| { |
| "paper_id": "Y98-1001", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:37:17.127627Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "Ettehkey 'how' As a Small Clause Head", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Daeho", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chung", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Seoul National University", |
| "location": {} |
| }, |
| "email": "cdaeho@plazal.snu.ac.kr" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "Korean. First, I briefly review two previous attempts. T. Chung (1991) ascribes the difference to the positional variance: ettehkey 'how' is generated VP-internally, whereas way 'why' is generated in an IP(AgrP)-adjoined position, i.e., above subject. The trace of island internal ettehkey, but not of way, satisfies the ECP under the assumption that subject (or INFL) is a (special) antecedent governor for adverbs, which he motivates based on the fact that adverbs agree with subject in number and may take plural morpheme tul when subject is plural. Now the trace of ettehkey, but not of way, is antecedent governed by subject due to the hierarchical (c-command) relation. Another attempt was made by D. Chung (1996), who proposes to decompose ettehkey into etteh-ki-ey and attributes the lack of the ECP effects to the nominal feature associated with the nominalizer ki contained in ettehkey. Both approaches fail when more data is considered. Crucially, it will be shown that etteh, the main part of ettehkey, is a predicate, (i.e., it is neither an adjunct nor a nominal element,) but it does not show the ECP effects. I extend the predicate analysis to ettehkey, analyzing it as the predicate head of an adjectival small clause. Now the question is why predicate WH-words do not show the ECP effects like argument WH-words. I provide a theta-theoretic account under the assumption that the theta-identification between a predicate and its arguments is a bilateral relation in the sense that they identify or restrict each other. Thus, ettehkey/etteh, as predicates, are theta-identified and do not show the ECP effects. In contrast, way, as a pure adjunct, is not theta-identified and does show the ECP effects. As for the ECP effects that English how displays, I suppose that it is not a predicate but a pure adjunct, based on the observation that adjectival small clause heads are replaced by what, but not by how, in WH-questions or echo-questions.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "Y98-1001", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Korean. First, I briefly review two previous attempts. T. Chung (1991) ascribes the difference to the positional variance: ettehkey 'how' is generated VP-internally, whereas way 'why' is generated in an IP(AgrP)-adjoined position, i.e., above subject. The trace of island internal ettehkey, but not of way, satisfies the ECP under the assumption that subject (or INFL) is a (special) antecedent governor for adverbs, which he motivates based on the fact that adverbs agree with subject in number and may take plural morpheme tul when subject is plural. Now the trace of ettehkey, but not of way, is antecedent governed by subject due to the hierarchical (c-command) relation. Another attempt was made by D. Chung (1996), who proposes to decompose ettehkey into etteh-ki-ey and attributes the lack of the ECP effects to the nominal feature associated with the nominalizer ki contained in ettehkey. Both approaches fail when more data is considered. Crucially, it will be shown that etteh, the main part of ettehkey, is a predicate, (i.e., it is neither an adjunct nor a nominal element,) but it does not show the ECP effects. I extend the predicate analysis to ettehkey, analyzing it as the predicate head of an adjectival small clause. Now the question is why predicate WH-words do not show the ECP effects like argument WH-words. I provide a theta-theoretic account under the assumption that the theta-identification between a predicate and its arguments is a bilateral relation in the sense that they identify or restrict each other. Thus, ettehkey/etteh, as predicates, are theta-identified and do not show the ECP effects. In contrast, way, as a pure adjunct, is not theta-identified and does show the ECP effects. As for the ECP effects that English how displays, I suppose that it is not a predicate but a pure adjunct, based on the observation that adjectival small clause heads are replaced by what, but not by how, in WH-questions or echo-questions.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "As discussed by various linguists including Huang (1982) , Chomsky (1986) , Aoun (1986) , Aoun and Li (1993) , and Lasnik and Saito (1984) , it is a notorious fact that WH-words do not behave uniformly with respect to their syntactic behaviors, especially when they appear in island contexts. What is generally agreed upon is that the so-called adjunct WH-words such as how and why in English and their counterparts in other languages cannot appear in syntactic islands (the ECP effects), whereas the so-called argument WH-words such as who and what in English and their counterparts in other languages are not restricted in such a way. Since Huang (1982) it is equally taken for granted that the same is true of WH-words in WH-in-situ languages such as Chinese and Japanese. Thus, WH-words like WHO and WHAT may reside within an island, but WH-words like HOW and WHY may not.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 44, |
| "end": 56, |
| "text": "Huang (1982)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 59, |
| "end": 73, |
| "text": "Chomsky (1986)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 76, |
| "end": 87, |
| "text": "Aoun (1986)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 90, |
| "end": 108, |
| "text": "Aoun and Li (1993)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 115, |
| "end": 138, |
| "text": "Lasnik and Saito (1984)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 643, |
| "end": 655, |
| "text": "Huang (1982)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Such a dichotomy between HOW/WHY vs. other WH-words, however, does not fare well, when more extensive data is considered. As T. Chung (1991) observes, Korean WH-word ettehkey 'how,' as opposed to wa\u1ef3 why,' does not display island effects, as exemplified in (1) below:' (1) a.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 128, |
| "end": 140, |
| "text": "Chung (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 269, |
| "end": 272, |
| "text": "(1)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF19" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "[ {ettehkey/*way} yoliha-n] koki-ka masiss-ni? how/why cook-Adn meat-Nom tasty? Q the meat that you cook how/why is tasty?' I A similar observation in Chinese and Japanese is made by some linguists. See Tang (1990) , Tsai (1991 Tsai ( , 1994 , Lin (1992) for Chinese, and S. Watanabe (1995 Watanabe ( , 1996 for Japanese. b. [koki-lul {ettehkey/*way) yoliha-myen] ssun mas-i epseci-ni? meat-Acc how/why cook-if bitter taste-Nom disappear-Q Q if you cook meat how, the bitter taste disappears?' Ettehkey appears in a relative clause in (la) and in a conditional clause in (lb). In contrast way is not allowed in such contexts.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 203, |
| "end": 214, |
| "text": "Tang (1990)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 217, |
| "end": 227, |
| "text": "Tsai (1991", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 228, |
| "end": 241, |
| "text": "Tsai ( , 1994", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 244, |
| "end": 254, |
| "text": "Lin (1992)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 275, |
| "end": 289, |
| "text": "Watanabe (1995", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 290, |
| "end": 307, |
| "text": "Watanabe ( , 1996", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF18" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this paper, I try to account for why ettehkey and way behave differently with respect to island effects. First, I will briefly review two previous attempts to account for the difference, T. Chung's (1991) VP-adjunct analysis of ettehkey, and D. Chung's (1996) nominal analysis of ettehkey. Second, it will be shown that both approaches fail when more data is considered. Third, I propose to analyze ettehkey as the predicate head of a small clause and provide a theta-theoretic account of the syntactic difference between ettehkey and way. Finally, I make some speculation on the typological difference between ettehkey and its English counterpart how.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 193, |
| "end": 207, |
| "text": "Chung's (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 248, |
| "end": 262, |
| "text": "Chung's (1996)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2. T. Chung's (1991) VP-adjunct Analysis vs. D. Chung's (1996) ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 6, |
| "end": 20, |
| "text": "Chung's (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 48, |
| "end": 62, |
| "text": "Chung's (1996)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this section,. I will briefly review T. Chung's (1991) and D. Chung's (1996) account for the fact that ettehkey, as opposed to way, does not display island effects. The lack of island effects is attributed to the hierarchical status that ettehkey takes in a clausal structure in T. Chung (1991) , whereas it is to the categorial status of ettehkey in D. Chung (1996) . Some specifics of the two approaches will be discussed below.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 43, |
| "end": 57, |
| "text": "Chung's (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 65, |
| "end": 79, |
| "text": "Chung's (1996)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 285, |
| "end": 297, |
| "text": "Chung (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 357, |
| "end": 369, |
| "text": "Chung (1996)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominal Analysis", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "T. Chung claims that adverbs take different positions depending on their types. According to him, manner or instrumental adverbs are generated VP-internally, spatio-temporal adverbs are generated higher than manner or instrumental adverbs but still within VP, and causal adverbs are generated VP-externally. The schematic structure that he proposes is as follows:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(2) (= T. Chung 1991:244, his (11) ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 10, |
| "end": 34, |
| "text": "Chung 1991:244, his (11)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ") AgrP(=IP) Adv AgrP (causal) V\\ Agr' VP Agr(=I) Spec. V' Adv V1' (Spatio- temporal) VP V1 Spec V2' Adv V2 (manner/ instrumental)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The manner/instrumental adverbs are taken as sisters of V2, spatio-temporal adverbs as those of V'1, and causal adverbs as adjuncts of AgrP.2 T. Chung (1991) attributes the difference between causal WH-adverbs vs. other WH-adverbs to Rizzi's (1990) conjunctive ECP formulation. 3 All of the three positions taken by adverbs seem to be head-governed: manner/instrumental adverbs by V2, spatio-temporal WH-adverbs by V1, and causal adverbs by Agr.4 No difference being revealed in the head government requirement, T. Chung attributes the difference between causal vs. all other adverbs to the antecedent government requirement. He claims that spatio-temporal and manner/instrumental adverbs satisfy the antecedent government requirement, whereas the causal adverb does not. He motivates this claim from the relative hierarchy between subject and adverbs supposed in (2) and the plural agreement between subject and adverbial elements. He resorts to the fact that any adverb can take a plural agreement marker tul if the subject of the sentence is plural, which was discussed by various linguists including Song (1975) and Kuh (1987) :", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 145, |
| "end": 157, |
| "text": "Chung (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 234, |
| "end": 248, |
| "text": "Rizzi's (1990)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1104, |
| "end": 1115, |
| "text": "Song (1975)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1120, |
| "end": 1130, |
| "text": "Kuh (1987)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) (= T. Chung According to T. Chung (1991:246) , the subject (or 'NFL that agrees with it) antecedent-governs the adverbs except for the causal adverb because the subject c-commands all the adverbs except for the causal adverb, assuming that the subject is generated at the SPEC of AgrP. (See (2).) At this point some remarks are in order on T. Chung's (1991) analysis. First, ettehkey can have a resultative reading as well as manner and instrumental readings. (5) (=(1a)), for example, could be answered with (6c) as well as (6a) or (6b):", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 10, |
| "end": 15, |
| "text": "Chung", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 32, |
| "end": 48, |
| "text": "Chung (1991:246)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 347, |
| "end": 361, |
| "text": "Chung's (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2 It seems to be unreasonable to reserve a position both for spatial adverbs and for temporal adverbs (and similarly to reserve a position for manner adverbs and for instrumental adverbs) since a spatial adverb and a temporal adverb may appear at the same time in a clause. 3 Rizzi's (1990:32) ECP and auxiliary notions are defined as follows: (i) ECP: A non-pronominal empty category must be a. properly head-governed b. antecedent-governed or Theta-governed. (ii) Head Government: ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 276, |
| "end": 293, |
| "text": "Rizzi's (1990:32)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "X head governs Y iff a. X E {A, N, P, V, Agr, T) b. X m-commands Y c. no bather intervenes d. Relativized Minimality is respected (iii) Antecedent Government: X antecedent-governs Y", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To prove his theory to be correct, resultative adverbials must also be shown to be generated in a position that is appropriately head-governed and antecedent-governed. This does not seem to require much work, though. Second, according to T. Chung (1991) , causal adverbs are generated in a position higher than the subject position and therefore cannot be antecedent governed by subject. Notice, however, that subject can appear higher than causal adverbs, as in the following example:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 241, |
| "end": 253, |
| "text": "Chung (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Kim kyoswu-uy nonmwun-i way, palphyotoyci anh-ess-ni? Kim professor-Gen paper-Nom why be;presented Neg;do-Pst-Q\u00c8 Why was Professor Kim's paper not presented?'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "T. Chung would say that the subject in (7) is generated lower than way and scrambled to the overt position at a later stage. 5 But it is generally taken for granted that clause internal scrambling remedies binding violations. Thus, if, as he claims, subject may antecedent govern . adjuncts in its c-command domain, then causal adjuncts should be allowed whenever subject is scrambled over them. But this is not true. For example, sentences like (7) cannot be embedded under syntactic islands such as complex NPs or adjunct clauses. Furthermore, it is not obvious what is meant by the claim that adverbs are antecedent governed by subjects.6 s Even if subject does not undergo scrambling as claimed in Saito (1985) , the grammaticality of the sentences like (7) is still problematic since there will be no difference between causal adverbs and other adverbs with respect to the c-command relation with subject.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 702, |
| "end": 714, |
| "text": "Saito (1985)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "6 Lin (1992) also deals with the difference between HOW vs. WHY in Chinese and other languages. (I thank a reviewer for pointing it out to me.) Interestingly, Lin attributes the difference to the positional difference and the conjunctive ECP as in T. Chung (1991) . But unlike T. Chung (1991) , Lin claims that WHY is generated in the SPEC of CP, not within IP (AgrP), and head-government rather than antecedent government is responsible for the fact that WHY is hardly embedded. I did not have enough time to incorporate Lin's analysis in this paper, but I would like to raise a point with respect to the base position of WHY. To explain the grammaticality of the sentences like (i), where WHY appears after subject, Lin claims that the subject is topicalized, as illustrated in (ii): Note, however, that sentences like (iii) are also grammatical (Audrey Li (p.c.)):", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 251, |
| "end": 263, |
| "text": "Chung (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 280, |
| "end": 292, |
| "text": "Chung (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(i) (", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(iii) najian yifu, to weishenme bu xihuan? that dress she why not like 'Why doesn't she like that dress?' In (iii), an element other than subject, i.e., najian yifu 'that dress,' is clearly topicalized and WHY appears after the subject. Unless the subject is topicalized along with the 'clearly topicalized' element or it is preposed for some other reason, the 2.2. D. Chung (1996) : A Nominal Analysis of Ettehkey D. Chung (1996:59-60, footnote 11) proposes to decompose ettehkey into etteh-ki-ey, hinting from Lee's (1993:369) analysis of causative ending -key as nominalizer Id plus postposition ey 'to.' D. Chung claims that due to the existence of the nominal feature associated with ki, ettehkey behaves like other nominal WH-words like nwukw\u00f9 who' or mwues 'what' and do not show island effects. Lee (1993:369) proposes to decompose the causative morpheme -key into nominalizer ki and postposition ey 'to,' as exemplified below:7 8a. (=Lee 1993: 369, his (68b)) na-nun ku-ka o-key mantul-ess-ta. I-Top he-Nom come-KEY make-Pst-D\u00c8 I made him come.' b. na-nun [ku-ka o-ki-ey] mantul-ess-ta. 1-Top he-Nom come-Nmz-to make-Pst-DE Lee claims that the nominalizer -ki presupposes the temporal existence of the action denoted by the verb. Thus the sentence in (8), for example, means 'I did something to bring into existence the baby's crying.'", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 369, |
| "end": 381, |
| "text": "Chung (1996)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 418, |
| "end": 449, |
| "text": "Chung (1996:59-60, footnote 11)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 512, |
| "end": 528, |
| "text": "Lee's (1993:369)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 803, |
| "end": 817, |
| "text": "Lee (1993:369)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Our main concern here is not the semantics of -key, but the morpho-syntactic information that it conveys, especially its categorial feature. If, as Lee (1993) it is reasonable to carry the same analysis into key of WH-word ettehkey 'how,' according to which it will be analyzed into etteh-ki-ey. Then it is natural to regard ettehkey as containing a nominal feature associated with -ki in it. Due to the existence of the nominal feature, ettehkey can be said to behave like other nominal WH-words like nwukwu 'who' or mwues-'what' with respect to island insensitivity. In other words, ettehkey can be said to be licensed in the same way that nominal WH-words are licensed, no matter what is responsible for the nominal vs. nonnominal distinction in the licensing mechanism of WH-words.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 148, |
| "end": 158, |
| "text": "Lee (1993)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A similar nominal vs. non-nominal dichotomy was already entertained in Tsai (1994) for zenmeyang 'how' in Chinese. Tsai claims that zenmeyang displays island effects when it has a manner reading, but not when it has an instrumental or resultative reading. He accounts for the difference by categorizing manner zenmeyang as a pure adverbial and instrumental/resultative zenmeyang as a nominal element. His classification, however, seems to be fairly arbitrary. Incidentally, Tsai's generalization does not apply to Korean, in which manner ettehkey does not show island effects; either, as was seen in (5) and (6).8", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 71, |
| "end": 82, |
| "text": "Tsai (1994)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "T. Chung (1991): A VP-adjunct Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this section it will be shown that neither T. Chung's (1991) theory based on the hierarchical status nor D. Chung's (1996) theory based on the categorial status is tenable. Our contention depends crucially on the fact that etteh, subpart of ettehkey, does not display island effects like other nominal or argument WH-words. Consider the grammaticality of sentences like (iii) will pose a problem for Lin. Furthermore, in Korean, where topic markers are overtly realized, WHY appears after a non-topic (e.g., nominative or accusative) marked element without any difficulty: Thus, I suppose that the claim that WHY is (exclusively) generated in the SPEC of CP should be reconsidered. sentence in (9), in which WH-word etteh is located in the most deeply embedded clause which is in turn contained in a relative clause, a syntactic island:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 49, |
| "end": 63, |
| "text": "Chung's (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 111, |
| "end": 125, |
| "text": "Chung's (1996)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Predicate WH-word Etteh and Predicate Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(9) Secang-un [ei [sanghwang-i etteh-ta-ko] pokoha-n] kyengchalkwan-ul haykoha-ess-ni? chief-Top situation-Nom how-DE-C report-Adn police;officer-Acc fire-Pst-Q Q The chief fired the police officer who reported that the situation is how?'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Predicate WH-word Etteh and Predicate Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Etteh in this sentence is neither a VP-adjunct nor a nominal element but rather is a predicate of the most embedded clause.9 Its predicatehood is evident from various facts. First, the embedded subject requires a predicate for a thetatheoretic reason and no predicate other than etteh is available in the clause. Second, it hosts a declarative sentence ending, ta, which exclusively attaches to a verb stem or to an inflected verb. Third, etteh (etuleh in Northern dialects) contains eh (leh in Northern dialects), which is reminiscent of the depictive adjectival verb ending (1) Ah, where A varies over a [a] or e [a] , a vowel harmony variation, e.g., adjectival verbs such as nolah/nwuleh 'to be yellow,'", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 576, |
| "end": 579, |
| "text": "(1)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF19" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 606, |
| "end": 609, |
| "text": "[a]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 615, |
| "end": 618, |
| "text": "[a]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Predicate WH-word Etteh and Predicate Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "hayahlheyeh 'to be white,' phalah/pheleh 'to be blue,' khetalah 'to be big,' coptalah 'to be narrow,' etc. The lack of any overt morpheme for the present tense further indicates that etteh is an adjectival verb. 1\u00b0 The array of facts shows that etteh in (9) is neither a VP-adjunct nor a nominal element, but a verbal predicate. Nevertheless, it does not show island effects, which indicates that neither T. Chung's nor D. Chung's analysis is tenable.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Predicate WH-word Etteh and Predicate Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A natural question that arises is whether the predicate analysis of etteh in (9) can be carried over to its adverbial form ettehkey in (1a,b)? I contend it can, analyzing ettehkey as the predicate head of a small clause, as illustrated in the structure in (10) below:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Predicate WH-word Etteh and Predicate Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(10) ... VP SC VP pro Pred (NP;) V ettehkey", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Predicate WH-word Etteh and Predicate Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The null element, pro, could be referentially linked to an element in the sentence, typically NP i in (10), as when etteh has a resultative reading,\" or its reference could be pragmatically provided from the context, as when etteh has a manner or instrument reading. 10 Action verbs need a present tense morpheme, -n/-nun, when a plain declarative sentence ending follows but adjectival or stative verbs do not take any overt present tense morpheme:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Predicate WH-word Etteh and Predicate Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(i) a. John-i pap-ul mek-nun-ta/*mek-ta. J.-Nom rice-Acc eat-Pres-DE/eat-D\u00c8 John eats (or is eating) rice.' b. John-i khi-ka cak-ta/*cak-nun-ta. J.-Nom height-Nom small-DE/small-Pres-D\u00c8 John is small.' 11 Or the small resultative clause itself could be complement of the matrix verb, as in (i) below, depending on the analysis: (i) ... VP", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 328, |
| "end": 331, |
| "text": "(i)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Predicate WH-word Etteh and Predicate Analysis of Ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The attachment of key to etteh is analogous to the fact that the ,predicate head of a small clause in Korean undergoes a categorial change, hosting an adverbial ending -key, as exemplified in (11): 11John-un [ku mwuncey-lul nemwu swip-ley] yeki-n-ta. J.-Top the problem-Acc too easy-KEY consider-Pres-D\u00c8 John considers the problem too easy.' I assume that the categorial change from adjectival verb to adverbial results when the small clause head (overtly) raises to the domain of the higher predicate along the similar lines of Stowell (1991) , who argues that small clause heads raise to form a complex predicate with the higher predicate, overtly or covertly in Italian and covertly in English. One difference between our analysis of Korean small clauses and Stowell's analysis of Italian and English small clauses is that in the latter the small clause predicate undergoes a head-to-head movement, i.e., the small clause predicate and the matrix predicate are restructured to form a constituent, whereas in the former the predicate or its projection undergoes an XP-movement, i.e., it adjoins to the projection of the matrix predicate. 12 4. Theta-Pertinence and Island Effects Now let us return to our original question why etteh or ettehkey does not show island effects. I resort to the theta-identification of the ECP story but from a different perspective. Arguments enjoy more liberty than nonarguments because they can be identified by a theta-relation as well as by binding (antecedent government). (See Lasnik and Saito 1984 and Chomsky 1986 .) The theta-identification explicated in this way is a unilateral construal in that predicates identify their arguments but not vice versa. It is conceivable, however, to explicate theta-relations bilaterally, i.e., predicates and their arguments can be understood to identify or restrict each other. Depending on the properties (types, number, etc.) of the arguments, the predicates are restricted accordingly. For example, suppose that there are two arguments, one as a subject and the other as an object, in a clause. Then the predicate that relates the two arguments must be a transitive verb, but not be an intransitive or ditransitive verb. To take another example, suppose that there is merely one argument in a given clause. Then the predicate can be an unergative or unaccusative verb but it can not be a transitive or ditransitive verb.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 529, |
| "end": 543, |
| "text": "Stowell (1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1515, |
| "end": 1525, |
| "text": "Lasnik and", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1526, |
| "end": 1540, |
| "text": "Saito 1984 and", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1541, |
| "end": 1553, |
| "text": "Chomsky 1986", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "NP ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "With the theta-identification explicated in this bilateral way, etteh or ettehkey is theta-identified, since they are theta-pertinent as a theta-role assigning predicate. Hence the lack of the island effects follows. Note that with the advent of the small clause head analysis of ettehkey, etteh is always a predicate head assigning a thematic role to its subject.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "NP ettehkey", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A question that arises is whether English how could be similarly analyzed as a predicate. If that were possible, then it would not show island effects, contrary to the fact. But the answer to the question seems to turn out negative. Notice that adjectival small clause heads in English are replaced by what not by how in WH-questions, as in 12 12 Note that V-key can precede all other embedded elements, as shown below:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Some Speculation on the Behavior of English how", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(i) a. (=(11)) John-un [ku mwuncey-lul nemwu swip-key] sayngkakha-n-ta. J.-Top the problem-Acc too easy-KEY consider-Pres-D\u00c8 John considers the problem too easy.' b. John-un [nemwu swip-key]; [ku mwuncey-lul tJ saynglcalcha-n-ta.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Some Speculation on the Behavior of English how", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "J.-Top too easy-KEY the problem-Ace consider-Pres-D\u00c8 John considers the problem too easy.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Some Speculation on the Behavior of English how", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This indicates that the small clause head does not merge into the matrix predicate.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Some Speculation on the Behavior of English how", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "T.Chung (1991:245) suspects that causal adverbs are head-governed by T, which is assumed to be generated in a position higher than Agr. But notice that m-command, not c-command, plays a role in the definition of the head government. Agr mcommanding causal adverbs, the head government obtains without resort to T.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In factLee (1993:359-377) argues that many other morphemes including imperative ending -kela, conditional -ketun, and disjunctor -kena, contain the same nominalizer -Id. 8 See Lin (1992), who also claims, based onTang's (1990) observation, that Tsai's generalization does not hold even in Chinese.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "It is interesting to observe that some languages (e.g., Korean) allow predicate WI-I-elements, but others (e.g., English) do not.A similar difference reveals in the formation of ANY negative polarity item: Korean has an ANY predicate, i.e., amwuleh, which is always licensed by a negated light verb, while English does not have such an item at all. But I am ignorant for the moment what is responsible for the differences.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "13) (na-nun ney-ka Mary-lul yengliha-key yeki-nun kes-ul al-n-ta", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "13) (na-nun ney-ka Mary-lul yengliha-key yeki-nun kes-ul al-n-ta.)", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "un *mwes-ul/ettehkey yeki-ni? J.-Con what-Acc/how consider-Q\u00c8 How about John?' The English-Korean difference evinces itself more clearly in echo-questions", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "I-Top you-Nom M.-Acc smart-KEY consider-Adn thing-Acc know-Pres-DE John-un *mwes-ul/ettehkey yeki-ni? J.-Con what-Acc/how consider-Q\u00c8 How about John?' The English-Korean difference evinces itself more clearly in echo-questions. Compare the English sentence in (14) with the Korean counterpart in (15): (14) You consider John what/*how?", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Since it does not replace an adjective in WH-questions or echo-questions, how in English could not be regarded as a predicate. Clearly it is not an argument, either. Thus, it seems to be a pure adjunct. It is, therefore, not theta-pertinent and cannot be theta-identified. Thus it shows the island effects, unlike its apparent Korean counterpart ettehkey", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "John-ul *mwes-ul/ettehkey yeki-n-ta-ko? J.-Acc what-Acclhow consider-Pres-DE-CM (CM--citation Marker) You consider John what/how?' Adjectival small clause heads are replaced by what in English and by ettehkey in Korean. Since it does not replace an adjective in WH-questions or echo-questions, how in English could not be regarded as a predicate. Clearly it is not an argument, either. Thus, it seems to be a pure adjunct. It is, therefore, not theta-pertinent and cannot be theta-identified. Thus it shows the island effects, unlike its apparent Korean counterpart ettehkey, which is analyzed as the predicate head of an adjectival small clause in this paper.\u00b0R eferences", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Generalized Binding: The Syntax and Logical Form of WH-Interrogatives", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Joseph", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Aoun", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Aoun, Joseph (1986) Generalized Binding: The Syntax and Logical Form of WH-Interrogatives, Foris Publications, Dordrecht-Holland/Riverton-U.S.A.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Syntax of Scope", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Joseph", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Aoun", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Y.-H. Audrey", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Li", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Aoun, Joseph and Y.-H. Audrey Li (1993) Syntax of Scope, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Chomsky, Noam (1986) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "On the Representation and Licensing of Q and Q-Dependents", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Daeho", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chung", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1996, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Chung, Daeho (1996) On the Representation and Licensing of Q and Q-Dependents, Ph. D. dissertation, University of Southern California.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "On WH-Adjunct Extraction in Korean", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Tagoo", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chung", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1991, |
| "venue": "Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics IV", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "241--248", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Chung, Tagoo (1991) \"On WH-Adjunct Extraction in Korean,\" Susumu Kuno et al (eds.) Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics IV, 241-248.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Types of A'-Dependencies", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Guilemo", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Cinque", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1990, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Cinque, Guilemo (1990) Types of A'-Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "C.-T", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Huang", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "James", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1982, |
| "venue": "Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics II", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "239--250", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Huang, C.-T. James (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Kuh, Hakan (1987) \"Plural Copying in Korean,\" Susumu Kuno et al (eds.) Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics II, 239-250.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "On the Nature of Proper Government", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Howard", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lasnik", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Mamoru", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Saito", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1984, |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", |
| "volume": "14", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "235--289", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1984) \"On the Nature of Proper Government,\" Linguistic Inquiry 14, 235-289.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "The Syntax of 'HOW' and 'WHY", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lee", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Hankwukmwunhwasa", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Seoul", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Korea", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Jo-Wang", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lin", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1992, |
| "venue": "A Korean Grammar on Semantic-Pragmatic Principles", |
| "volume": "1", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "293--331", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lee, Keedong (1993) A Korean Grammar on Semantic-Pragmatic Principles, Hankwukmwunhwasa, Seoul, Korea. Lin, Jo-Wang (1992) \"The Syntax of 'HOW' and 'WHY,' Journal of EastAsian Linguistics 1: 293-331.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Relativized Minimality", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Luigi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Rizzi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1990, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Rizzi, Luigi (1990) Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Consequences", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Mamoru", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Saito", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1975, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Saito, Mamoru (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Consequences, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Song, Seok Choong (1975) \"Rare Plural Marking and Ubiquitous Plural marker in Korean,\" CLS 11.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Tim", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Stowell", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1991, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Stowell, Tim (1991) \"Small Clause Restructuring,\" Robert Freidin (ed.) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF14": { |
| "ref_id": "b14", |
| "title": "Chinese Phrase Structure and Extended X-bar Theory", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "C.-C", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Tang", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jane", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1990, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Tang, C.-C. Jane (1990) Chinese Phrase Structure and Extended X-bar Theory, PhD dissertation, Cornell University.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF15": { |
| "ref_id": "b15", |
| "title": "On Nominal Island and LF Extraction in Chinese", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Wei-Tien", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Tsai", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1991, |
| "venue": "MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Tsai, Wei-Tien (1991) \"On Nominal Island and LF Extraction in Chinese, in Lisa Cheng and Hamida Demirdash (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF16": { |
| "ref_id": "b16", |
| "title": "On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependencies", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Wei-Tien", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Tsai", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Tsai, Wei-Tien (1994) On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependencies, Ph. D. dissertation, MIT.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF17": { |
| "ref_id": "b17", |
| "title": "Aspects of Questions in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Shin", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Watanabe", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1995, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Watanabe, Shin (1995) Aspects of Questions in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D. dissertation, USC.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF18": { |
| "ref_id": "b18", |
| "title": "A Note on Scope Dependencies in Japanese Multiple Wh-Questions", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Shin", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Watanabe", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1996, |
| "venue": "Seventh Japanese/Korean Linguistic Conference", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Watanabe, Shin (1996) \"A Note on Scope Dependencies in Japanese Multiple Wh-Questions,\" presented at the Seventh Japanese/Korean Linguistic Conference, November 8-10, 1996, University of California, Los Angeles.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF19": { |
| "ref_id": "b19", |
| "title": "Ettehkey 'how' as a Small Clause Head 2", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Ettehkey 'how' as a Small Clause Head 2. Daeho Chung", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "Mary-lul way manna-ess-ni? J.-Nom M.-Acc why meet-Pst-Q\u00c8 Why did John meet Mazy?'", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF1": { |
| "html": null, |
| "text": "Adn meat-Nom tasty? Q the meat that you cook how is tasty?' a. yakhan pwul-ey chenchenhi kwuun koki.", |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>iff roast meat meat that is roasted slowly on weak fire.' a. X and Y are coindexed b. X c-commands Y c. no barrier intervenes how cook-weak fire-at slowly oven-with roast meat meat roasted with an oven' c. wancenhi ikhin koki. completely roast meat Well done meat.' (manner) d. Relativized Minimality is respected [ettehkey yoliha-n] koki-ka masiss-ni? b. oven-ulo kwuun koki. (instrumental)</td></tr></table>" |
| }, |
| "TABREF3": { |
| "html": null, |
| "text": "claims, key is decomposed into nominalizer -ki plus postposition", |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>-e y ' t o , '</td></tr></table>" |
| }, |
| "TABREF5": { |
| "html": null, |
| "text": "you consider Mary smart.) But I do not know what/*how you consider John e? This clearly contrasts with the Korean counterpart, in which ettehkey 'how' instead of mwues 'what' is used:", |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>:</td><td/></tr><tr><td>(12)</td><td>(I know</td></tr></table>" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
