Seoul National University, Korea
Vol.9 No.1 (Serial No.14) 2021
1-32
2021-06-30
This paper aims to make it clear that syntactic analysis should be based on the lexical information given in the lexicon. For this purpose, lexical information of the syntactic argument is to be taken the form like [VP NKP, _, DKP, AKP] for the ditransitive verb give in English. The argument structure projects to syntactic structure. The NKP in this structure becomes VP-subject, but there is another subject called S-subject (Sentence-Subject) below S node. This amounts to Two-Subject Hypothesis for English. Between these two subjects, there intervene Conjugation-Like Elements, enriched by close examination of English verbal conjugation. Two-Subject Hypothesis perfectly accounts for peculiarities of the Expletive There (ET)construction. Restructuring can also explain the so-called Long Distance Wh-interrogative without introducing Wh-movement, and it can also explain why the imperative verbs are taking the base forms. It can also explain the characteristics of adjective imperatives by the same principles as applied to verbal imperatives. We try to deal with the other subtle problems, to get fruitful results. Restructuring approach, we think, provides more convincing explanations than the movement one.
restructuring, sentence type, Two-Subject Hypothesis, Conjugation-Like Element, ET construction, Long Distance Wh-interrogatives, adjective imperatives
doi: 10.26478/ja2021.9.14.1
Abney, S. P. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect [D]. PhD Dissertation. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Altmann, H. 1987. Zur Problematik der Konstitution von Satzmodi als Formtypen [A]. In J. Meibauer (ed.).
Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik [C]. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 22-56.
d’Avis, F. 2016. Different Languages: Different sentence types? On Exclamative Sentences [J]. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(4):159-175.
Bierwisch, M. 1980. Semantic Structure and Illocutionary Force [A]. In J. R. Searle, F. Kiefer & M. Bierwisch (eds.). Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics [C]. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1-35.
Bolinger, D. 1977. Meaning and Form [M].London: Longman.
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A government-binding theory [M]. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Cardinaletti, A. 1997. Subjects and Clause Structure [A].In L. Haegeman (ed.).The New Comparative Syntax [C]. London: Longman, 33-63.
Chang, K. K. 2012. A Study on the Definiteness Effect in the Existential There-Construction [J]. The Journal of Modern British & American Language & Literature, 30(1):81-100.
Choe, H. S. 1988. Restructuring Parameters and Complex Predicates: A transformational approach [M]. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Choe, H. S. 1994. Agreement and Existential Sentences in English [J]. Studies in Humanities, 6(1):25-59.
Choe, H. S. 2008. Some Empirical Problems of the Two Previous Approaches to Existential there [J]. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 8(1):93-117.
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures [M]. Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1974. The Amherst Lecture [R]. Lecture Given at the 1974 Linguistic Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Université de Paris VII.
Chomsky, N. 1977. On Wh-Movement [A]. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (eds.). Formal Syntax [C]. New York: Academic Press, 71-132.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding [M]. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1999. Some Notes on Economy of Derivations and Representation [A]. In R. Freidin (ed.). Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar [C]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 417-454.
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory [A]. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.). The View from Building 20 [C]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1-52.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2000. The Minimalist Inquiries: The framework [A]. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.). Step by Step [C]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 89-155.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by Phase [A]. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.). Ken Hale: A life in language [C]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1-52.
Chung, H. M. 2009. Discourse Functions of English Existential there Construction with the Discourse Topic Management [J]. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 25(3):147-166.
Cinque, G. 2006. Restructuring and Functional Heads: The cartography of syntactic structures [M]. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Deal, A. 2009. The Origin and Content of Expletives: Evidence from selection [J].Syntax, 12(4):285-362.
Erteschik-Shir, N. 1973. On the Nature of Island Constraints [D]. PhD Dissertation. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Farmer, A. K. 1984. Modularity in Syntax: A study of Japanese and English [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Fischer, O., A. van Kemenade, W. Koopman & W. van der Wurff. 2014. The Syntax of Early English [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freidin, R. & R. A. Sprouse. 1999. Lexical Case Phenomena [A]. In F. Freidin (ed.).Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar [C]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 392-416.
Fries, N. 1988. 1st Pragmatik Schwer über sogenante Exklamativsätze im Deutschen [J]. Deutsche Sprach, 16: 193-205.
Fukui, N. 1986. A Theory of Category Projection and Its Applications [D].PhD Dissertation. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Grimshaw, J. 1979. Complement Selection and the Lexicon [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(1):279-326.
Hale, K. 1980. Remarks on Japanese Phrase Structure: Comments on the papers on Japanese syntax [A]. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics [C], 2:185-203.
Hazout, I. 2004. The syntax of ExistentialConstructions [J].Linguistic Inquiry, 35(2):393-430.
Heath, J. 2018. Dogon Existential (-Presentative) Proclitics: Syntax, semantics, evolution [J]. Lingua, 213:78-90.
Im, H. P. 2008. On the Real Nature of Scrambling in Korean [J]. Macrolinguistics, 2(1):157-186.
Im, H. P. 2018a. Restructuring in Korean 1 [M]. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
Im, H. P. 2018b. Restructuring in Korean 2 [M]. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
Kim, Y. H. 2008. Syntactic Nature of Wh-Word Structure: The condition and motivation of movement [A]. In Y. H. Kim, K. S. Kim, K. S. Moon (eds.). Syntax and Semantics of Wh-Interrogatives [C]. Seoul: Hankook Publishing Company, 1-48.
Kitagawa, Y. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English [D]. PhD Dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, K. H. 2002. VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis and VP Preposing [J]. The New Studies of English Language and Literature, 23:156-172.
Lee, H. Y. 2012. Unaccusative Verbs and Unergative Verbs in Locative Inversion Constructions [J]. 21st Century English Language and Literature, 24(2):123-138.
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A preliminary investigation [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Manzini, M. R. 1983. Restructuring and Reanalysis [D]. PhD Dissertation. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
McFadden, T. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A study of the syntax–morphology interface [D].PhD Dissertation. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania.
Michaelis, L. A. 2001. Exclamative Constructions [A]. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. R. Öesterreicher & W. Raible (eds.). Language Typology and Language Universals: An international handbook [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1038-1050.
Milsark, G. E. 1974. Existential Sentences in English [D]. PhD Dissertation. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Norvin, R. 1999. Featural Cyclicity and the Ordering of Multiple Specifiers [A]. In S. D. Epstein & N. Hornstein. (eds.). Working Minimalism [C]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 127-158.
Perlmutter, D. M. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis[A]. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. Berkeley: University of California, 157- 189.
Picallo, M. C. 1985. Restructuring Constructions [A]. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics [C].New York:NYU.
Picallo, M. C. 1987. Opaque Domains [D]. PhD Dissertation. New York: The City University of New York.
Pollock, J.Y. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,20(3):365-424.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammarof the English Language [M]. London: Longman.
Radford, A. 1981. Transformational Syntax: A student's guide to Chomsky's extended standard theory [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A first course [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax [M]. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Schütze, C.2001. On the Nature of Default Case [J]. Syntax, 4(3):205-238.
Searle, J. R. 1989. How Performatives Work [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5):535-558.
Speas, M. 1986. Adjunction and Projection in Syntax [D]. PhD Dissertation. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Sobin, N. 1997. Agreement, Default Rules, and Grammatical Viruses [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(2):318-326.
Tateishi, K. 1994. The Syntax of ‘Subjects’ [M]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
link: