Towards a Derivational, Labeling-based Approach to

10.15860/sigg.27.2.201705.263.

Towards a Derivational, Labeling-based Approach to ‘Floating’ Numeral Classifiers in Korean* 1

Myung-Kwan Park (Dongguk University)

Park, Myung-Kwan. 2017. Towards a Derivational, Labeling-based Approach to ‘Floating’ Numeral Classifiers in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar, 27-2, 263-282. This paper investigates the well-known subject-object asymmetry in the ‘floating’ numeral classifier construction in Korean: Unlike objects, subjects cannot be separated from their related floating numeral classifiers by, for example, an intervening object. We first review Shin’s (2017) semantic composition–based analysis of this asymmetry, showing that it confronts non-trivial problems. Taking an alternative approach, we adopt Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) ideas on labeling, answering why unlike object-related ones, subject-related numeral classifiers cannot be ‘floated’ or left behind in the vP or TP domain. Specifically, it is shown that the merger of in-situ subject-related numeral classifiers with vP (i.e., the latter being the merger of v and its complement VP) cannot be labelled properly, or the interleaving of a scrambled object between the double subjects composed of the subject and its related numeral classifier in the TP domain is banned in light of the labeling uniformity or the Subject Condition. Keywords: numeral classifier, floating/remnant, subject-object asymmetry, sub-extraction, labeling

1. Introduction Korean is known to use what is called classifiers to individuate both countable and uncountable nouns. Focusing on postnominal classifiers preceded by * I am grateful to the three anonymous reviewers of this journal for the helpful comments and suggestions. I also wish to acknowledge the constructive remarks from Nobu Goto and YongSuk Yoo. All the remaining errors are, of course, mine.

Studies in Generative Grammar, Volume 27, Number 2, 2017 263-282 ⓒ 2017 by the Korean Generative Grammar Circle

263

PDF Watermark Remover DEMO : Purchase from www.PDFWatermarkRemover.com to remo

264

Myung-Kwan Park

numerals, we note that there are two variant forms of sentences depending on where a (Nom/Acc) Case marker is placed. Illustrative examples are given below: (1) a. ku kyengki-eyse haksayng twu myeng-i tachy-ess-ta. that game-in student two person-Nom get hurt-Pst-Dcl ‘Two (PERSONS OF) students got hurt in the game.’ b. ku kyengki-eyse haksayng-i twu myeng tachy-ess-ta. -Nom (2) a. cheli-ka wain twu pyeng-ul masi-ess-ta. Cheli-Nom wine two bottle-Acc drink-Pst-Dcl ‘Cheli drank two bottles of wine.’ b. cheli-ka wain-ul twu pyeng masi-ess-ta. -Acc In (1a) and (2a), a (Nom/Acc) Case marker occurs after a numeral classifier (in Shin’s terminology, quantifier), while in (1b) and (2b) it occurs after the associated nominal but before the numeral classifier. Shin (2017) terms the former the postnominal quantifier construction, and the latter the postnominal floating quantifier construction. In this paper we review Shin’s (2017) recent semantic composition approach to these two constructions and show that this approach fails to account for the syntactic aspects of these constructions. Seeking a unified syntactic, derivational analysis of these constructions including the prenominal quantifier construction, we take a labeling-based approach to them, showing that this approach provides a systematic analysis for the long-standing issues bearing on these constructions.

2. Shin’s (2017) partitive construction view of postnominal (floating) quantifiers Shin (2017) argues that the two types of the Korean postnominal (floating) quantifier construction as in (1) and (2) is analyzed as partitives or pseudo-partitives, corresponding to their counterparts in English as in (3) and (4): (3) a. He ate two of the apples. b. He drank two bottles of the wine.

partitives

(4) He drank two bottles of wine.

pseudo-partitives


Towards a Derivational, Labeling-based Approach to ‘Floating’ Numeral Classifiers in Korean

265

Shin (2017) notes that in the Korean partitive construction, a postnominal (floating) quantifier denotes a PART-OF relation, and the nominal it associates with is a full DP. The DP-hood of the associated nominal is adduced from the following examples: (5) (Situation: Only three apples had been left in a refrigerator) a. Cheli-ka [ku-sakwa/ku-ke] twu kay-lul mek-ess-ta. Cheli-Nom [that-apple/that thing two Cl-Acc eat-Pst-Dcl ‘Cheli ate two of those (apples).’ b. Cheli-ka [ku-sakwa/ku-ke]-lul twu kay mek-ess-ta. Cheli-Nom [that-apple/that thing]-Acc two Cl eat-Pst-Dcl ‘Cheli ate two of those (apples).'1,2 1 Shin (2017) claims that unlike non-floating quantifiers in (ia), floating quantifiers in (ib) are infelicitous when they denote the improper part of the full set (i.e., the full set itself).

(i) (Situation: Only three apples had been a. Cheli-ka [ku-sakwa/ke] sey Cheli-Nom [that-apple/thing three ‘Cheli ate those three (apples).’ b. #Cheli-ka [ku-sakwa/ke]-lul Cheli-Nom [that-apple/thing]-Acc ‘Cheli ate those three (apples).’

left in a refrigerator) kay-lul mek-ess-ta. Cl-Acc eat-Pst-Dcl sey kay mek-ess-ta. three Cl eat-Pst-Dcl

However, adding the ta ‘all’ after the floating quantifier as in (ii) does not induce any semantic abnormality. Or the floating quantifier (i.e. numeral classifier) can be left out, with only the numeral ta ‘all’ being realized, suggesting that improper partitivity is expressed not by the repeated numeral classifier but by the full-set-denoting numeral like ta ‘all’ or cenpwu ‘all’. This points to the fact that, unlike Shin’s claim, both postnominal floating and non-floating quantifiers permit either proper or improper partitivity. (ii) Cheli-ka [ku-sakwa/ke]-lul (sey kay) ta mek-ess-ta. Cheli-Nom [that-apple/thing]-Acc three Cl all eat-Pst-Dcl ‘Cheli ate all those three (apples).’ 2 Likewise, the prenominal quantifiers (typically attached with the Genitive Case marker) also seem to be followed by a full DP, as follows: (i) a. swupayk myeng-uy (ku) haksayng-tul-i several hundred Cl-Gen that student-Plur-Nom ‘(those) Several hundred students’ b. 200 myeng-uy ku salamtul-un 200 Cl-Gen that people-Top ‘(those) 200 people’ c. yel mali-uy I cakun kaytul-i 10 Cl-Gen this small dog-Plur-Nom ‘(those) 10 small dogs’


Myung-Kwan Park

266

adapted from Shin (2017, her (23)) This example clearly shows that unlike the claim made by Kang (2002), among others, postnominal floating numeral classifiers (i.e., quantifiers) as well as non-floating ones may associate with definite nominals, hence with full DPs. Based on the thesis that the nominal that the postnominal non-floating numeral classifier (PNFNC) associates with is a full DP, Shin (2017) suggests that this PNFNC, for example, sakwa twu kay ‘two apples’ has the following structure: (6)

DP / ClP / DP /＿＿＿\ sakwa

\ D \ Cl twu kay

In this structure, a ClP headed by a classifier into which a cardinal number is taken to be incorporated takes a DP as its complement. On the other hand, Shin (2017) suggests à la Dowty and Brodie (1984) that the postnominal floating numeral classifier (PFNC) construction has the following structure, where a floating quantifier (FQ) or floating numeral classifier (FNC) that associates with a subject or object DP is analyzed either as a VP modifier or transitive verb (TV) modifier: (7)

S / DP(subject)

\ VP / FQ

\ VP / DP(object)

\ TV / DP

\ TV

In this structure, via semantic composition a FNC first combines with a Below we will return to this construction.



267

verbal predicate (TV or VP) and then is associated with the subject or object DP that it has a PART-OF relation with. Shin’s view of a FNC as a predicate modifier provides a straightforward account for its distribution when it occurs adjacently to the nominal that it relates with, as in (8) and (9): (8) (ku) sakwa-ka twu kay ssek-ess-ta. the apple-Nom two Cl be rotten-Pst-Dcl ‘Two of the apples were rotten.’ (9) cheli-ka (ku) sakwa-lul twu kay mekessta. Cheli-Nom the apple-Acc two Cl eat-Pst-Dcl ‘Cheli ate two of the apples.’ In (8), the FNC combines with the subject DP after its composition with the VP, but in (9), the FNC combines with the object DP after its composition with the TV. How does Shin’s analysis of a FNC as a predicate modifier account for the well-known word order restriction as in (10)? (10) *(ku) sonnim-i ku wain-ul twu pwun masiessta. the guest-Nom the wine-Acc two Cl drink-Pst-Dcl ‘Two of the guests drank the win.’ In (10), the object DP intervenes between the subject DP and the FNC that associates with it, which makes the sentence unacceptable. Shin (2017) rules out this sentence convincingly. Since the FNC in (10) first combines with the following TV, the next step of semantic composition is to saturate the internal argument of the TV. However, the internal argument ku wain-ul ‘the wine-Acc’ is semantically not compatible with the FNC twu pwun, ‘two persons’, resulting in semantic conflict. Despite the effectiveness of Shin’s (2017) account for examples like (10), however, it poses a non-trivial problem in explicating the discontinuous relation between the FNC and the nominal it associates with. First, it is not clear how Shin’s (2017) modifier view of FNCs in Korean accounts for the scrambling of the object DP that the FNC links with, as follows: (11) [(ku) sakwa-lul]1 cheli-ka

t1 twu kay

mekessta.


268

Myung-Kwan Park

the apple-Acc Cheli-Nom two Cl ‘Cheli ate two of the apples.’

eat-Pst-Dcl

In this example, the object DP is preposed to the beginning of the sentence. To account for the acceptability of this example, Shin may adopt the reasonable assumption that the trace (or the object DP reconstructed to its trace position) enters into semantic composition with the TV predicate that results from the combination of the FNC and the TV. This assumption, however, is directly detrimental to Shin’s afore-mentioned analysis of examples like (10). (10) is repeated below in (12), where the displacement of both the subject and the object DP is represented using their traces: (12) *[(ku) sonnim-i]1 [ku wain-ul]2 t1 twu pwun t2 masiessta. the guest-Nom the wine-Acc two Cl drink-Pst-Dcl ‘Two of the guests drank the win.’ When the trace (or the reconstructed DP) of a subject or an object partakes in semantic composition, it seems that Shin’s analysis fails to account for the unacceptability of (10). As is well known, the contrast in acceptability between (10) and (12) is the subject-object asymmetry in the distribution of FNCs (cf. Saito (1985)). In sum, Shin’s analysis is short of providing a systematic account for the asymmetry at stake. The second related problem bears on the fact that the sentence in (10)/(12) improves substantially when the FNC occurs with a Case-marker, as in (13) below: (13) (?)(ku) sonnim-i ku wain-ul twu pwun-i masiessta. the guest-Nom the wine-Acc two Cl-Nom drink-Pst-Dcl ‘Two of the guests drank the win.’ Though this example is outside the scope of her analysis, Shin’s semantic composition-based approach to the distribution of FNCs in Korean has difficulty in explaining why the apparently syntactic contribution of the Case marker added to the subject-related FNC contributes to repairing its otherwise ill-formed distribution. To sum up, Shin’s analysis of FNCs in Korean as VP or TV modifiers that undergo semantic composition does not take into account the syntactic



269

displacement of the nominals that they associate with and the syntactic role of the Case marker particularly attached on the subject-related FNCs. It seems that the latter two properties are presumably the most important issues concerning the distribution of FNCs in Korean, which has been investigated in the last three decades.

3. Towards an analysis To account for the distribution of postnominal floating/non-floating numeral classifiers (PFNCs/PNFNCs) in Korean, we first propose the underlying structure of PNFNCs as follows:3 (14)

ClP /

\

DP / ＿\ (ku) chayk

Cl’ / #P | # tases

\ Cl kwen

It is to be noted that the proposed structure in (14) is quite similar to the one proposed by Park (2009), who building on Borer (2005) adopts the thesis that the numeral classifier and the nominal it associates with have a predicate-subject relation inside the larger DP domain. Without postulating an additional functional category that Park (2009) does, we assume that the predicate-subject relation 3 When a noun comes without an accompanied classifier but with a numeral, the numeral after the noun is required to be nominal, but not adjectival, as in human-denoting nouns like haksayng twul-i/*twu-i ‘student five person-Nom’ or thing-denoting nouns like sihem seys-ul/*sey-ul ‘exam three-Acc’. We assume that the nominal numeral is also followed by a silent category of classifier. It is also to be noted that so-called full-set quantifiers such as motwu and cenpwu ‘all’ always occur without a classifier. They point to the universal character of the head nouns they associate. This universal character obviously accounts for the fact that a classifier need not be expressed explicitly.

(i) a. chayk book b. wuyu milk

cenpwu-lul/motwu-lul, all-Acc all-Acc cenpwu-lul/motwu-lul, all-Acc/ all-Acc

chayk-ul cenpwu/motwu book-Acc all/all wuyu-lul cenpwu/motwu milk-Acc all/all


270

Myung-Kwan Park

holds between the ClP headed by the classifier and the nominal DP in a Spec-head relation. One more departure from Park’s (2009) proposal is that not the numeral but the classifier projects the ClP, though Park suggests that not the classifier but the numeral projects #P. In fact, this departure is motivated by the following examples taken from Shin (2017): (15) a. ??Cheli-ka [twu pyeng-uy wain]-ul kkayttuly-ess-ta. Cheli-Nom [two Cl-Gen wine]-Acc break-Pst-Dcl ‘Cheli broke two bottles of wine.’ b. Cheli-ka [(ku) wain twu pyeng]-ul kkayttuly-ess-ta. Cheli-Nom [the wine two Cl]-Acc break-Pst-Dcl ‘Cheli broke two bottles of (the) wine.’ c. Cheli-ka [(ku) wain]-ul [twu pyeng] kkayttuly-ess-ta. Cheli-Nom [the wine]-Acc [two Cl] break-Pst-Dcl adapted from Shin (2017, her (17)) Shin notes that both PFNCs in (15b) and PNFNCs in (15c) meet the selectional restriction that holds between the verb and the classifier that heads the complement of the verb. In contrast, the prenominal numeral classifier (PreNC) accompanied by the Genitive marker –uy cannot meet the selectional restriction.4 Based on the examples above, we argue that both PFNCs and PNFNCs are distinguished from PreNCs, only the former having the argument of a verb headed by a classifier.5 It is to be noted that, as expected, the selectional restriction is also met 4 Recall that Shin (2017) argues that PFNCs are VP or TP modifiers. It is not clear how Shin’s modifier view of PFNCs can account for the selectional restriction in (15c). The selectional restriction is known to hold between a verb/predicate and its argument. It is to be noted that though the selectional restriction typically holds locally between a verb and (the nominal head of) its complement, it may also hold non-locally. Consider the following contrast (data from Aarts (1998)):

(i) a. I met {a colourless little mouse of a woman, *a colourless little mouse, a woman} b. I detest {that rotten little fig of a human being, that rotten little fig, *a human being} In (ia) in which N1 has rather a figurative reading, it is woman, not mouse that can satisfy the selectional restrictions of the verb met. Meanwhile, in (ib) N2 has no salient information. In this case, it is rather unnatural to use N2 with N1 information, implying that N1 contributes to the core meaning of the overall NP structure. This is also evidenced by the possibility of using N1 alone. In this sense, we can assume that N1 fulfills selectional restrictions. 5 As noted above, however, Shin assumes that only PNFNCs, but not PFNCs have such a projection.



271

between the predicate and its subject headed by the classifier as in (16a) and (16b), but not between the predicate and its subject whose specifier/modifier position is occupied by the Genitive marked numeral classifier, as in (16): (16) a. ??twu pyeng-uy wain-i paksalna-ass-ta. two bottle-Gen wine-Nom come to pieces-Pst-Dcl ‘Two bottles of wine came into pieces b. (ku) wain twu pyeng-i paksalna-ass-ta. -Nom c. (ku) wain-i twu pyeng paksalna-ass-ta. -Nom A quick question that arises is how to meet the selectional restriction in the usual cases where the selectional relation apparently holds, for example, between the verb and the complement-internal nominal that the NC associates with, as in (17): (17) a. Cheli-ka [wain twu pyeng]-ul masi-ess-ta. Cheli-Nom [wine two Cl]-Acc drink-Pst-Dcl ‘Cheli drank two bottles of wine b. Cheli-ka [wain]-ul [twu pyeng] masi-ess-ta. Cheli-Nom [wine]-Acc [two Cl] drink-Pst-Dcl We suggest that the selectional restriction is met via metonymic shift: in the this case, the classifier as a characteristic measuring unit (pyeng ‘bottle’) is used to stand for a portion of the substance (two bottles of wine). This use is quite similar to the situation where when we order a glass of beer by saying “Can I have a pint?” in English, we not only name the unit of measure but are also interested in getting a pint of, for example, beer. Thus, a measuring unit (i.e., classifier) is metonymically construed as representing a portion of the substance in the container. Now moving to examine the syntactic derivation of PFNCs in (15c), (16c) and (17b), we take it that the nominal DP that the FNC associates with cannot receive Nominative or Accusative Case in its underlying position (because the containing ClP is more local to the outside Case assigner/checker/Probe than the nominal DP contained within the ClP). When this is the case, the nominal DP that the FNC associates with is compelled to move out of the ClP for a Case-theoretic reason.


272

Myung-Kwan Park

The sub-extraction of the nominal DP out of the ClP will prevent the extracted nominal DP and the remaining/remnant ClP (i.e., the FNC) from forming a constituent any more. As documented in Shin (2017, her (32) and (33)) (See also Shi 2000; Choi 2001; Shin 2006; 2007; Kim 2013), this prediction is borne out, as follows: (18) a. *Cheli-ka [sakwa-lul twu kay]-wa [bay-lul sey kay] mek-ess-ta. Cheli-Nom [apple-Acc two Cl]-Conj [pear-Acc three Cl] eat-Pst-Dcl ‘Cheli ate two apples and three pears.’ b. Cheli-ka [sakwa twu kay]-wa [bay sey kay]-lul mek-ess-ta. Cheli-Nom [apple two Cl]-Conj [pear three Cl]-Acc eat-Pst-Dcl (19) a. *Cheli-ka mek-un kes-un [sakwa-lul twu kay]-(i)-ta. Cheli-Nom eat-Rel thing-Top [apple-Acc two Cl]-(Cop)-Dcl ‘What Cheli ate is two apples.’ b. Cheli-ka mek-un kes-un [sakwa twu kay]-(i)-ta. Cheli-Nom eat-Rel thing-Top [apple two Cl]-(Cop)-Dcl In (18a), the host DP followed by the PFNC cannot be coordinated by the coordinator –wa, though in (18b), the host DP followed by the PNFNC can be. In (19a), the former cannot occur in the pivot position of the cleft construction, though in (19b), the latter can. These two tests seem to render compelling evidence showing that the PFNC and its host DP do not form a constituent, while the PNFNC and its host DP do. However, this conclusion is not warranted because movement/scrambling of the host DP accompanied by the PFNC is perfectly fine as in (20a): (20) a. [sakwa-lul twu kay]1 [ Cheli-ka t1 mek-ess]-ta. [apple-Acc two Cl] Cheli-Nom eat-Pst-Dcl ‘Two apples Cheli ate.’ b. [sakwa-lul]1 [ Cheli-ka [ t1 twu kay] mek-ess]-ta. Since displacement as well as coordination and clefting also counts as a reliable test for syntactic constituent-hood, it is right to say that the host DP followed by the PFNC makes a constituent. To resolve this dilemma, we propose that the host DP followed by the PFNC makes a constituent, thus the host DP in-situ in the PFNC construction receives a Case from a Case licenser outside the ClP (in the parallel fashion to



273

Exceptional Case Marking); however, it is to be noted that this does not preclude the host DP from receiving a Case after its extraction from the ClP. At this point of dervation, the whole ClP can also undergo scrambling, yielding (20a). Alternatively, only the host DP can undergo scrambling, producing the run-of-the-mill version of PFNC in (20b). If this analysis is on the right track, the unacceptability of (18a) and (19a) is not due to the alleged claim that the host DP and the following PFNC cannot make a constituent.6 We rather suggest that (18a) and (19a) are ruled out because the host DP inside the ClP in the coordinate or cleft structure cannot find a local Case licenser in a proper way. In keeping with the sub-scrambling/movement account for the host DP from the containing ClP, we now return to the subject and object asymmetry in the distribution of PFNCs that poses a non-trivial problem for Shin’s (2017) modifier-based analysis of them. (21)

[TP

(22)

[TP

[vP [ClP DP Num Cl ↑＿＿＿＿*＿＿＿＿|

] [VP

... ] ] ]

[TP [vP [VP V [ClP DP Num Cl ↑＿＿＿＿＿＿＿√_＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿|

] ] ] ] ]

In these representations, the subject and object asymmetry in the distribution of PFNCs is taken to mean that sub-scrambling/extraction of the host DP from the ClP in [Spec,vP] is not allowed in (21), but the corresponding sub-scrambling/extraction of the DP from the CIP in the complement of the verb is permitted. To account for the asymmetry at stake, we adopt Chomsky's (2013) labeling theory, where labeling is not part of the operation Merge but is essentially determined contextually; viz., it is affected by the syntactic context where the relevant elements are placed. Chomsky proposes that in the case where a head and a phrase merge, the head provides a label for the resulting syntactic object, as schematized in (22): (23) {H H, XP} For the case where non-minimal projections are merged, on the other hand, 6 Nobu Goto (pers. comm.) confirmed me that the Japanese versions of (18a) and (19a) are perfectly acceptable.


274

Myung-Kwan Park

there are two ways of implementing labeling: through prominent feature sharing or traces, where traces are basically ignored for the purpose of labeling. The case of labeling via feature sharing is shown in (24). The resulting label of the merger of what and the interrogative C (actually CP at the relevant point) is determined by the feature-sharing of the Q-feature. Hence, what is projected in (24) for the syntactic object at hand in the CP domain is the Q-feature. (24) I wonder [QP what1 [CP C [ John bought t1]]] The case where the labeling is implemented through traces is illustrated by (25), with the relevant part of the derivation given in (26). (25) What1 do you think [CP t’1 [C’ that [John bought t1]]]? (26) v [VP think [? What [CP that [John bought t1]]]] Chomsky assumes that successive-cyclic movement does not involve feature sharing, which essentially follows Bošković (1997, 2002). Hence there is no feature-sharing between the declarative complementizer that and the wh-phrase that passes through the edge of CP in (25). Since labeling through feature-sharing is not an option here, the embedded clause cannot be labeled at the point when what and the CP are merged, as indicated by ?-notation. When v is merged, what moves away. Now the trace of what is ignored for the purpose of labeling, hence ? can be labeled as CP after movement of what. Returning to (21) and (22), it is now clear why the sub-extraction of the DP from the ClP in [Spec,vP] position is not allowed in (21), but the corresponding sub-extraction of the DP from the ClP in the complement of the verb is allowed in (22). The labeling of the syntactic object that results from the merger of the in-situ ClP and the verb in (22) is straightforward because it follows the basic operation schematized in (23). By contrast, the syntactic object that results from the merger of the in-situ ClP and the vP in (21) cannot be labelled successfully. In fact, Chomsky (2013) argues that subject raising from [Spec,vP] to [Spec,TP] is forced by labeling: If the subject DP fails to raise, α in [α DPSUBJ vP] cannot get a label (because of the absence of the relevant prominent feature shared by the in-situ subject and the vP). The same analysis, mutatis mutandis, applies to sub-extraction of the host DP from the ClP in [Spec,vP] position. Its sub-extraction leaves behind the remnant ClP in [Spec,vP] position, therefore the merger of the ClP and the vP still failing to be labelled, ruling out the



275

run-of-the-mill ill-formed example in (12), repeated below as (27) with the addition of brackets.7 (27) *[TP [(ku) sonnim-i]1 [vP [ku wain-ul]2 [vP [ClP t1 twu pwun] [VP t2 the guest-Nom the wine-Acc two Cl masi]]]ess]ta. drink-Pst-Dcl ‘Two of the guests drank the win.’ Because the ClP in [Spec,vP] position is resistant to sub-extraction out of it, the whole ClP is forced to move to the [Spec,TP] position, and its merger with the following TP succeeds in getting a label via the sharing of the prominent feature (presumably, ph-feature) (cf. Chomsky (2013)). (28) [TP DP1 [TP [ClP t1 Num Cl ] [vP t [vP [VP ↑＿＿＿＿＿＿|↑＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿|

... ] ] ]] ]

We suggest that the host DP now undergoes sub-extraction from the ClP in [Spec,TP] position.8 We assume that not the ClP but only the host DP that is sub-extracted for a Case-theoretic reason and finally lands in the multiple [Spec,TP] position receives Nominative Case, and the dominating TP also gets labelled via prominent feature sharing. We now turn to the example in (13), repeated as (29), where the remnant ClP after the sub-extraction of the host DP out of it is syntactically repaired when Nominative Case-marked: (29) (?)(ku) sonnim-i ku wain-ul twu pwun-i masiessta. the guest-Nom the wine-Acc two Cl-Nom drink-Pst-Dcl ‘Two of the guests drank the win.’ The derivation of (29) is represented in great details as in (30), where the ClP in [Spec,vP] position is Nominative Case-marked in a marked way via ‘downward’ Agree:9 7 Ko (2005, 2007) provides a so-called linearization-based account for the subject vs. object asymmetry in the distribution of floating numeral classifiers in Korean. We leave it for the future work to compare Ko’s linearization-based analysis with our labeling-based analysis in the text. 8 We assume that the ClP housing the host DP in its Spec position is optionally labeled via the feature denoting the PART-OF relation, attributed to Shin (2017).


276

Myung-Kwan Park

(30) [TP [(ku) sonnim-i]1 [vP [ku wain-ul]2 [vP [ t1 twu pwun-i] [VP t2 ↑ ↑＿＿|＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿| |＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿| masi]]]ess]ta. We account for the repair effects of the Case marker on the remnant ClP in [Spec,vP] position, building on the labeling theory recently proposed by Saito (2014, 2016) and further articulated by Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely (2014, 2015). They propose that in Japanese an {XP-Case, YP} structure (where an overt Case particle is attached to XP) is labeled as YP, claiming that overt Case particles in Japanese have the function of making a phrase invisible to labeling (See Conj in Chomsky (2013)10 and R(oot) in Chomsky (2015) for a similar view). If we adopt this proposal in the labeling theory, we can get the following prediction. Without the feature(s) shared by XP and YP, an {XP, YP} structure would be unlabeled in Japanese/Korean as well as in English, but if one of the constituents is Case-marked, as in {XP-Case, YP}, it receives a label in Japanese/Korean, but in English.11 We have examined only the derivations in (27) and (29) where the remnant ClP is placed in [Spec,vP] position. As argued in the representation of (28), however, the ClP in [Spec,vP] position when not Case-marked is forced to move to the [Spec,TP] position for a labeling reason. If this is a viable option, suppose that as in (31), the whole ClP in [Spec,vP] position moves to the [Spec,TP] position, the object DP scrambles to the TP domain, and subsequently the sub-extraction of the host DP from within the ClP to the ulterior [Spec,TP] position takes places. (31) [TP [(ku) sonnim-i]1 [TP [ku wain-ul]2 [TP [ t1 twu pwun]3 [vP t3 [VP t2 ↑ ↑ | ↑＿＿| | | |＿＿ |＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿| |＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ | masi]]]ess]ta. 9 In addition, when the ClP bears phonological stress/focus, (12) improves substantially in acceptability. We assume that in this case, the ClP and the following vP manages to get a label via prominent Focus feature sharing. 10 Chomsky (2013) in fact suggests that “Conj and the construction α that it heads are not available as a label“. 11 Ko (2005, 2007) accounts for the subject vs. object asymmetry in the distribution of non-Case-marked floating numeral classifiers in Korean on the assumption that they are adnominals. But she assumes that Case-marked floating numeral classifiers are adverbials.



277

This derivation may result in generating the surface ill-formed structure of the example in (27). To tackle (31), we suggest that it is ruled out in the same fashion as (32c) is:12 (32) a. (?)[TP cheli-ka [TP tongsayng-i nollim-ul manhi pat]]nunta. Cheli-Nom father-Nom money-Acc much earn ‘(Lit.) Cheli’s brother gets a lot of banter.‘ b. ? [TP nollim-ul [TP tongsayng-ka [TP apeci-ka [ t manhi pat]]]]nunta. ↑＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿| c. *[TP cheli-ka [TP nollim-ul [TP tongsayng-ka [ t manhi pat]]]]nunta. ↑＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿| It is evident that the problematic aspect of the representation in (31) and (32c) lies in the scrambling of the object DP to a TP-adjoined position, which results in intervening between double subjects. We takes it that this derivation is excluded by what we call a ban on disrupting the double/multiple Spec-head relations that T holds with the elements in double/multiple [Spec,TP] positions. This ban in principle decrees that a scrambled element cannot land in a TP-adjoined position between two subject DPs in [Spec,TP] positions.13 This is 12 Unlike the multiple Nominative construction with a family-relation-denoting noun, its counterpart with a property-denoting can be disrupted by the scrambled object, as in (ic). Choi (2008) argues that the second subject in the former construction is placed in [Spec,TP] position, whereas that in the second construction is placed in [Spec,vP] position. In the latter case, the object can scramble between the two apparent subject DPs, as follows:

(i) a. cheli-ka ilum-i nollim-ul manhi patnunta. -Nom name-Nom teasing-Acc much receive ‘(Lit.) Cheli’s name gets a lot of banter.‘ b. [ nollim-ul [ cheli-ka ilum-i t manhi patnun]]ta. ↑＿＿＿＿＿＿＿| c. ?[ cheli-ka nollim-ul ilum-i t manhi patnun]ta. ↑＿＿＿| The acceptability of the example in (ic) is accounted for in a parallel way to (29)/(30). Unlike the scrambled element that is prohibited from separating the double subject DPs in [Spec,TP] positions, an adverbial that is base-generated in TP-adjoined position may occur between them, as follows: 13

(i) (ku) sonnim-i ecey twu pwun wain-ul the guest-Nom yesterday two Cl wine-Acc ‘(Lit.) Two of the guests drank wine yesterday.’

masi-ess-ta. drink-Pst-Dcl


278

Myung-Kwan Park

because the former scrambled element differs in light of labeling from the latter double subjects. As noted above, following Saito (2014, 2016), we take the former as invisible to labeling. On the other hand, the latter are labelled via prominent feature sharing. Then, the ban at stake, which we term the labeling uniformity (condition), is a prohibition against smuggling one mode of labeling into double/multiple occurrences of another different mode of labeling. This ban also dismisses as ill-formed the following alternative derivation of (29) where the ‘floated’ ClP which is Nominative Case-marked is raised to the [Spec,TP] position: (33) [TP [(ku) sonnim-i]1 [TP [ku wain-ul]2 [TP [ t1 twu pwun-i]3 [vP t3 [VP t2 　↑ ↑ | 　↑＿＿|　　| 　| |＿＿|＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿| 　|＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿| masi]]]ess]ta. (33) is identical to (31), except that the ClP is Nominative Case-marked. On top of infringing on the labeling uniformity condition, such a derivation as (31) and (33) also invites a violation of the Subject Condition because the host DP is sub-extracted from within the ClP in [Spec,TP] position. (33) is taken to be comparable to (34b) where after its sub-extraction from within the embedded subject the host DP undergoes long-distance scrambling, in contrast to (34c) involving the long-distance scrambling of the whole embedded subject ClP: (34) a. cheli-nun [chinkwu-ka sey myeng cip-ey o-ntako sayngkakha-yss-ta. Cheli-Top friend-Nom three Cl home-to come-Dcl think-Pst-Dcl ‘Cheli thought three friends would come to (his) home.’ b. *chinkwu-ka [ cheli-nun [ [t sey myeng] cip-ey o-ntako] sayngkakha-yss]-ta. ↑＿＿＿＿＿| c. ?[chinkwu-ka sey myeng] [cheli-nun [ t cip-ey o-ntako] sayngkakha-yss]-ta. ↑＿＿＿＿| One example that poses a potential problem to the derivational analysis of (ii) ?cheli-ka yocum apeci-ka ton-ul manhi pel-si-nta. Cheli-Nom recently father-Nom money-Acc much earn-Hor-Dcl ‘(Lit.) Cheli’s father earns a lot of money these days.‘ The examples in (i) and (ii) are judged to be better in acceptability than their corresponding ones in (33) and (32c).



279

FNCs is in (35), taken from Shin (2017, her (44) with the replacement of the TP-substitution kuleh- with the VP-substitution kuleha-): (35) yehaksayng-i twu myeng kyelsek-hay-ss-ko, namhaksayng-to female student-Nom two Cl absence-do-Pst-Conj, male student-also kuleha-yss-ta. do so-Pst-Dcl ‘Two female students were absent, and two male students were absent too.’ In our labeling-based analysis, the FNC in the first conjunct clause is taken to be located in the [Spec,TP] position, which is apparently problematic for the VP substitution by kuleha- ‘do so’. However, we can say that not the FNC but its copy trace is part of the VP substituted for by kuleha- (cf. Park (2015)). Leaving this section, on top of both PFNCs and PNFNCs, the labeling-based approach also provides an effective account for prenominal numeral classifiers (PreNCs) in Korean. We first assume that the latter also derives from PreNCs. For example, twu pyeng-uy wain ‘two bottles of wine’ is derived in the following fashion: (36) [FP [ClP twu pyeng] uy [XP [DP wain ] ttwu ↑＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿|

pyeng

] ]

As represented in (34), PreNCs are derived in the mode of deriving predicate inversion. The predicate ClP moves across the subject-like host DP. This inversion which we may term predicate inversion has an impact on the labeling of the post-Move structure. Following Chomsky (2013), let’s assume that, as pointed out above, traces are ignored for the purpose of labeling. The XP, which is labeling as ClP without the movement of the ClP, is now labeled as DP. This is the desirable consequence as we rely on the post-labeling structure to account for the selectional restriction in (15a), repeated below as (37): (37) ??Cheli-ka [twu pyeng-uy wain]-ul kkayttuly-ess-ta. Cheli-Nom [two Cl-Gen wine]-Acc break-Pst-Dcl ‘Cheli broke two bottles of wine.’ We also argue that the attachment of the Genitive marker –uy to the moved ClP is made as a result of labeling. The moved ClP and the following syntactic object now labeled as DP undergo Merge, and the resulting structure is labeled as –uyP through prominent feature sharing.


Myung-Kwan Park

280

4. Conclusion To conclude, it is argued in this paper that the account based on Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) ideas on labeling provides a systematic analysis for the long-standing, much celebrated issue of the subject-object asymmetry in the distribution of Korean floating numeral classifiers. They cannot be ‘floated’ or left behind in [Spec,vP] position because the immediately containing vP with them staying in-situ cannot be labeled in a proper manner. The ClP composed of the DP and the related numeral classifier is thus forced to move from [Spec,vP] to [Spec,TP] where the DP may move out of the ClP for a Case-theoretic reason. However, the remnant ClP in the lower [Spec,TP] position and the DP now in the immediately higher [Spec,TP] position cannot be disrupted by a scrambled object which lands between and separates them because the first two elements differ from the latter scrambled object in terms of the mode of labelling. We suggest that it follows from the labeling uniformity condition. Alternatively, the host DP cannot be sub-extracted out of the remnant ClP in the [Spec,TP] position owing to the Subject Condition. One question that arises at this point is what consequence the proposed labeling-based analysis has on the account for ‘floating’ quantifiers in English, as follows. (35) a. b. c. d. e.

The students have each given a pint of blood. The twins will both be running in the first race. Your friends should all have received invitations. The players have all of them flatly refused to leave the field. Your friends are neither of them very diplomatic. taken from Baker (1995)

The examples in (35) show that ‘floating’ quantifiers in English apparently can stay in [Spec,vP] or [Spec,AspectP], unlike their counterparts in Korean. Why are they allowed to do so? The previous study of ‘floating’ quantifiers in English (cf. McClsoky (2000) and Bošković (2004), among others) points to the fact that they are not base-generated in the position where the associated DPs are but they are added in the course of derivation. In other words, they are either adnominal modifiers or predicate modifiers. Or, as (35d) and (35e) show, they may be appositive elements. Following Chomsky (2013), we assume that appositive elements involving (silent) Conj (and presumably modifiers) do not enter into labeling. Thus, the difference in ‘floating’ quantifiers between English and Korean is due to their structural/functional difference.



281

References Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense I. Oxford University Press. Bošković Željko 1997b. Fronting Wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana Meeting, 1996, ed. by M. Lindseth and S. Franks, 86-107. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Michigan Slavic publications. Bošković, Željko 2002. On multiple Wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351-383. Bošković, Željko 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22 (4): 681-742. Choi, Kiyong. 2001. Hakwuke swulyangsa kwusenguy kwucowa uymi: pisokkyekhyengul cwungsimulo [The structure and interpretation of non-genitive numeral classifier constructions in Korean]. Language Research 37(3): 445-482. Choi, Kiyong. 2008. Hankwuke cwukyek cwungchwul kwumwunuy twu yuhyeng: sokkyek/cwukyek kyocheyuy kyengwu [Two types of double nominative constructions in Korean: a case of GEN/NOM alternation]. Linguistic Journal of Korea 33.4: 901-928. Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33-49. Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Structures, strategies and beyond: studies in honor of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini, 3-16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dowty, David & Belinda Brodie. 1984. The semantics of “floated” quantifiers in a transformationless grammar. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 3: 75-90. Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, & T. Daniel Seely. 2014. *What do we wonder is not syntactic?* Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan Keio University Eastern Michigan University. Epstein, Samuel David, Hisatsugu Kitahara, & Daniel Seely. 2015. Explorations in maximizing syntactic minimization. New York and London: Routledge. Kang, Beom-Mo. 2002. Categories and meanings of Korean floating quantifiers: with some reference to Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11(4). 375.398. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019967311110. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2013. Floated numeral classifiers in Korean: A non-derivational, functional account. Lingua 133: 189-212. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. lingua.2013.04.009. Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntactic edges and linearization. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.


282

Myung-Kwan Park

Ko, Heejeong. 2007. Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 38.1: 29-83. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.1.49 McCloskey, James. 2000. Quantifier Float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 57-84. Park, So-Young. 2009. The syntax of numeral classifiers: A small clause inside a DP. Language Research 45.2: 203-230. Park, Myung-Kwan. 2015. Extraction out of overt anaphora: Korean kule(h) 'so' versus English so. Linguistic Research 32(3): 693-718. Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Saito, Mamoru. 2014. Case and labeling in a language without φ-feature agreement. In On peripheries: Exploring clause initial and clause final positions, ed. by Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque & Yoshio Endo, 269-297. Tokyo: Hitsuzi Syobo Publishing. Saito, Mamoru. 2016. (A) Case for labeling: labeling in languages without φ -feature agreement. The Linguistic Review 32:1, 129-175. Shi, Chung-Kon. 2000. Kwuke swulyangsakwuuy thongsakwuco [The syntactic structure of quantifier phrase in Korean]. Korean Journal of Linguistics 25(1): 73-101. Shin, Keun Young. 2006. Non-case-marked floating quantifiers. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 11: 751-763. Shin, Keun Young. 2007. Partitive structures. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Shin, Keun Young. 2017. Partitive descriptions in Korean. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1): 5. 1-21, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.143.

Myung-Kwan Park Division of English Dongguk University 30, 1-gil, Phildong-ro, Chung-gu, Seoul 04620, Korea [email protected] Received: 2017. 4. 17 Revised: 2017. 5. 12 Accepted: 2017. 5. 18


Towards a Derivational, Labeling-based Approach to

Towards a Derivational, Labeling-based Approach to

Suggest Documents

A Systematic Approach for Automatically Generating Derivational ...

Towards a Malay Derivational Lexicon: Learning Affixes Using ...

Towards a typology of derivational viewpoint aspect systems

Towards a diagnostic approach to climate ...

Towards a Transdisciplinary Approach to Rural

Towards a Crowdsourcing-based Approach to ...

Towards a Hybrid Approach to Context Reasoning

Towards a rational approach to vaccine development

Towards a Systematic Approach to Reviewing ...

Towards A Critical Approach To Benefits ...

Towards a social approach to digital cities

Towards a Domain Approach to Knowledge

A categorical approach towards metamodeling

Towards a Comprehensive Approach? - GPPAC

Supplement to: Towards a new approach to visualize ...

Towards a Comprehensive Approach? - GPPAC

A Constructive Connectionist Approach Towards

Towards a multi-dimensional approach to supply management: a ...

Towards a universal organogelator: A general mixing approach to ...

A step-wise approach to discourse annotation: Towards a ... - CiteSeerX

A transdiagnostic dimensional approach towards a

A Multidimensional Approach towards a Quantitative ... - ScienceDirect

Towards an Agile Computing Approach to

Towards an Enactive Approach to Emotion - CiteSeerX