The Dual Property of Anaphors

In this paper we argue that every anaphor has the dual property of a clitic and a quantifier and may in principle be subject to both clitic-climbing as a head at S-Structure or LF and quantifier-raising (QR) as an XP at LF. Clitic-climbing may involve feature-percolation as Kayne (1987) shows. Thus, if we assume that a naphors as clitics only adjoin to functional categories since anaphors belong to the functional category D and that agreement-sensitive anaphors like English himself, which contain the full set of phi-features, induce feature-percolation when they undergo clitic-climbing, whereas agreement-insensitive anaphors like Korean caki, which do not contain the full set of phi-features, do not, then we can account for the language universals on anaphora (1) and (2): (1) An anaphor is subject -oriented when its antecedent occurs outside of the minimal clause containing the anaphor. (2) An agreement -sensitive anaphor (like English himself) obeys the SSC whereas an agreement -insensitive anaphor (like Korean caki) does not. We can also account for the language universal (3) by our hypothesis of anaphoric clitic-climbing: (3) A reciprocal obeys the SSC (3) is due to the fact that a reciprocal is semantically agreement-sensitive whether it is morphologically agreement -sens iti ve or not, in that it requires its antecedent to be plural and in a dis tributive (or reciprocal) dependency relation. We also propose to account for variations in the SSC across languages in terms of possible parameterization of the agreement-sensitive element and/ or its feature-percolating capacity. By motivating the hypothesis that ever y anaphor is a quantifier and undergoes QR as an XP, we can account for the language universals on anaphora (4) and (5): (4) An ana ph or may disobey the NIC only when the language allows movement from the subject position of a tensed clause. (5) An ana ph or is non-subject-oriented just in case it can be adjoined to non-argument XP's under the assumption that it can undergo QR as a quantifier. For example, the English anaphor himself may not disobey the NIC whereas the Korean anaphor caki may, since English does not allow QR (or any movement) from the subject position of a tensed clause due to the ECP whereas Korean does

Inner and Outer Locatives in Korea

In Korean, inner and outer locatives are indicated by the postpositions e and esa respectively: (1) (a) na-ka chako -e nae cha-lil tu -nin -ta I SM garage IL my car OM keep PRES DEC 1 'I keep my car in the garage.' (b) na-ka chako -esa nre cha -lil ssis -nin -ta I SM garage OL my car OM wash PRES DEC! 'I wash my car in the garage.' The underlying structures for (la) and (lb) would appear something like (2a) and (2b) respectively

On Chomsky-Adjunction

In the transformational grammatical theory there have been proposed three types of adjunction operation: daughter-adjunction, sister-adjunct ion and Chomsky-adjunction. They can be illustrated as in (2a, b, c), the three possible different derived constituent structures for adjoining the element D to the left of the node B in the constituent structure

Remarks on Meaning-Preservingness of Transformations

Since Katz and Postal (1964), the meaning-preservingness condition of transformations has been recognized as one of the basic theoretical assumptions of the theory of generative-transformational grammar. l Katz and Postal (1964) have proposed this condition for the following reasons. First, it motivates better the postulation of grammatical transformations in generative grammar by allowing of the most generalized conception of transformation; i.e., the hypothesis that all transformations preserve meaning is the more generalized, therefore preferable, one than the hypothesis that all transformations affect meaning or the hypothesis that some transformations preserve meaning while others affect meaning. Second, it simplifies the semantic component by allowing semantic projection rules to apply only to underlying structures; in other words, if all transformations preserve meaning, semantic projection rules need not apply to derived or surface . structures. Third, all of the then proposed transformations can be motivated to comply with the meaning-preservingness condition. These motivations for the meaning-preservingness condition of transformations by Katz and Postal(1964) are not fully accepted by all generative grammarians now, but still considered as the general foundation for the discussion of the meaning-preservingness condition of transformations

Semantic Constraints Ⅰ : Causativization

McCawley (1968) posited the underlying structure (2) for (l). (I) John killed Harry. The major semantic motivation for positing (2) as the underlying structure of (l) is that it makes it possible to explicitly capture the paraphrase relations among (3a, b, c) and ( l). (3) a. John caused Harry to die. b. John caused Harry to become dead. c. John caused Harry to become not alive. In other words, by applying the optional rule of Predicate-Raising successively to (2) and subsequent lexicalization processes, we can derive (l) and (3a, b, c) from (2)

'Island Constraints' and Pro-Deletion Phenomena in Korean

It has been observed that Korean can disobey the 'island constraints' (cf. Ross 1967) in certain cases. For example, if we assume that the underlying or remote structure of (l) is something like (2) and that there is a rule for relative clause formation in Korean, then we see that in the derivation of 0 ) , the Complex NP Constraint, which is one of the island constraints, is apparently violated