul sseu-ki ]-ka/ey himtulta (Instrumental) a pencil-nom letters-acc write-nml-nom/for tough 'A pencil is tough to write letters (with).'

What roles do syntax and semantics have in the grammar of a language? What are the consequences of these roles for syntactic structure, and why does it matter? We sketch the Simpler Syntax Hypothesis, which holds that much of the explanatory role attributed to syntax in contemporary linguistics is properly the responsibility of semantics. This rebalancing permits broader coverage of empirical linguistic phenomena and promises a tighter integration of linguistic theory into the cognitive scientific enterprise. We suggest that the general perspective of the Simpler Syntax Hypothesis is well suited to approaching language processing and language evolution, and to computational applications that draw upon linguistic insights.

What roles do syntax and semantics have in the grammar of a language? What are the consequences of these roles for syntactic structure, and why does it matter? We sketch the Simpler Syntax Hypothesis, which holds that much of the explanatory role attributed to syntax in contemporary linguistics is properly the responsibility of semantics. This rebalancing permits broader coverage of empirical linguistic phenomena and promises a tighter integration of linguistic theory into the cognitive scientific enterprise. We suggest that the general perspective of the Simpler Syntax Hypothesis is well suited to approaching language processing and language evolution, and to computational applications that draw upon linguistic insights.

Previous Proposals and Problems Regarding the key question, two main streams of proposals are basically discernible. One stream maintained that both NP1 and NP2 are subject, trying to define various notions of subject: e.g., Yu (1909) called them big and small subject, Yoon (2003, 2007) major and grammatical subject, and Lee (2007) subject [Spec, RefP] and subject [Spec, TP], respectively. The other stream posited that only NP2 is subject, proposing that NP1 is topic or focus: e.g., Hong (1991) topic vs. subject; Rhee (1999) topic/focus vs. subject; Yoon (1986), Schütze (2001), Kim (2000, 2001, 2004), Kim & Sells (2007), and Kim, Sells & Yang (2007) focus vs. subject; Park (2003) focused subject vs. subject; Choi (2012) sentential specifier vs. subject. But there remain many essential problems unsolved in the first stream of reasoning, as partly pointed out by Chae & Kim (2008) among others. First of all, a clause with more than one subject is highly odd from a perspective of theory...

This paper presents a Vrst attempt to oUer a comprehensive typology of the pairs of identical-case marked NPs in Korean. On the basis of such semantic relations between two consecutive NPs like meronymic relation, inclusion relation, quantity-quality relation, spatio-temporal relation, and predication relation, we identify 16 types of these pairs, and propose each type as a licensing condition on double case marking. We argue that the multiple case marking constructions are merely the sequences of double case marking, which are formed by dextrosinistrally sequencing the pairs of the same-case marked NPs of same or diUerent type. Some appealing consequences of this proposal include a new comprehensive classiVcation of the sequences of same-case NPs and a straightforward account of some long standing problems such as how the additional same-case NPs are licensed, and in what respects the multiple nominative marking and the multiple accusative marking are alike and diUerent from each o...

Korean [… V-ko iss-] is ambiguous between progressive and resultative meanings. We assume that it is ambiguous in three ways: P(rogressive)-reading, R(esultative)-reading and p(seudo)-R-reading constructions. These constructions allow different sets of predicates in the [… V] position. Most previous analyses agreed that telic predicates are responsible for the (traditional) resultative reading. However, this telicity condition does not adequately predict the occurrence of the reading: i) p-R predicates are not necessarily telic, and ii) not all telic predicates can trigger the R construction. The aim of this paper is to provide a set of constraints operating on the R construction under the understanding that p-R predicates should be excluded in advance. First, only those telic predicates that can indicate a present state in their past tense form can trigger the R construction. In addition, we show the need to posit two more constraints: a syntactic/semantic constraint and a pragmatic constraint. We further show that the present approach based on these new observations can properly characterize the R construction while excluding the P and p-R constructions. In dealing with the present state reading, we face the recalcitrant phenomenon of a theta role change in the subject of the predicate concerned.

I demonstrate instances where sentences that “should” be ungrammatical according to conventional syntax, are not. Their acceptability seems to hinge on something more than syntax alone. Problematic cases of this sort can be optimally handled in a framework such as Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997, Van Valin 2005), that is sensitive to known hierarchies, for instance a thematic relations hierarchy (Van Valin 2005, pp. 53-61). Predictions of a sentence’s acceptability, if they can be partly informed by a hierarchy or continuum, are more realistic than those based on a brittle black-and-white “can the grammar generate this” criterion. I propose a formalization of continuum-sensitive semantic generalizations, as a part of the RRG constructional schema system.

What roles do syntax and semantics have in the grammar of a language? What are the consequences of these roles for syntactic structure, and why does it matter? We sketch the Simpler Syntax Hypothesis, which holds that much of the explanatory role attributed to syntax in contemporary linguistics is properly the responsibility of semantics. This rebalancing permits broader coverage of empirical linguistic phenomena and promises a tighter integration of linguistic theory into the cognitive scientific enterprise. We suggest that the general perspective of the Simpler Syntax Hypothesis is well suited to approaching language processing and language evolution, and to computational applications that draw upon linguistic insights.

Historically, control in generative grammar has fallen within the province of syntactic theory. One primary reason for this is that Mainstream Generative Grammar (MGG) has imposed a strong uniformity criterion on analyses as a measure of their explanatory adequacy. One aspect of this uniformity criterion, which we call Interface Uniformity, holds that the syntax-semantics interface is maximally simple, in that meaning maps transparently into syntactic structure, and that it is maximally uniform, so that the same meaning always maps into the same syntactic structure. It follows from Interface Uniformity that a nonfinite VP has a syntactic subject that is assigned its external h-role.

It has been claimed in the literature that Korean allows the relativization of another relative clause, deriving the so called 'double relative clause'. The presence of 'double relative clauses' has led some researchers to argue that Korean relative clauses do not involve any operator movement, but rather a mechanism such as unselective binding (H.-M. Sohn 1980, Y.-S. Kang 1986, where an operator binds variables in situ. In this paper, we argue that there is no true 'double relative clause', thus no real threat to the operator movement analysis for relative clauses in Korean. More specifically, we propose that the so-called 'double relative clauses' are derived from double nominative constructions, through relativizing the first nominative NP which originates from an IP-adjoined position. Given our analysis, 'double relative clauses' are not instances of island violations, and the operator movement analysis for relative clause formation in Korean can thus be maintained. * In developing the idea put forth in this paper, we are indebted to many people for their discussions, suggestions, and criticisms. In particular, we are grateful to Hee-. The first author would also like to acknowledge the XTAG group at the University of Pennsylvania for helpful comments at the initial stage of this work. Two anonymous reviewers also deserve our special thanks for their critical comments that helped us reshape and improve this paper. All errors are ours. This work was supported in part by SSHRC #410-2003-0544 and the Brain Korea Project in 2003. 1 See J.-B. Kim (1998) for a non-movement analysis of Korean relatives clauses that posits no empty operator at all.

The central observation in our discussion of tough-constructions (TCs), such as John is easy to please, may be one according to which “the set of grammatical TCs is a ‘subset’ of that of other grammatical wh-movement constructions, such as wh-questions and restrictive relative constructions” (based on Chomsky’s 1977 influential wh-movement analysis of TCs). And their unique and recalcitrant property, which must be a major problem with TCs and has resisted neat analysis for a number of years, may be the fact that they contain an “improper” A-A’-A-chain as their major structural ingredient (Lasnik 2012). Focusing on the latter A-A’-A property of TCs, the present article explores a possible way of making sense of the property’s “impropriety,” along with discussion on some remedying resources proposed here for the purpose of saving at least “some TCs” from ungrammaticality. I also explore possible reasons for grammaticality/acceptability of at least some TCs with an improper A-A’-A-chain in their narrow-syntactic (NS-) structure, largely in terms of efficient computation considerations pertaining to LF/the semantic componentΣ (see Lasnik 2012 for some  suggestion and discussion of what to do with the “illegitimate” A’-link in TCs).

Historically, control in generative grammar has fallen within the province of syntactic theory. One primary reason for this is that Mainstream Generative Grammar (MGG) has imposed a strong uniformity criterion on analyses as a measure of their explanatory adequacy. One aspect of this uniformity criterion, which we call Interface Uniformity, holds that the syntax-semantics interface is maximally simple, in that meaning maps transparently into syntactic structure, and that it is maximally uniform, so that the same meaning always maps into the same syntactic structure. It follows from Interface Uniformity that a nonfinite VP has a syntactic subject that is assigned its external h-role.

[A Clausal Predicate Analysis of Korean Multiple Nominative Constructions. Korean Journal of Linguistics , 33-4, 869-900]  We will provide a clausal predicate analysis of Multiple Nominative Constructions (MNCs) in Korean, under the spirit of phrase structure grammar approaches. MNCs in Korean have two interesting characteristics: there is no limit on the number of nominative NPs in the construction, and the nominative NPs in MNCs are not directly related to each other. The purpose of this paper is twofold. Firstly, we will provide new syntactic mechanisms that capture the two characteristics above. In doing so, we will compare MNCs with multiple accusative constructions (MACs) in order to better understand their syntactic and semantic characteristics. Secondly, regarding the grammatical function of the nominative NPs of MNCs, we will show that the initial NP does not have a special status, e.g., as a "Large/Major Subject." It will be proven to be a regular subject of the clausal predicate on its right, just as each of the other NPs are the subject of the (clausal) predicate on its right.

Concord adverbial constructions in Korean show unbounded dependency relationships between two non-empty entities. There are two different types of unboundedness involved: one between a concord adverbial and a verbal ending and the other between the adverbial as a modifier and a predicate. In addition, these unboundedness relationships exhibit properties of “downward movement” phenomena. In this paper, we examine the Indexed Phrase Structure Grammar analysis of the constructions presented in Chae (2003, 2004), and propose to introduce a new feature to solve its conceptual problem. Then, we provide an analysis of conditional-concessive constructions, which is a subtype of concord adverbial constructions. These constructions are special in the sense that they contain a seemingly incompatible combination of a conditional adverbial and a concessive verbal ending. We argue that they are basically conditional constructions despite their concessive meaning.

In this paper, we will examine several different types of tough- and similar constructions. They have A -positon fillers and show unbounded dependency between filler and gap. Problems with the rule-based approach of GKPS arise when the triggering element of the construction concerned is not the head of the local structure and when the same lexical items in different constructions carry their gap-licensing properties with them. I propose a new gap licensing mechanism, which introduces a FOOT feature [<GAP a) LICENSOR], which is specified in the lexicon as a part of the syntactic information of those lexical items which trigger the construction. We will see that the present analysis can handle all the problems posed by the GKPS approach and can account for some recalcitrant data, which are too tough to handle in other approaches.

Two types of analysis are possible for Tough Movement constructions: Analyses with long distance movement of the matrix subject (such as Hicks 2005) or without it (such as Chomsky 1973). Here I present two pieces of evidence from child language that support the latter analysis, particularly Chomsky's analysis of it as a form of abstract Wh movement. One is the dissimilarity between children's parses of Tough Movement and A-movement constructions like raising, and the other is an interaction between Tough adjectives and Wh semantics. New experimental evidence supports the latter; reexamination of classic experiments on Tough Movement support the former.

It is shown that in Korean, just as in English, relative clauses are built from two standalone structures linked to each other by coreference. A relative element in one clause must obligatorily refer to a non clausemate antecedent. Because Korean relative kes cannot successfully adjoin to its head, it is either deleted, yielding what is classified as an EHRC, or remains in situ in a structure similar to a matrix clause in English, known as an IHRC. Multiple readings in the latter, which arise because the relative is a pronoun, as opposed to an anaphor, are often hindered by a vector effect, and the very nature of the representation. Along the way, it is argued that the socalled case-markers are in fact a type of referring elements, named thematic pronouns, making up a symbiosis with their argument. This analysis has considerable interests elsewhere in Korean grammar and suchlike languages. 2 morphemes, namely features.

Unlike English tough-constructions, Korean tough-constructions
have attracted few researchers’ attention, in spite of their interesting and important characteristics from both syntactic and semantic perspectives. In this paper, I propose semantic and syntactic analyses of Korean tough-constructions under Simpler Syntax (SS) framework (Culicover & Jackendoff (C&J) 2005, 2006). By using this framework, I will try to explain and formalize the Korean toughconstruction without relying on abstract syntactic entities and mechanisms such as null operator and movement; instead, I will put much burden on the semantic aspects of tough-predicates in accounting for all the peculiarities of the constructions.

Many previous studies on Korean psych-predicates have tried to account for the NOM-DAT alternation of experiencer from various perspectives within various theoretical frameworks. Overall, these studies can be divided into two broad approaches, namely, syntactic and semantic approaches. First, those who take the syntactic approach try to explain the case alternation only in terms of syntax and do not give any attention to the semantics of the two constructions, i.e., DAT experiencer constructions (DECs) and NOM experiencer constructions (NECs). On the other hand, those who take the semantic approach attribute the case alternation phenomenon to semantic/pragmatic difference. They argue the two different constructions are different in meaning, and thus the case alternation is not a matter of syntax but a matter of semantics/pragmatics. The semantic nature caused by the alternation, however, differs from theory to theory.
The main purpose of this thesis is to show 1) that many of the so-called psych-adjectives in Korean are in fact polysemous between the meanings of one’s psychological state and an objective property, and 2) that this semantic difference gives rise to a syntactic difference which is achieved by the case alternation between NOM and DAT on the experiencer argument. In formalizing the polysemy of the psych-adjectives and providing the linking principles, I will work under the framework of Conceptual Semantics.