Earticle

We will provide a clausal predicate analysis of Multiple Nominative Constructions (MNCs) in Korean, under the spirit of phrase structure grammar approaches. MNCs in Korean have two interesting characteristics: there is no limit on the number of nominative NPs in the construction, and the nominative NPs in MNCs are not directly related to each other. The purpose of this paper is twofold. Firstly, we will provide new syntactic mechanisms that capture the two characteristics above. In doing so, we will compare MNCs with multiple accusative constructions (MACs) in order to better understand their syntactic and semantic characteristics. Secondly, regarding the grammatical function of the nominative NPs of MNCs, we will show that the initial NP does not have a special status, e.g., as a "Large/Major Subject." It will be proven to be a regular subject of the clausal predicate on its right, just as each of the other NPs are the subject of the (clausal) predicate on its right.

Both floating numeral quantifier constructions and inalienable possession constructions have attracted much attention in the literature for a long time. Interestingly, there have been the same two major syntactic approaches to both the constructions. One is what is called the adverbial analysis and the other is what we call the stranding analysis. This is because the two constructions have some similar syntactic and semantic properties in common. In this paper, we investigate the similarities and differences between the two constructions and attempt to provide a unified approach to the two constructions under the stranding analysis, along with Predicate Licensing Condition.

Korean allows only inalienable possessor to be marked with accusative case. This phenomenon raises a crucial question abou서 the relation betwen possession type and case licensing type. Although Ogawa (2001) captures the interesting correlation between possession type and the distribution of secondary predicates, it has several problems. In this paper, I critically review Ogawa (2001) and propose an analysis of inalienable possession constructions. My proposals are as follows: (i) Availability of multiple accusative case marking in inalienable possession constructions follows from their status as ECM constructions; (ii) EC< structures of this kind require individual-level properties and relations in the complement; (iii) inalienable possession is an individual-level predicate whereas alienable possession is a stage-level predicate.

The subject honorification marker si-marked predicate must have an honorific subject in Spec-TP in order for the unchecked feature of the subject honorification marker si on T to be discharged in the Spec-head relation with the honorific subject. EPP raises the grammatical subject to Spec-TP, whereas the major subject (i.e., nominative possessor in multiple nominative constructions (MNCs, hereafter)) undergoes focus movement to Spec-FocP over TP. The honorific feature of the subject honorification marker si is classified into two kinds: One is discharged for the genuine subject and the other is discharged for the major subject. The nominative/topic-marked major subjects occupy Spec-FocP/CP, respectively. If in the inalienable possession construction, not the grammatical subject, but the major subject is honorific, the unchecked honorification feature of the marker si on T should percolate up to Foc/C in order to discharge its feature in the Spec-head relation with the honorific major subject in Spec-FocP/CP. As a result, this induces major subject honorification, which is what is at stake in this paper.