Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:48:56.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the syntax of relative clauses in Korean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Chung-Hye Han
Chung-Hye Han*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

There are two main approaches to the syntax of Korean relative clauses: the operator-movement analysis and the operator-binding analysis. Although the predictions made by the two analyses are clear, no consensus is found in the literature regarding the two approaches, as there is disagreement on what the facts are. This situation thus calls for adopting a controlled experimental methodology to obtain the relevant data. In this article, I present findings from two magnitude estimation task experiments that support the operator-movement analysis. Experiment 1 tested whether a subject gap can occur in islands in relative clauses and whether it can be replaced with an overt pronoun, and Experiment 2 tested whether an object gap can occur in islands in relative clauses and whether it can be replaced with an overt pronoun. In both experiments, a gap could not occur in an island and could not be replaced with an overt pronoun. According to these findings, relativization into islands is ruled out in Korean, and thus the operator-movement analysis is supported.

Résumé

Résumé

Il existe deux approches principales concernant la syntaxe des propositions relatives en coréen : l’analyse du mouvement de l’opérateur et l’analyse du liage par l’opérateur. Même si les prédictions résultant des deux analyses sont claires, on ne trouve aucun consensus dans la littérature concernant les deux approches, parce il y désaccord quant aux faits. Cette situation demande donc l’adoption d’une méthodologie expérimentale contrôlée pour obtenir les données pertinentes. Dans cet article, je présente les résultats de deux expériences de tâches d’estimation de magnitude qui appuient l’analyse du mouvement de l’opérateur. L’expérience 1 vérifiait la possibilité d’une case vide de sujet dans les îlots dans les propositions relatives et la possibilité de la remplacer par un pronom non nul; l’expérience 2 vérifiait la possibilité d’une case vide d’objet dans des îlots dans des propositions relatives et la possibilité de la remplacer par un pronom non nul. Dans les deux expériences, une case vide ne pouvait exister dans un îlot ni ne pouvait être remplacée par un pronom non nul. Selon ces résultats, la relativisation dans des îlots est exclue en coréen et donc l’analyse du mouvement de l’opérateur est appuyée.

Keywords

relative clauseoperator-movement analysisoperator-binding analysismagnitude estimation taskKoreanproposition relativeanalyse du mouvement de l’opérateuranalyse du liage par l’opérateurtâche d’estimation de magnitudecoréen
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 58 , Issue 2: The syntax of relative clauses La syntaxe des propositions relatives , July 2013 , pp. 319 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2013

References

Alexopoulou, Theodora and Keller, Frank. 2007. Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83:110–160.Google Scholar
Bard, Ellen Gurman, Robertson, Dan, and Sorace, Antonella. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72:32–68.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10:43–90.Google Scholar
Choo, M. 1994. A unified account of null pronouns in Korean. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa.Google Scholar
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye, Elouazizi, Noureddine, Galeano, Christina, Görgülü, Emrah, Hedberg, Nancy, Hinnell, Jennifer, Jeffrey, Meghan, Kim, Kyeong-min, and Kirby, Susannah. 2012. Processing strategies and resumptive pronouns in English. In Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Arnett, Nathan and Bennett, Ryan, 153–161. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye, and Kim, Jong-Bok. 2004. Are there “double relative clauses” in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry 35:315–337.Google Scholar
Han, Jong-Im. 1992. Syntactic movement analysis of Korean relativization. Language Research 28:335–357.Google Scholar
Heestand, Dustin, Xiang, Ming, and Polinsky, Maria. 2011. Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry 42:138–152.Google Scholar
Hulsey, Sarah and Sauerland, Uli. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14:111–137.Google Scholar
Kang, Myoung-Yoon. 1988. Syntactic movement in Korean relativization. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. Linguistic Society of Korea, volume 2, 347–362. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1981. “ECP” Extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12:93–134.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keffala, Beffany and Goodall, Grant. 2011. Do resumptive pronouns ever rescue illicit gaps in English? A poster presented at CUNY 2011 Conference on Human Sentence Processing, March 24-26, 2011, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank and Asudeh, Ash. 2001. Constraints on linguistic coreference: Structural vs. pragmatic factors. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Moore, Johanna D. and Stenning, Keith, 483–88. Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank, Gunasekharan, Subahshini, Mayo, Neil, and Corley, Martin. 2009. Timing accuracy of web experiments: A case study using the webexp software package. Behavior Research Methods 41:1–12.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1981. On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraint violations. In Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Hendrick, Robert A., Masek, Carrie S., and Miller, Mary Frances, 125–135. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Kwon, Nayoung. 2008. Processing of syntactic and anaphoric gap-filler dependencies in Korean: Evidence from self-paced reading time, ERP and eye-tracking experiments. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Lee, Sun Woo. 1984. On the resumptive pronouns in Korean relative clauses. Language Research 20:51–59.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana and Cowart, Wayne. 1999. Experimental evidence for a minimalist account of English resumptive pronouns. Cognition 70:B15–B24.Google Scholar
Na, Younghee and Huck, Geoffrey. 1993. On the status of certain island violations in Korean. Linguistics and Philosophy 16:181–229.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A., and Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70:491–538.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1990. Syntax and discourse: A look at resumptive pronouns. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Parasession on the Legacy ofGrice, ed. Hall, Kira, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Meacham, Michael, Reinman, Sondra, and Sutton, Laurel A., 482–497. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1980. Theme-prominence in Korean. Korean Linguistics: Journal of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics 2:2–19.Google Scholar
Stevens, S.S. 1975. Psychophysics: Introduction to its perception, neural and social prospects. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Yang, Dong-Whee. 1987. Theory of barriers and relativization. Language Research 23:1–37.Google Scholar
Yang, Hyun-Kwon. 1990. Categories and barriers in Korean. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar