Earticle

The principal aims of this thesis are (i) to provide an analysis of direct perception complements within Chomsky’s(1995) minimalist framework, (ii) to provide an answer for the old puzzle of why these verbs appear to select for different infinitival complements in their active and passive forms within Chomsky’s(2000, 2001) Agree framework. Section 2 and 3 deal with the meaning and syntactic structure of perception verb complements, respectively. Perception verbs followed by bare infinitval complements denote the immediate sensory perception of an event or situation. When combined with a fully infinitival complement, on the other hand, perception verbs take on an epistemic reading, giving rise to what we have called an indirect perception interpretation. In section 4, some assumptions are made in order to analyze the syntactic structure of perception verb complements. We suppose that the eventive reading in the case of a bare infinitive is associated with TP, whereas the epistemic reading with a to-infinitive is associated with CP. Also, the infinitival marker to in the passive form is analyzed as a dummy Case-marker used as a last resort strategy to license the infinitival projection. We propose, in section 5, that the unavailability of perceptual reports in the passive can be derived from the familiar assumption that the argument structure of -en participle is impoverished, and the Case- checking theory.

Chomsky suggests Agree in a long distance or in situ, abandoning feature movement. In contrast, Lasnik supports for feature movement over Agree. Among these two, I show that feature movement is problematic, conclusively arguing for Agree. Addressing the question of why movement takes place anyway, given Agree for feature checking, I propose that -interpretable features of goals (probes at the same time) and the c-command requirement of goals by probes for Agree trigger movement.

The purpose of this study is to reveal the syntactic nature of the components of English focus constructions. The focus constructions are characterized in the spec-head configuration between an operator carrying the focus feature and the head with the matching feature of the functional projections in CP domain. From the same theoretic standpoints, the syntactic mechanism of the cleft-based focus operation is characterized to reveal how the cleft-based structure generates the focus functions. In the cleft-based focus constructions, the syntactic roles of the complementizer type nominal that are closely related to the configuration of spec-head of FocP. The complementizer type that is somewhat distinctive from the wh-pronominal such as who, due to the subject-completement asymmetrical nature of the movement operation. The copula is treated as a spell-out of a functional category of predication (Pr) resulted from the predication percolation. It becomes the condition under which the [EPP] feature carried by the head of PrP triggers occurrence of the expletive it.

This study attempts to reanalyze the Movement Theory of Control in terms of the Ɵ-role feature checking. Adapting Boeckx et al.’s(2010) idea that it is the Ɵ-role feature of the matrix verb that triggers the argument movement in the obligatory control structure, this study argues that the main reason for the movement is the Ɵ-role feature checking between the verb and its argument. It posits the conceptual structure in which all the Ɵ-roles are assigned to the individual concepts which are eventually realized as the verbs and their arguments. The result of the Ɵ-role assignment in the conceptual structure is that all the verbs and the arguments have the appropriate Ɵ-role features which guarantee the proper Merge and movement in the computation. In consequence, it becomes possible that the movement of the subject from the embedded spec-TP in promise structure to the matrix spec-TP without the violation of the MDP. As for the problematic examples of the original MTC, it has been shown that most of them are nicely explained under the modified idea of the Ɵ-role feature checking.

In an English multiple Wh-construction with two wh-words, only a higher-located wh-word in a sentence structure is allowed to pre-pose to the Spec of CP, which has been known as a Superiority Effect(SE). Contrary to English, Korean and Japanese have been known not to respect SE, and this phenomenon has been called an Anti-Superiority Effect(ASE). Recent studies including Takita et al(2007) and Harada(2015) among others, however, have suggested exceptional cases to ASE in Japanese, and attempted to explain them through a feature checking mechanism within the Minimalist Program(MP) by Chomsky (1995, 1998). Such explanations of MP, which are based on the abstract feature checking system, have recently been considered just as a kind of technicalia and should be backed up with further empirical evidence. In this paper, I show that there are also exceptions to ASE in Korean, and the exceptional cases to ASE both in Korean and Japanese can be well explainable based on the empirical evidence of Korean/Japanese morpho-syntax.

The purpose of this paper is to account for the binding properties of English reflexives in DPs under the feature checking approach in Chomsky's (1995b) minimalist framework. We assume that a reflexive has a deficient referent feature (i.e., [DR]) to be checked, and the ø-features of a reflexive have to be compatible with those of the antecedent. On the basis of this definition of the reflexive, we propose that the functional category D attracts [DR] feature of a reflexive in DP if D c-commands the reflexive. In this attracted position, the [DR] feature may enter into a checking relation with a sublabel of D, namely, the affixal [R] feature. Given this assumption, we can provide an explanation why LF reflexive in DP attraction is forced and an independent condition for reflexives can be removed from the Binding Theory.

The aim of this paper is to examine how Case-feature checking takes place in infinitival constructions under Chomsky's(1993,1995) Checking Theory of the Minimalist Program, In spite of its advantages mentioned and accusative Case assignment, the duplicate Case assignment and Exceptional Case marking. The Case-feature checking of an objective subject of the infinitival complement clause taken by ECM verb like 'believe' and 'expect' was made possible by Chomsky's(l991,1993) AgrOP Analysis under Pollock's(1989) SIH. But the solutions to the problems of Case Theory provided by Comskys's AgrOP Analysis becomes meaningless if AGR as a functional category which triggers Attract/Move-F is excluded from Grammar. As a matter of fact, Chomsky(1995) got rid of AGR as a functional category because of its irrelevance to Lf and PF. IF this is the case, the syntactic description of the nominative Case-checking in infinitival structures should be made in the following directions. First, the lexical properties of verbs must be fully explored. Second, the scope of syntactic analysis must be extended from sentence to discourse, because the reference relations of PRO have something to do with contexts. Lastly, the syntactic properities of TP must be explored, together with those of infinitive particle 'to'.

This paper discusses how a feature-checking theory of movement (Chomsky 2000, 2001) along with the feature inheritance hypothesis (Chomsky 2008) fails, and proposes and motivates a non-feature-checking theory of movement --- a non-deterministic theory of movement. The feature inheritance hypothesis has been the last major support for a feature-checking theory of movement. It will be shown, however, that given the motivation of the general theory of merge (Chomsky 2008), the feature inheritance hypothesis cannot be motivated; hence, a feature-checking theory of movement along with the feature inheritance hypothesis cannot be maintained.

This paper claims that the construction of passive structures may rely on pragmatic factors, such as subject choice, thematicity, and the speaker’s Empathy. English and Korean passive constructions will be discussed with regard to these factors, and the possibilities of embracing the pragmatic factors into the syntactic configuration will also be considered. Chomsky (1981), Merchant (2007), Bo?kovi? (2007), and Borer (2005) will be discussed, especially in pursuit of assessing the impact of pragmatic factors upon the syntactic realization of feature checking. Data discussed in this paper are mostly from Kim (1984, 1988, 1995). Various non-syntactic factors, closely interacting with syntax, may give explanation for the acceptability status of sentences. Among these, we will be arguing that the selection of the subject NP and the speaker’s Empathy are crucial in the decision of making the passive construction. According to Kuno (1975, 2004), Empathy is the speaker’s identification, which may vary in degree, with a person/thing that participates in the event or state that he/she describes in a sentence. We claim that the pragmatic factors are specified under C of CP, and the relevant NP of IP. Both features of CP and IP need be checked to be realized as grammatical information and be completed in the formation of passives

Ha-SeokKim, Ji-SookThe purpose of this paper is to account for the binding properties of English reflexives in DPs under the feature checking approach in Chomsky's (1995b) minimalist framework. We assume that a reflexive has a deficient referent feature (i.e., [DR]) to be checked, and the ø-features of a reflexive have to be compatible with those of the antecedent. On the basis of this definition of the reflexive, we propose that the functional category D attracts [DR] feature of a reflexive in DP if D c-commands the reflexive. In this attracted position, the [DR] feature may enter into a checking relation with a sublabel of D, namely, the affixal [R] feature. Given this assumption, we can provide an explanation why LF reflexive in DP attraction is forced and an independent condition for reflexives can be removed from the Binding Theory. <Kunsan National University, Ewha Womans University>

This paper suggests that wh-arguments such as 'who' and 'what' are DP-arguments, whereas a wh-adjunct 'why' is an NP-adverbial (introduced by a null preposition). Under this proposal, it will be claimed that wh-arguments can check the u[Wh] within the DP without movement due to the presence of the head D bearing the [Q], whereas a wh-adjunct 'why' must move to check its u[Wh] due to lack of the D. This claim will be illustrated by the asymmetry arising between wh-arguments and wh-adjunct 'why' in the Islands in Korean/Japanese, supporting that the Phase Impenetrability Condition constrains covert wh-movement as well as overt wh-movement.

This paper aims at exploring the processing mechanism of filler-gap dependency resolution and feature checking in Korean wh-constructions. Based on their findings on Japanese sentence processing, Aoshima et al. (2004) have argued that the parser posits a gap in the embedded clause in head-final languages, unlike in head-initial languages, where the parser posits a gap in the matrix clause. In order to verify their findings in the Korean context, and to further explore the mechanisms involved in processing Korean wh-constructions, the present study replicated the study done by Aoshima et al., with some modifications of problematic areas in their original design. Sixty-four Korean native speakers were presented Korean sentences containing a wh-phrase in four conditions, with word order and complementizer type as the two main factors. The participants read sentences segment-by-segment, and the reading times at each segment were measured. The reading time analysis showed that there was no such slowdown at the embedded verb in the scrambled conditions as observed in Aoshima et al. Instead, there was a clear indication of the wh-feature checking process in terms of a major slowdown at the relevant region.