CC BY
9означает, что в корейском языке могут отсутствовать возможные родственные связи (т.е. Генетически связанные языки) за пределами Корейского полуострова. Исторические лингвисты используют мощный, хорошо проверенный метод, чтобы установить генетические или исторические отношения между языками мира. Это известно, как «сравнительный метод», концептуальную основу которого составляют то, что исторические лингвисты называют регулярными звуковыми
соответствиями. Когда исторические лингвисты говорят, что языки генетически связаны друг с другом, это означает, что они исторически произошли от одного языка предков. Например, считается, что ирландский, английский, итальянский, греческий, русский и хинди произошли от (ныне исчезнувшего) общего языка. Исторические лингвисты смогли установить их общее происхождение с помощью сравнительного метода.
Список литературы
1. Korea Foundation. - URL: https://www.kf.or.kr/kfEng/main.do (дата обращения: 21.12.2021). - Текст: электронный.
2. ЩШ] ^^ ^1", Efl^A}, 1998. - Текст: непосредственный.
1997. - Текст: непосредственный.
4. "—Ч ^^4, 1996. - Текст: непосредственный.
References
1. Korea Foundation. - URL: https://www.kf.or.kr/kfEng/main.do (data obrashcheniya: 21.12.2021). - Tekst: elektronnyj.
2. ЩШ] W ^—^ж^щ ^1", Efl^U}, 1998. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
1997. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
4. "—Ч ЩЩ4, 1996. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
Дата поступления /Received 20.12.2021 Дата принятия в печать /Accepted 24.01.2022
© Маштакова Д.Т., Хабибуллина Э.К., 2022, © Mashtakova D.T., Khabibullina E.K., 2022.
УДК 811.134.2'367
ИМ ИКХИ
Университет Синхан, г. Ыйджонбу, Республика Корея
КОРЕЙСКАЯ СПЕЦИФИКАЦИЯ ПСЕВДОКЛЕФТ КОНСТРУКЦИЯ: ТИП Е И ИМУЩЕСТВЕННЫЙ ТИП
Им Икхи,
Профессор академических исследований в Университете Синхан
E-mail: creationihm@naver.com
Аннотация. В данном исследовании рассматривается спецификация псевдоклефтовые конструкции среди различных конструкций в корейском языке. Что касается спецификации псевдоклефт конструкции, одно интересное явление состоит в том, что, когда прекопулярный XP равен [-hunan], к kes может быть присоединен множественный маркер tul, а когда прекопулярный XP равен [+ hunan], множественный маркер tul не может , как видно из четкого контраста между (1b) и (2b) ниже.
(1) а. Инхо-ка сан кес-ун капанг-и-эсс-та. [-человек] Inho-NOM купил-KES-TOP сумка-COP-PST-DECL «(Инт.) Джон купил книгу».
б. Инхо-ка сан кеш-тул-ун капанг-и-эсс-та. [-человек] Inho-NOM купил-KES-PL-TOP сумка-COP-PST-DECL «(Инт.) Джон купил книгу».
(2) а. [Inho-ka ece manna-n kes] -un uysa - i-ess-ta] [+ человек] Инхо-НОМ вчера встреча-REL kes-TOP доктор-PL-COP-PST-DECL «(Инт.) Инхо встретил / были врачом / врачами».
б. * [Inho-i i ece manna-n kes-tul] -un uysa-i-ess-ta] [+ человек] Inho-NOM вчера встреча-REL kes-PL-TOP доктор-COP-PST-DECL «(Инт.) Инхо встретил / были врачом / врачами».
Пак и Ким (2016) и Пак (2019) делят kes на два варианта: kes как заглавное существительное относительного придаточного предложения и kes как дополняющее, объясняющее грамматическое
контраст. Однако у Пак и Ким (там же) и Пак (там же) есть проблемы с внутренней теорией. В качестве альтернативы им это исследование, указывая на проблемы с Пак и Ким (там же) и Park (там же), в том числе Боскович (1998), Сон (2000), Ким (2016), Ви (2016), предлагает нулевое значение относительный оператор генерируется базой, и, кроме того, оператор имеет универсальную функцию.
Ключевые слова и фразы: kes, псевдоклефт конструкция, спецификация, заглавное существительное, компле-ментатор, свойство, генерация оснований, принцип разметки.
MMIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMIMMIIM
Для цитирования: Им Икхи. Корейская спецификация псевдоклефт конструкция: тип е и имущественный тип // Корееведение в России: направление и развитие. 2022. Т. 3. № 1. С. 11-24.
ннмннмннмннмннмннмннмннмннмннмнш
IHM ICK-HEE
Shinhan University, Uijeongbu-si, Republic of Korea
KOREAN SPECIFICATION PSEUDO-CLEFT CONSTRUCTION: E TYPE AND PROPERTY TYPE
Ihm Ick-Hee,
Academic research professor at Shinhan University E-mail: creationihm@naver.com
Abstract. This research deals with a specification pseudocleft construction among various pseudocleft constructions in Korean. With respect to the specification pseudocleft construction, one interesting phenomenon is that when a
precopular XP is [-hunan], a plural marker tul can be adjoined to kes and whereas, when a precopular XP is [+hunan], the plural marker tul cannot, as can be seen from the clear contrast between (1b) and (2b) below.
(1) a. Inho-ka san kes-un kapang-i-ess-ta. [-human] Inho-NOM bought-KES-TOP bag-COP-PST-DECL ' (Int.) What John bought was a book.'
b. Inho-ka san kes-tul-un kapang-i-ess-ta. [-human] Inho-NOM bought-KES-PL-TOP bag-COP-PST-DECL '(Int.) What John bought was a book.'
(2) a. [Inho-ka ece manna-n kes]-un uysa-i-ess-ta] [+human] Inho-NOM yesterday meet-REL kes-TOP doctor-PL-COP-PST-DECL '(Int.) What Inho met was/were a doctor/doctors.'
b. *[Inho-i i ece manna-n kes-tul]-un uysa-i-ess-ta] [+human] Inho-NOM yesterday meet-REL kes-PL-TOP doctore-COP-PST-DECL '(Int.) What Inho met was/were a doctor/doctors.'
Park&Kim (2016) and Park (2019) divide the kes into two variants: kes as a head noun of relative clause and kes as a complementizer, explaining the grammatical
contrast. Park&Kim (ibid.) and Park (ibid.), however, has problems theory-nternally. As an alternative to them, this research, pointing out problems with Park&Kim (ibid.) and Park (ibid.), including Boskovic (1998), Sohn (2000), Kim (2016), Wee (2016), proposes that a null relative operator is base-generated and further the operator has an universal feature.
Keywords and phrases: kes, pseudo-cleft construction, specification, head noun, complementizer, property, basegeneration, labelling principle
For citation: Ihm Ick-Hee. Korean specification pseudo-cleft construction: e type and property type // The Journal of Direction and Development of Korean Studies in Russia. 2022. Vol. 3, № 1. P. 11-24.
Introduction
This research deals with a specification pseudocleft construction among various pseudocleft constructions in Korean. With respect to the specification pseudocleft construction, one interesting phenomenon is that when a precopular XP is [-hunan], a plural marker tul can be adjoined to kes and whereas, when a precopular XP is [+hunan], the plural marker tul cannot, as can be seen from the clear contrast between (1b) and (2b) below, as can be seen from the clear contrast between (1b) and (2b) below.
(1) a. Inho-ka san kes-un kapang-i-ess-ta. [-human]
Inho-NOM bought-KES-TOP bag-COP-PST-DECL
'(Int.) What John bought was a book.'
b. Inho-ka san kes-tul-un kapang-i-ess-ta. [-human]
Inho-NOM bought-KES-PL-TOP bag-COP-PST-DECL
'(Int.) What John bought was a book.'
c. Inho-ka san kes-tul-un kapang-tul-i-ess-ta. [-human]
Inho-NOM bought-KES-PL-TOP bag-pl-COP-PST-DECL
'(Int.) What John bought were books.'
(2) a. [Inho-ka ece manna-n kes]-un uysa-i-ess-ta] [+human]
Inho-NOM yesterday meet-REL kes-TOP doctor-PL-COP-PST-DECL
'(Int.) What Inho met was/were a doctor/doctors.' b. *[Inho-i i ece manna-n kes-tul]-un uysa-tul-i-ess-ta] [+human]
Inho-NOM yesterday meet-RELkes-PL-TOP doctor-PL-COP-PST- DECL
'(Int.) What Inho met was/were a doctor/doctors.'
As we can see, when a precopular XP is [-human], a plural maker tul can be adjoined to kes, and by contrast, when a precopular XP is [+human], a plural maker tul cannot. This research, pointing out problems of previous analyses, especially Park&Kim' (2016) and Park's (2019) analyses, puts purpose at reilluminating the reason why such a grammatical contrast arises.
Specificational pseudocleft
The subject position of the kes is parallel to that of English specificational pseudo-cleft construction
(see Mikkelsen (2011) regarding the latter). Thus, we can call this type of Korean pseudo-cleft construction as a Korean specificational one, and I came to the conclusion that there are four types in the construction as follows.
ix[... x. ... <e> type kesj-un [(...) <e> type XP,+coupl'a+...]
The above type refers to a sentence where (a) the kes is a <e> type and is co-indexed with a variable bound by an iota operator outside its boundary, and (b) the contrastively focused XP in the precopular position is <e> type that specifies a value for the slot or the variable that should be filled inside the kes phrase, as exemplified by (3-4) below.
(3) A: nen-un mwues-ul sa-ss-ni?
You-NOM what-ACC buy-pst-QUE?
'(Int.) What did you buy?'
B: ix[nay-ka xi san-kesi]-un i chayk-i-ya.
I-NOM bought-KES-TOP this-COP-DECL
'(Int.) What I bought is this iPad.'
(4) Inho-ka san kes-tul-un kapang-tul-i-ess-ta.
Inho-NOM bought-KES-pl-TOP bag-PL-COP-
pst-DECL
'(Int.) What Inho bought were bags.'
To put the semantic interpretation processes of the above (7) specifically, to begin, in the object position of transitive verb in the above wh-question, there is a variable, i.e., mwues (=what) that should be assigned a value. Next, in the answer B sentence, the variable in the same position as in the above question sentence is bound by the iota operator, the kes being co-indexed with the variable. Finally, the precopular expression i chayk (this book) provides the value for the variable. The above (3) can be interpreted as 'there is a unique individual that I bought, and it is this book.' The lines can be briefly expressed in the formal semantics form (4) below.
(4) ix[what I bought (x)]=^x^y[y=x](this book)
ix[what I bought (x)]=^x(this book)
ix[what I bought (x)]=this book
The above type is classified into a typical Korean specificational pseudo-cleft construction.
ix[... X' event type kes]-un [(...) <e>type XP. +coupla+... ]
The above type refers to a sentence where (a) the kes is an event type containing a variable bound by an iota operator outside its boundary, and (b) the contrastively focused XP in the precopular position is <e> type that specifies a value for the slot or the variable that should be filled inside the kes phrase, as exemplified by (5) below.
(5) a. [John-i Mary-lul manna-n kes]-un [kongwen-(eyse)]-i-ta.
[John-NOM. Mary-ACC. meet-REL kes]-TOP park-at-COP-DECL
'(Int.) It was at the park that John met Mary.' [kongwen-(eyse)] =[locative]
b. [John-i Mary-eykey senmwul-ul cwu-n kes]-un ecey-
[John-NOM. Mary-DAT present-ACC give-REL kes-TOP yesterday-i-ta.
[+temporal] COP-DECL
'(Int.) It is yesterday when John gave Mary a present.'
c. [John-i Mary-lul manna-n kes]-un [chayk-ulcwukiwihayse]-
[John-NOM. Mary-ACC meet-REL kes]-TOP book-ACC to give-
i-ta. [adverbial phrase] COP-DECL
'(Int.) John met Mary to give her a book.'
The semantic interpretation processes of the above (5) are as follows.
(6) a. GIVEN: dit3e[meet(e, j, m, l)]; John(j), Mary(m)
('There is an event e and in e, John met Mary at the specific location "l".')
b. NEW: park(l); Location(e, l) ('The location of an event e is the park.')
One interesting phenomenon is that when kes is replaced with a lexical noun, the possibility of keeping adposition/postposition is no longer available, as shown in (7) below.
(7) a. [John-i Mary-lul manna-n cangso]-un [kongwen-(*eyse)]-i-ta.
[John-NOM Mary-ACC meet-REL a place}]-TOP park-at-COP-DECL
'(Int.) It was at the park that John met Mary.'
b. [John-i Mary-eykey senmwul-ul cwu-n time}]-un ilyoil-
[John-NOM Mary-DAT present-ACC give-REL time}]-TOP Sunday-(*ey)-i-ta. on-COP-DECL
'(Int.) It is on Sunday when John gave Mary a present.'
c. Mary-ga dalyeo-ga-n panghyang-un byeongwon-(*eulo)-i-tta.
Mary-NOM run-go-pre direction-TOP hospital-to-be-DECL
'(Int.) It was to the hospital that Mary ran.'
A lexical noun and an adposition/postposition show a complementary distribution phenomenon within the Korean specificational pseudo-cleft construction.
ix[... x. ... <e> type kes.]-un [(...) a value specification-containing-event type XP+coupla+...]
The above type refers to a sentence where (a) the kes is a <e> type and is co-indexed with a variable bound by an iota operator outside its boundary, and (b) a contrastively focused XP in the precopular position is an event type containing a value specification for the slot or the variable that should be filled inside the kes phrase, as exemplified by (8) below.
(8) A: nay-ka mence wues-ul ha-ya ha-ci? I-NOM first what-ACC do-CONN do-QUE? '(Int.) What should I do?'
B: [ney-ka mence hay-ya ha-nun kes]-un [i iPad-
lul
[you-NOM first do-CONN must-MOD KES]-TOP [this iPad-ACC
cwumwunha-nun kes]-i-ta.
order-MOD KES]-COP-DECL
'(Int.) What you must do first is order this iPad.'
The semantic interpretation processes of the above (8) can be represented like (9) below.
(9) a. GIVEN: tytx3e[do(e, y, x)]; you(y) ('There is an event e and in e, you must do x.) b. NEW: tx3e[order(e, x); I-PAD(x)
('A unique event that you must do is to order I-PAD.')
ix[... x. property type kes]-un [(...) <e>type XP.+coupl.a+... ]
The above type refers to a sentence where (a) the kes is a property type containing a variable by an iota operator outside its boundary, and (b) the contrastively focused XP in the precopular position is <e> type that specifies a value for the slot or the variable that should be filled within the kes phrase, as exemplified by (10) below.
(10) [John-i manna-n {(i)kes/(ii) a person}]-un i yeca-i-ta. [+human]
[John-NOM meet-REL kes]-TOP this woman-COP-DECL
'(Int.) Who John met is this woman.'
The precopular XP i yeca (this woman) describes a concrete property of the kes phrase. The above type is an important data in this research.
Additional characteristics of the specificational pseudocleft
The specificational pseudocleft, in addition to the before-mentioned characteristics, also has the following ones.
First, when we change a topic marker-denoting 'un' into a new information
-denoting subject marker 'i', the sentence involving the 'i' marker turns out to be a highly unnatural one, as exemplified by (11) below.
(11) a. [John-i sa-n {(i)kes/(ii) a thing}]-un/???i i chayk-i-ta.
[John-NOM buy-REL {(i)kes/(ii) a thing}]-TOP/ FOC this book-COP-DECL
'(Int.) What John bought is this book.'
b. [John-i Mary-lul manna-n kes]--un/???i [kongwen-(eyse)]-i-ta.
[John-NOM Mary-ACC meet-REL kes]-TOP park-(at)-COP-DECL
'(Int.) It was at the park that John met Mary.'
This implies that the specificational type, unlike the equative one, has fixed or unambiguous information structure orderings, i.e., GIVEN-NEW. The reason is that the iota operator denotes a definite description, so the subject part has an old information, that is, the part is presupposed.
Second, when the precopular XP is [-human], a plural marker 'tul can be adjoined to both the kes and the XP, as can be seen in (12) below. Whereas, when the precopular XP is [+human], a plural marker
'tul' cannot, as can be seen in (13) below. These two examples are important data in this paper.
(12) [Inho-ka ece sa-n kes-tul]-un [kabang-tul]-i-ess-ta] [-human]
Inho-NOM yesterday buy-REL kes-PL-TOP bag-PL-COP-PST-DECL
'(Int.) What Inho bought yesterday were bags.'
(13) *[Inho-kka ece manna-n kes-tul]-un [uysa-(tul)]i-i-ess-ta] [+human]
Inho-NOM yesterday meet-REL kes-PL-TOP doctors-PL-COP-PST-DECL
'(Int.) What Inho met were doctors.'
Third, different feature values-bearing individuals can correspond to kes, as can be seen in (14) below.
(14) a. [nay-ka salangha-nun kes]-un John[+HUMAN]-kwa il[-HUMAN].
I-NOM love-REL kes-TOP John-CONJ job
twul ta-i-ta.
both all-COP-DECL
'(Int.) What I love are both John and my job.'
Fourth, there is a case where kes indicates a new information. Furthermore, there is a case where the
'.......key' form that is a contracted form of kes i and
kes un indicates a new information, as shown in (15) below ((15b) cited from Yeom (2014)).
(15) a. [John-i sa-n kes]-i palo i chayk-i-ta John-NOM buy-MOD KES-NOM very this
book-COP-DECL
'(Int.) What John bought is this very book.'
b. A: Mina-ka nwukwu-ya?
Mina-NOM who-DECL?
'(Int.) Who is Mina?'
B: [Inho-lul towacw-un key]F Mina-ya.
[Inho-ACC help-REL-key]F Mina-DECL.
'(Int.) It is Mina that helped Inho.'
C: Aniya. [[Cinalul]F towacw-un key] Minaya.
No. [[Cina-ACC]F help-REL-key] Mina-DECL.
'(Int.) No. It is Mina that helped Cina.'
To make 3.3.4. short, the head kes is relatively free from an agreement with the precopular XP that bears foci.
Toward previous analyses
This section will discuss how the surface sentence form of the specificational pseudo-cleft construction is derived. Let's start with Sohn (2000).
Sohn (2000): Null operator category movement
Sohn (2000), in order to explain the ill or well-formedness of the Korean pseudocleft sentences, makes the following proposal: (a) kes is a head of the relative clause, as schematized in (16) below, and (b) The Spec position in the relative clause headed by kes is filled by a null relative operator category that moves up from base generation.
(16) [Ip [cp OPi [Ip.....t......] kes ]-un.....-i-ta]
The mechanism correctly rules out (17a) below in which an adjunct ttamun 'because of' is clefted out of the relative clause, because the null operator violates a Subjacency condition, i.e., an island constraint, as shown in (17b) (cited from Kang (2006: (26))).
(17) a. *Mary-ga John-i kyulsukha-n nal cikakha-n kes-un
Mary-NOM John-NOM absent-PRE day late-PRE kes-TOP
kamki-ttamun-i-ta. cold-because of-be-DECL '(Int.) It was because of cold that Mary was late on the day John was absent.
b. v [CP OPj [f ... a [op OPi [if ... tj ... t; ...]]] kes]-un .....-i-ta]
I___I
* a I'.l'KIll
The mechanism, however, makes wrong predictions for the clefting of an argument out of a wh-island (18a below) and a simple long-distance clefting of an adjunct (19a below).
(18) a. John-i nwu-ka sim-ess-nun-ci kwungkumhayha-nun
John-NOM who-NOM plant-PST-Q wonder-PRE kes-un i- namwu-i-ta. kes-TOP this tree-be-DECL '(Int.) It is this tree that John wonders who planted.'
a'.r. If b OPi :„ ... [cf Who [,F ... ti I M:Un -.-i-ta]
The mechanism, however, makes wrong predictions for the clefting of an argument out of a wh-island (18a below) and a simple long-distance clefting of an adjunct (19a below).
(19) a. *John-i Mary-ka wuntongha-yss-tako malhan kesun
John-NOM Mary-NOM exercise-PST-COMP say-PRE kes-TOP
i kongwen-eyse-i-ta. this park-at-be-DECL
'(Int.) It is at this park that John said that Mary exercised.'
a', [if [cp 01'i ;„• ... [ i k [if ... U ,,,]-tako]] ks]-un .....-i-ta]
I _I
According to the mechanism, since the derivation processes of (18a') show that the null operator crosses one barrier, CP, so that it violates the island constraint, (18a) is predicted to be ill-formed. But the prediction is not borne. And since the derivation processes of (19a') show that the operator can move through the intermediate spec CP on the way to the final landing site so that it does not violate any constraints, (19a) is predicted to be well-formed. But the prediction is not borne. (18a') and (19a') give rise to undergeneration and overgeneration, respectively.
Boskovic (1998): operator feature head movement to adjunction and Head Movement Constraint at LF
When Boskovic (1998) accounts for a mechanism of a wh-phrase movement construction and a wh-phrase in-situ one in French, he proposes that, in the case of the latter, an operator head feature alone at LF in place of the whole null operator category at overt syntax head-adjoins to Comp. Let us apply the above mechanism proposed by him to a following Korean long distance adjunct clefting that is ill-formed.
(20) a. *John-i Mary-ga ttena-ass-tako malha-n John-NOM Mary-NOM leave-PST-COMP say-PRE
kes-un i-iyu-lo-i-ta. kes-TOP this-reason-for-be-DECL '(Int.) It is for this reason that John said that Mary left.'
b. 'in [op [if - [cr [if ■■■ OP ,,,1-tako]] . ,, fes]-un .....-i-ta]
[Fi ••• t. n i •••• .|
I_I
■ft
According to the mechanism, the reason that the above long distance adjunct clefting sentence is ill-formed is that it violates Relativized Minimality condition. Specifically, the operator head feature moves out of the operator category with other features left, crossing the embedded A-bar Comp headed by tako, head-adjoining to the matrix A-bar COMP and so violating head movement constrain (This means that Korean adjunct clefting is clause-bounded). The proposal, however, does not fare with a Korean long distance argument clefting sentence (21) below.
The feature violates the condition on a par with the long distance adjunct clefting sentence (20), so is predicted to be ill-formed. But the prediction is not borne out.
(21) a. John-i nwu-ka sim-ess-nun-ci kwungkumhayha-nun
John-NOM who-NOM plant-PST-Q wonder-PRE kes-un i- namwu-i-ta. kes-TOP this tree-be-DECL '(Int.) It is this tree that John wonders who planted.'
The mechanism incorrectly rules out longdistance argument clefting, which gives rise to undergeneration.
Kim(2016)
Kim (2016) argues that the kes is just a nominal element as an grammatical property. I introduce only two of things that he presented as pieces of evidence for the argument.
First, if the kes phrase is a complementizer, like ko in (22a), it is predicted not to host a grammatical case marker (NOM or ACC) but the kes hosts the marker, as shown in (22b).
(22) a. [John-i ku sasil-ul molunta-ko-(*lul)] malha-yess-ta
John-NOM the fact-ACC not.know-COMP-ACC say-PAST-DECL
'(Int.) John said that (he) does not know the fact.'
b. [John-i_sa-n kes]-i palo i chayk-i-ta
John-NOM buy-MOD KES-NOM very this book-COP-DECL
'(Int.) What John bought is this very book.'
Second, an antecedent for a floating quantifier sey myeng-i in (23a) below is not a complementizer ko but namca-tul (The complementizer ko in Korean can never become an antecedent). If the kes phrase is the complementizer, like ko in (23a), it is predicted not to serve as an antecedent for the floating quantifier sey kay-(ka). But the antecedent for the floating quantifier is the kes.
(23) a. namca-tul-un [yeca-tul-i sakwa-lul mek-ess-ta-ko]
man-PL-TOP woman-PL-NOM apple-ACC eat-PAST-DECL-COMP
sey myeng-i sayngkakha-yess-ta
three CL-NOM think-PAST-DECL '(Int.) As for men, three thought women ate apples.'
b. [John-i sa-n kes-i] sey kay-(ka) kacca-i-ta John-NOM buy-MOD KES-NOM three CL-NOM fake-COP-DECL
'(Int.) As for the things John bought, three are fake.'
However, his proposal also is not sufficient in addressing the acceptability contrast of (24-25) below.
(24) a. Inho-ka san-kes-un kapang-i-ess-ta. Inho-NOM bought-KES-TOP bag-COP-PST-
DECL
'(Int.) What John bought was a book.' b. Inho-ka san kes-tul-un kapang-i-ess-ta. Inho-NOM bought-KES-PL-TOP bag-COP-PST-DECL
'(Int.) What John bought was a book.'
(25) a. [Inho-i i ece manna-n kes-tul]-un uysa-i-ess-ta] [+human]
Inho-NOM yesterday meet-REL kes-PL-TOP doctor-PL-COP-PST- DECL
'(Int.) What Inho met was/were a doctor/doctors.' b. *[Inho-i i ece manna-n kes-tul]-un uysa-tul-i-ess-ta] [+human]
Inho-NOM yesterday meet-REL kes-PL-TOP doctor-PL-COP-PST-DECL
'(Int.) What Inho met was/were a doctor/doctors.'
If the kes is a nominal element, a plural form kes tul is predicted to be used in the kes phrase in (25b), but it is not acceptable. More precise approach is required.
Wee (2016)
Wee's (2016) utilizes key that is a contracted form of kes i and kes un, explaining the Korean specificational pseudocleft phenomena. Wee's (ibid.) core argument regarding the kes is specifically as follows. The kes does not denote a real individual existing in a discourse model or an ontology but a presupposed discourse referent or a presupposed linguistic expression itself in which the existence of the real individual has to be identified, and simultaneously, it functions as a mediator heralding an identity. She borrows Horn's (1989) terminology
and calls the expression a meta-linguistic referent. To put it in a nutshell, the kes is an identification pronoun. Let us apply the above argument to (26) below.
(26) (Minswu-ka ecey etten yecalul mann-ass-nuntey)
Minswu-NOM yesterday some woman meet-PST-COMP
Minswu-ka ecey man-nan-key kim-sensayng-nim-i-ta.
Minswu-NOM yesterday meet-REL-KEY KIM-teacher-HON-COP- DECL
'(Int.) (Minswu met some woman yesterday and) What Minswu met yesterday was a teacher Kim.'
According to her argument, the ke denotes the expression 'Minswuka ecey mannanyeca (the woman whom Minsu met yesterday)' itself and functions as an introduction to an identity that is kimsensayngnim (a teacher Kim). Her argument, however, are problematic for the following three reasons. First, when the contracted form ke changes into a full form kes i, as shown in (27) below, sentence acceptability is very poor.
(27) ???Minswu-ka ecey man-nan-kes i kim-sensayng-nim
Minswu-NOM yesterday meet-REL-KES-NOM KIM-teacher-HON
-i-ta.
COP-DECL
'(Int.) What Minswu met yesterday was a teacher Kim.'
Second, when the kes phrase is used a plural form kes tul, as shown in the (24b) and (25a) in the previous sub-section, it is hard to handle the acceptability contrast through the ke form because (a) there is not a contracted plural form corresponding to the plural form kes tul, and (b) according to Wee's (ibid.) logic, since the ke denotes only one presupposed linguistic expression itself, a plural form kes tul is predicted not to be able to be used. But as we can see in the (24b) and (25a), there are examples in which the plural form can be used. A logical contradiction arises.
Third, Wee's (ibid.) postulates that '.......key' form
is an old information. The postulation, however, seems to be wrong because there is a case in which
the '.......key' form indicate a new information, as
shown in (28) below (cited from Yeom (2014)).
(28) A: Mina-ka nwukwu-ya?
Mina-NOM who-DECL?
'(Int.) Who is Mina?'
B: [Inho-lul towacw-un key]F Mina-ya.
[Inho-ACC help-REL-key]F Mina-DECL.
'(Int.) It is Mina that helped Inho.'
C: Aniya. [[Cinalul]F towacw-un key] Minaya.
No. [[Cina-ACC]F help-REL-key] Mina-DECL.
'(Int.) No. It is Mina that helped Cina.'
The above data also implies that an iota operator brought in by Kim (2016) does not necessarily come into play in the Korean specificational pseudocleft.
Park&Kim (2016) and Park (2019): kes as a head noun of relative clause and kes as a complementizer.
Park&Kim (2016) and Park (2019) divide the kes into two types. One is a head noun of relative clause, and the other is a complementizer denoting property. Specifically, they argue that since the kes in (24) is a head of relative clause, that is, a noun, a plural marker tul can be adjoined to the kes, as shown in (24b), and whereas, since the kes in (25) is a complementizer denoting property, a plural marker tul cannot, as shown in (25b). And they propose that (24a) and (25a) follow from syntactic derivations of (29) and (30), respectively.
(29) [np [cp Opi [Tp ... ti ...] C ] kes]-Top [NP]-copula-tense marker declarative ending
(30) [a [Cp Opi [Tp ... ti ...] kes(=C)]]-Top [NPi]-copula-tense marker declarative ending
Their argument, however, is problematic for the following three reasons. First, as we can see in the above (29) and (30) configurations, Park&Kim (ibid.) and Park (ibid.) posit that the null operator undergoes movement from base generation position to the Spec CP. However, the position seems not to be safe because, as we can observe in (31) below, an island effect arises (a) when an adjunct is longdistance clefted out of a simple clause ((31a=19a)), and (b) when an adjunct is long-distance clefted out of a simple clause ((31b=20a)).
(31) a. *John-i Mary-ka wuntongha-yss-tako malhan kesun
John-NOM Mary-NOM exercise-PST-COMP say-PRE kes-TOP
i kongwen-eyse-i-ta. this park-at-be-DECL
'(Int.) It is at this park that John said that Mary exercised.'
b. *Mary-ga John-i kyulsukha-n nal cikakha-n kes-un
Mary-NOM John-NOM absent-PRE day late-PRE kes-TOP
kamki-ttamun-i-ta. cold-because of-be-DECL '(Int.) It was because of cold that Mary was late on the day John was absent.
Second, Park&Kim (ibid.) and Park (ibid.) adopt the proposal of Chomsky (2013), as shown in (32) below, arguing that the CP projection shares an expletive feature between the null operator and C, and the kes is identified by the precopular XP (They mention that the feature refers to a humanness-unspecified/ neutral one) and a syntactic configuration like (33) below is yielded.
(32) a. The label of {H, XP } is H if H is a head and XP is not a head,
b. The label of {XP, YP} is the feature shared by XP and YP.
But the argument of Park&Kim (ibid.) and Park (ibid.) seems to be faulty theory-internally. If we analyze their argument more precisely, the null operator and the C have an expletive feature in common, so the CP projection shares an expletive feature. To paraphrase, the CP turns out to be an expletive phrase, i.e., EP, which means that the entire CP is semantically vacuous. However, as we can calculate in the kes phrase, the inner part of the CP has semantic content. So, it is difficult to accept the entire CP as an expletive CP. More fundamentally, assuming that the null operator carries an expletive feature seems to be problematic. According to the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_expletive, a syntactic expletive refers to a word that contributes nothing to the semantic meaning of a sentence in itself, yet does perform a syntactic role. However, as well-known, the null operator as an empty category has the sound of silence, that is, it is phonologically null, so it affects phonetic component. Besides, it has semantics (ex. It binds an empty pronoun.).
Third, Park&Kim (ibid.) and Park (ibid.) do not detail how the old information-denoting kes phrases and the new information-denoting key phrases take the subject positions.
(34) A: Mina-ka nwukwu-ya?
Mina-NOM who-DECL?
'(Int.) Who is Mina?'
B: [Inho-lul towacw-un key]F Mina-ya.
[Inho-ACC help-REL-key]F Mina-DECL.
'(Int.) It is Mina that helped Inho.'
C: Aniya. [[Cinalul]F towacw-un key] Minaya.
No. [[Cina-ACC]F help-REL-key] Mina-DECL.
'(Int.) No. It is Mina that helped Cina.'
In this section, we have identified that the previous mechanisms are not adequate in explaining the contrast between (24b) and (25b). Therefore, a new mechanism is required to capture the contrast.
Proposal
kes as a head noun of relative clause
The kes in (35=24) below belongs to a head noun of relative clause, and I propose that (35) is derived through syntactic operation processes like (36) and (38) below.
(35) a. Inho-ka san kes-un kapang-i-ess-ta.
Inho-NOM bought-KES-TOP bag-COP-PST-
DECL
'(Int.) What John bought was a book.'
b. Inho-ka san kes-tul-un kapang-i-ess-ta.
Inho-NOM bought-KES-PL-TOP bag-COP-PST-
DECL
'(Int.) What John bought was a book.'
c. Inho-ka san kes-tul-un kapang-tul-i-ess-ta.
Inho-NOM bought-KES-PL-TOP bag-pl-COP-
PST-DECL
'(Int.) What John bought were books.'
The (36) below is the underlying structure that is built up before the kes phrase moves up.
(36)
N: fees
[an inteipietable topic feature] OP C
X. null relative operator . -
2. interpretable IP C
relative feature [an unjnterpretable relative feature]
3. universal Ijilin-ka I' feature
vP san
Specifically, (36) is as follows: (a) the verb sata 'buy' carrying an uninterpretable inflectional ending or an uninterpretable derivational ending moves up to the head of IP, where it gets checked its own feature by the head T's inflectional feature, (b) the null operator is base-generated in the Spec CP due to the phenomena of (31), (c) C carries an uninterpretable REL feature, and the null relative operator has the C's uninterpretable feature checked off (Korean does not have neither relative pronoun nor relative complementizer/particle), (d) Unlike Park&Kim (ibid.) and Park (ibid.)' assumption that the null operator occupying the Spec CP carries an expletive feature, I assume that the operator carries an universal feature, and the feature percolates its own feature to the dominating NP, and (e) As long as labelling is concerned, I adopt Kim's (2013, 2000) proposal (37) below instead of the above Chomsky's (2013) proposal.
(37) a. The label of {X, YP} is X if X selects YP.
b. The label of {XP, YP} is the label of XP if a constituent of XP selects YP.
: if X triggers a merger with YP, the label of {X, YP} is X, and if a constituent of XP triggers a merger of XP with YP, the label of {XP, YP} is the label of XP.
In accordance with the above principle, the merge of C with the null relative operator yields CP, and (f) The head noun is modified by a relative clause, so the noun undergoes the change into a complex NP. Incidentally, since the kes phrase is presupposed semantically, the head of relative clause must be interpreted as definite. This implies that since there
is an invisible Det which takes the relative head as its complement, the kes phrase is not simply a complex NP but must be a complex DP. Hence, I propose that the maximal projection of the head of relative clause is not NP but DP, and (f) As long as the position of the Korean plural marker -tul is concerned, I adopt Kim & Paul' (2018) argument that the Korean plural marker -tul is best analyzed as a modifier to the nP projection, rather than as a head in the nominal extended projection such as Num or Div(ision) which a standard pluralizer (e.g., English -s) realizes. For convenience, I adjoin -tul to the NP. The next processes are as follows.
(38)
vr i n i
!Ж ftufi
[TJTFJ=unirtterpretable topic feature
'I [TrF]=irtferpretabIe topic feature
NKffl клрлпц
PredP
Specifically, (38) is as follows: (a) The head noun carries an interpretable Topic feature, pied-pipes the whole constituent below it, and has the higher C's uninterpretable Topic feature checked off (I assume that C is positioned at the left, that is, C is a left head in this case), and (b) the kabang that is base-generated in the Spec PredP and carries an uninterpretable focus feature moves up to the Spec FocP just below TP in order to be checked by the focus head carrying an interpretable focus feature. Readers will wonder what motivated me to place the Foc Phrase just below the TP. With regard to this, we can consider the Chomsky's (2001) proposal that features that characterize A-bar-moved elements such as Topic and focus may be obtained in the outer specifier of vP. Hence, we can consider that the landing site candidate for the XP is the outer specifier of vP, as represented in (39) below (Jayaseelan
(2001), Belletti (2004), Haegeman & Lohndal (2015), Park & Kim (2019), and Hong (2021) adopt the architecture below).
(39) [Tp [T, T [Focp xi [vp [v, v [Vp [v V... t]]]]]]]
, and (c) Why can't the kabang move up to the Spec TP? The reason is that an improper A-A'-A movement arises.
kes as a complementizer
The kes in (40=25) below belongs to a complementizer, and I develop Park&Kim (2016) and Park (2019) and assume more concretely that the kes in (40a) below has following identities: (a) it (=the kes) is placed at the head, specifically, complementizer, of relative clause, (b) It is not an object but property that the empty object position related to the kes refers to, shown in (40b) below, and (c) Since the grammatical category complementizer (C) does not have a plural form in Korean, it (=the kes) cannot be pluralized, like (40c). To put briefly, when the empty object position denotes property, it (=the kes) cannot be pluralized.
(40) a. [Inho-ka ece manna-n kes-]-un uysa-i-ess-ta] [+human]
Inho-NOM yesterday meet-REL kes-TOP doctor-PL-COP-PST-DECL
'(Int.) What Inho met was/were a doctor/doctors.'
b. i) GIVEN: ^xproperty3e[meet(e, j, x, y)]; John(j), yesterday(y), x(an empty object)
('There is an event e and in e, John met x yesterday.)
ii) NEW: a doctor (property)
('The property of an event e is a doctor. To put more easily, the property of John experiencing yesterday belongs to a doctor.)
c. *[Inho-ka ece manna-n kes-tul]-un uysa-tul-i-ess-ta] [+human]
Inho-NOM yesterday meet-REL kes-PL-TOP doctor-PL-COP-PST-DECL
'(Int.) What Inho met was/were a doctor/doctors.'
Park&Kim (ibid.) and Park (ibid.) do not detail how (40a) is derived syntactically. I propose that the (40a) is derived through syntactic operation processes like (41) below. The (41) below shows the syntactic structure before the kes phrase moves up.
Specifically, (41) is as follows: (a) the verb mannata 'meet' carrying an uninterpretable inflectional ending or an uninterpretable derivational ending moves up to the head of IP, where it gets checked its own feature by the head T's inflectional feature, (b) I propose that the property kes has three features: [IRF], [IPF], and [ITF], (c) Under spec-head agreement system, [IRF] and [IPF] checks off [UR] and [UP] that the null operator carries, and the kes carrying a property feature needs a matching element to implement mutual checkings, (d) For this, a property null operator occupies the Spec CP, (e) The operator is base-generated in the Spec CP due to the phenomena of (31), and (f) Since the kes phrase is presupposed semantically although determiner is invisible, the maximal projection of the kes phrase is not CP but DP. The (42) below is the processes in which the kes phrase undergoes movement to the subject position and uysa (a doctor) undergoes a focus check.
Specifically, (42) is as follows: (a) The C(=kes) carries an interpretable Topic feature, pied-pipes the whole constituent below it, and has the higher C's uninterpretable Topic feature checked off (I assume that C is positioned at the left, that is, C is a left head in this case), and (b) The uysa (a doctor) that is base-generated in the Spec PredP and carries an uninterpretable focus feature moves up to the Spec FocP just below TP in order to be checked by the focus head carrying an interpretable focus feature.
Concluding remarks
Список литературы
1. Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the Low IP rtography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2: 16-51. Oxford University Press. - Текст: непосредственный.
2. Boskovic, Zeljko. 1998. LF movement and the Minimalist Program. NELS 28. ed. P. Tamaji & K. Kusumoto, 43-57. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. - Текст: непосредственный.
3. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Area. In L. Rizzi, ed., The Structure of CP and IP: The CaMA: MIT Press, 1-52. - Текст: непосредственный.
4. Grimshaw, Jane. Armin Mester. 1988. "Light Verbs and Theta-Marking" / Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester // Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 19, No. 2, 205-232. - Текст: непосредственный.
5. Haegeman, Liliane. 2015. Be careful how you use the left periphery. / Haegeman, Liliane & Terje Lohndal // In Structures, strategies and beyond, eds. Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini, 135-161. John Benjamins Publishing Co. - Текст: непосредственный.
6. Heycock, Caroline. 1994. "The internal structure of small clauses," Proceedings of NELS 25, Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, 223-238. - Текст: непосредственный.
7. Hong, Yong-Tcheol. 2021. In proceedings of new year's workshop hosted by KGGC. - Текст: непосредственный.
8. Irene Heim. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. / Irene Heim & Angelika Kratzer // Blackwell. - Текст: непосредственный.
9. Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil Achuthan. 2001. IP-internal TOPic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55: 39-75. - Текст: непосредственный.
10. Jhang, Sea-Eun. 1994. Headed Nominalizations in Korean, Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Canada. - Текст: непосредственный.
11. Jeonghee Byun. 2020. Two Types of KES in Korean Pseudo-Clefts. Studies in Modern Grammar 105, 39-60. -Текст: непосредственный.
12. Jo, Mi-Jeung. 2011. The Morphosyntax of Prenominal Relative Clauses in Korean. - Studies in Generative Grammar 21-4: 563-585. - Текст: непосредственный.
13. Kang, Bo-sook. 2006. "Some peculiarities of Korean kes cleft constructions," Studia inguistica 60, 251-281. -Текст: непосредственный.
14. Kang, Jungmin. 2013. "Temporal Interpretation in the Absence of TP," Language and Information Society 20. -Текст: непосредственный.
15. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2016. "Copular constructions and asymmetries in the specificational pseudocleft constructions in Korean," Language and Linguistics 17, 89-112. - Текст: непосредственный.
16. Kim, Chongh-yuck. 2013. On the Korean Extrinsic Plural Marker. Studies in Modern Grammar 71, 53-74. -Текст: непосредственный.
17. Kim, Kang-sup. 2013. In Proceedings of the 8th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar: Universals and Parameters, ed. by Iljae Lee, 189-208. Seoul: Hankuk. - Текст: непосредственный.
18. Kim, Kwang-sup. 2015. Why does Head Movement Take Place? In Proceedings of 17 SICOGG: 192-208. -Текст: непосредственный.
19. Kim, Kang-sup. 2020. In Proceedings of 2020 KGGC/LRC (HUFS) joint conference. - Текст: непосредственный.
20. Kim, Kyumin and Paul Bass Melchin. 2018. Modifying plurals, classifiers, and co-occurrence: The case of Korean. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3.1: 25. 1-29. - Текст: непосредственный.
21. Kim, Sun-Woong. 2013. A Note against Feature Percolation. Studies in Modern Grammar 72, 1-15. - Текст: непосредственный.
22. Koh, Tae-Jin, and Kim, Yong-Jeong. 2019. A Critical Study on Light Verbs in Hindi and Korean: Focusing on 'Noun+Verb' and 'Verb+Verb'. Institute of Indian Studies. 25(3): 1-19. - Текст: непосредственный.
23. Lee, Ik-Sop and Yim. Hong-Bin. 1983. Kuggo mwunpepron, Seoul, Hakyeonsa. - Текст: непосредственный.
24. Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication, and Equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. - Текст: непосредственный.
25. Mikkelsen, Line. 2011. Copular Clauses. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. - Текст: непосредственный.
26. Park, Myung-Kwan & Kim, Hyosik. 2016. [Human] (Mis)match in Korean Pseudocleft Constructions. The Journal of Studies in Language 32.2, 249-270. - Текст: непосредственный.
27. Park, Myung-Kwan. 2019. "Specificational Pseudoclefts in Korean: Focusing on Expletive Properties of their Cleft Clauses," Language and Information Society 38. - Текст: непосредственный.
28. Park, So-Young & Kim, Suk-Jin. 2019. '-kinun' kuliko '-kesun' pwunyelmwunkwa hankwukeuy oykwakkwuco (-kinun versus -kesun clefts and the Korean Left Periphery). Studies in Generative Grammar 29-2: 235-258. - Текст: непосредственный.
29. Partee, Barbara Hall. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, ed. by Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & M. J. B. Stokhof, 115-143. Dordrecht: Foris - Текст: непосредственный.
30. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner. 2011. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning: Volume 2, 1805-1829. Berlin: De Gruyter. - Текст: непосредственный.
31. Sohn, Keun-Won. 2000. Operator movement and cleft constructions. Presented at the International Workshop on Generative Grammar. Seoul, Korea. - Текст: непосредственный.
32. Vries de, Mark. 2001. Patterns of relative clauses. Linguistics in the Netherlands. - Текст: непосредственный.
33. Vries de, Mark. 2002. The syntax of relativization. Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Amsterdam. - Текст: непосредственный.
34. Wee, Hae-Kyung. 2016. Meta-linguistic Interpretation of the Subject of kes-cleft Construction (in Korean). Language and Information 20, 111-125. - Текст: непосредственный.
35. Yeom, Jae Il. 2014. So-Called Cleft Constructions in Korean and Some Meanings of "Kes". Language and Information 18, 103-122. - Текст: непосредственный.
36. Yoon, Hang-Jin. 2008. The structure of kes-clefts and the syntactic status of kes in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 18, 459-475. - Текст: непосредственный.
37. Yoon, Jeong-Me. 2001. Syntactic Cyclic movement, Feature percolation, and a Typological Approach to Cross-linguistic Variation in Pied-piping. Studies in Generative Grammar 11, 167-215. - Текст: непосредственный.
References
1. Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the Low IP Area. In L. Rizzi, ed., The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2: 16-51. Oxford University Press. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
2. Boskovic, Zeljko. 1998. LF movement and the Minimalist Program. NELS 28. ed. P. Tamaji & K. Kusumoto, 43-57. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
3. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1-52. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
4. Grimshaw, Jane. Armin Mester. 1988. "Light Verbs and Theta-Marking" / Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester // Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 19, No. 2, 205-232. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
5. Haegeman, Liliane. 2015. Be careful how you use the left periphery. / Haegeman, Liliane & Terje Lohndal // In Structures, strategies and beyond, eds. Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini, 135-161. John Benjamins Publishing Co. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
6. Heycock, Caroline. 1994. "The internal structure of small clauses," Proceedings of NELS 25, Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, 223-238. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
7. Hong, Yong-Tcheol. 2021. In proceedings of new year's workshop hosted by KGGC. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
8. Irene Heim. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. / Irene Heim & Angelika Kratzer // Blackwell. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
9. Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil Achuthan. 2001. IP-internal TOPic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55: 3975. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
10. Jhang, Sea-Eun. 1994. Headed Nominalizations in Korean, Ph.D. dissertation, Simon. Fraser University, Canada. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
11. Jeonghee Byun. 2020. Two Types of KES in Korean Pseudo-Clefts. Studies in Modern Grammar 105, 39-60. -Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
12. Jo, Mi-Jeung. 2011. The Morphosyntax of Prenominal Relative Clauses in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 21-4: 563-585. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
13. Kang, Bo-sook. 2006. "Some peculiarities of Korean kes cleft constructions," Studia inguistica 60, 251-281. -Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
14. Kang, Jungmin. 2013. "Temporal Interpretation in the Absence of TP," Language and Information Society 20. -Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
15. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2016. "Copular constructions and asymmetries in the specificational pseudocleft constructions in Korean," Language and Linguistics 17, 89-112. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
16. Kim, Chongh-yuck. 2013. On the Korean Extrinsic Plural Marker. Studies in Modern Grammar 71, 53-74. -Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
17. Kim, Kang-sup. 2013. In Proceedings of the 8th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar: Universals and Parameters, ed. by Iljae Lee, 189-208. Seoul: Hankuk. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
18. Kim, Kwang-sup. 2015. Why does Head Movement Take Place? In Proceedings of 17 SICOGG: 192-208. -Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
19. Kim, Kang-sup. 2020. In Proceedings of2020 KGGC/LRC (HUFS) joint conference. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
20. Kim, Kyumin and Paul Bass Melchin. 2018. Modifying plurals, classifiers, and co-occurrence: The case of Korean. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3.1: 25. 1-29. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
21. Kim, Sun-Woong. 2013. A Note against Feature Percolation. Studies in Modern Grammar 72, 1-15. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
22. Koh, Tae-Jin, and Kim, Yong-Jeong. 2019. A Critical Study on Light Verbs in Hindi and Korean: Focusing on 'Noun+Verb' and 'Verb+Verb'. Institute of Indian Studies. 25(3): 1-19. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
23. Lee, Ik-Sop and Yim. Hong-Bin. 1983. Kuggo mwunpepron, Seoul, Hakyeonsa. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
24. Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication, and Equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
25. Mikkelsen, Line. 2011. Copular Clauses. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
26. Park, Myung-Kwan & Kim, Hyosik. 2016. [Human] (Mis)match in Korean Pseudocleft Constructions. The Journal of Studies in Language 32.2, 249-270. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
27. Park, Myung-Kwan. 2019. "Specificational Pseudoclefts in Korean: Focusing on Expletive Properties of their Cleft Clauses," Language and Information Society 38. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
28. Park, So-Young & Kim, Suk-Jin. 2019. '-kinun' kuliko '-kesun' pwunyelmwunkwa hankwukeuy oykwakkwuco (-kinun versus -kesun clefts and the Korean Left Periphery). Studies in Generative Grammar 29-2: 235-258. - Tekst: neposredstvennyj.
