All Issue

2019 Vol.35, Issue 3 Preview Page

Research Article

30 November 2019. pp. 401-413
Abstract
The current study aims at providing an account for the licensing of negative polarity items in the so-called INP (inherently negative predicate) contexts. Sohn (1995) claims, following Progovac (1988) and Laka (1990), that there is a negative complementizer or operator in Korean just as in English, Spanish, and Basque and this negative complementizer, selected by an INP, can license an NPI within the embedded clause. Chung (2006) reports that not just an NPI within the embedded clause, but an NPI appearing as a matrix subject can be licensed in the INP context. After showing that this is not explained by Sohn (1995), Chung proposes an alternative analysis – the complex predicate analysis. However, there are also some nontrivial problems in Chung’s analysis as well, and a new analysis is proposed, which can account for the new sets of data as well as old ones. It will be shown that a slightly revised version of Sohn’s negative operator analysis (a new NOA) can advance our understanding of the NPI licensing in the INP contexts.
References
  1. Choe, H.-S. 1988. Restructuring parameters and complex predicates; A transformational approach, PhD dissertation, MIT.
  2. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass.
  3. Chomsky, N. 1998. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework, MITWPL 15.
  4. Chomsky, N. 1999. Derivation by phase, MITWPL 18.
  5. Chomsky, N. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy, in M. Kenstowicz ed. Ken Hale: A life in language, pp 1-52. Mass. MIT Press.
  6. Chung, D.-H. 1993. Negative Polarity Items in Korean, ms, USC.
  7. Chung, D.-H. 2006. Polarity licensing by inherently negative prediates: A Unified approach, Studies in Generative Grammar 16.2, 211-229
  8. Horn, L. R. 2000. Pick a theory, not just any theory. in L. R. Horn & Y. Kato (eds.) Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives. Oxford University Press.
  9. Ladusaw, W. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations, PhD dissertation, Univ. of Iowa
  10. Laka, M. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections, PhD dissertation, MIT.
  11. Landau, I. 2002. (Un)Interpretable Neg in Comp, Linguistic Inquiry 33.3, 465-492. 10.1162/002438902760168572
  12. Lee, C. 1996. Negative polarity items in English and Korean. In Jaszczolt, Katarzyna and Ken Turner (eds.), Contrastive Semantics and Pragmatics. Volume I: Meanings and Representations, 505-524. 10.1016/0388-0001(96)00032-0
  13. Linebarger, M. 1980. The grammar of negative polarity, PhD dissertation, MIT.
  14. Linebarger, M. 1987. Negative polarity and grammatical representation, Linguistics and Philosophy 10. 325-87. 10.1007/BF00584131
  15. Nam, S. 1998. Hankuke pwucengkeukeuy ywuhyeng-kwa ku hekacoken (The types and licensing conditions for Korean NPIs), Enehak 22, 217-243.
  16. Progovac, L. 1988. A Binding approach to polarity sensitivity, PhD dissertation, USC.
  17. Shi, J.-K. 1997. The licensing condition of negative polarity items in Korean, Korean Journal of Linguistics 22.3, 471-497.
  18. Sohn, K.-W. 1995. Negative polarity items, scope, and economy, PhD dissertation, UConn.
  19. Sohn, K -W. 2004. On the types of NPIs in Korean, Journal of Studies in Language 19.3, 450-468.
  20. Suh, J.-H. 1990. Scope phenomena and aspects of Korean syntax, PhD dissertation, USC.
  21. Uribe-Extevarria, M. 1994. Interface licensing conditions on negative polarity items: A theory of polarity and tense interaction, PhD dissertation, UConn.
Information
  • Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
  • Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
  • Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
  • Volume : 35
  • No :3
  • Pages :401-413