All Issue

2019 Vol.35, Issue 2 Preview Page
August 2019. pp. 259-274
The main goal of this paper is to provide a formal account of Korean before and after clauses with special attention paid to their morphological selection. Being apart from temporal morphology, the current analysis of Korean before and after clauses can shed new light on the discussions of selectional requirements of before and after clauses. In particular, I will show that before and after in Korean exhibit the schism based on the presence of Earliest operator of the type ,t> only in after clauses. The current paper also presents various language-specific tests, including the distribution of mod-insertion rule (cf. Kitagawa and Ross 1982, An 2014 among others). It will be shown that the complement of {Earliest, After} has to be relativized to provide a correct syntactic/semantic composition in after clauses. In contrast to Korean after, Korean before does not involve such pronominal element; therefore, it does not require the relativization of the embedded clause.
  1. An, dukho. 2014. Genitive Case in Korean and Its Implications for Noun Phrase Structure. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23, 361-392. 10.1007/s10831-014-9123-9
  2. Arregui, Ana and Kiyomi Kusumoto. 1998. Tense in Temporal Adjunct Clause. In Proceedings of SALT, 8. CLC Publications. 10.3765/salt.v8i0.2814
  3. Beaver, David and Cleo Condoravdi. 2003. ‘A Uniform Analysis of Bbefore and After’. In R. Young & Y. Zhou (eds.), In Proceedings of SALT XIII. CLC Publications. 37-54. 10.3765/salt.v0i0.2899
  4. Geis, Michael. 1970. Adverbial Subordinate Clauses in English. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
  5. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2009. The Dependency of the Subjunctive Rrevisited: Temporal Semantics and Polarity. Lingua 119. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.007
  6. Grønn, Atle and Armin von Stechow. 2010. Complement Tense in Contrast: the SOT Parameter in Russian and English’. Oslo Studies in Languages 2, 109-153.
  7. Grønn, Atle and Armin von Stechow. 2011. ‘Future vs. Present in Russian and English Adjunct Clauses’. Scando-Slavica 57, 245-67. 10.1080/00806765.2011.631783
  8. Heim, Irene. 1994. Comments on Abusch’s Theory of Tense. In H Kamp (ed.), Ellipsis, Tense and Question. DYANA Deliverable R2.2B. 143-170.
  9. Heim, Irene. 1997. Tense in Compositional Semantics. MIT Lecture Notes.
  10. Kitagawa, Chisato and Claudia Ross. 1982. Prenominal Modification in Chinese and Japanese. Linguistic Analaysis 9, 19-53.
  11. Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More Structural Analogies between Pronouns and Tenses. In the proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII. CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 10.3765/salt.v8i0.2808
  12. Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1989. Temporal Reference in English and Japanese. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
  13. Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1995. The Semantics of Tense in Embedded Clause. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 663-679.
  14. Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1996. Tense, Attitude, and Scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978-94-015-8609-2
  15. Ogihara, Toshiyuki and Yael Sharvit. 2012. Embedded Tenses. In R. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York. 638-668. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0022
  16. Partee, Babara. 1973. ‘Some Structural Analogies between Tense and Pronouns in English.’ The Journal of Philosophy 70, 601-609. 10.2307/2025024
  17. Partee, Babara. 1984. Nominal and Temporal Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 246-286. 10.1007/BF00627707
  18. Penka, Doris and Armin von Stechow. 2008. Phrasal Complements of before and after. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, ed. by O. Bonami and P. Cabredo Hofherr. 435-451.
  19. Prior, Arthur. 1967. Past, Present and Future. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198243113.001.0001
  20. Sharvit, Yael. 2013. On the Universal Principles of Tense Embedding: The Lesson from Before. Journal of Semantics 31.2, 1-51. 10.1093/jos/ffs024
  21. Von Stechow, Armin. 2009. Tenses in Compositional Semantics. In W Klein and P Li (eds.), The Expression of Time. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. 129-166.
  22. Yoon James Hye Suk and Wooseung Lee. 2005. Conjunction Reduction and Its Consequences for Noun Phrase Morphosyntax in Korean. Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.
  • 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 :2
  • Pages :259-274