Download Finite control in Korean - Iowa Research Online

University of Iowa
Iowa Research Online
Theses and Dissertations
Fall 2009
Finite control in Korean
Kum Young Lee
University of Iowa
Copyright 2009 Kum Young Lee
This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/394
Recommended Citation
Lee, Kum Young. "Finite control in Korean." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2009.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/394.
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd
Part of the Linguistics Commons
FINITE CONTROL IN KOREAN
by
Kum Young Lee
An Abstract
Of a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Linguistics in
the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
December 2009
Thesis Supervisor: Professor William D. Davies
1
ABSTRACT
This thesis explores finite control in Korean. An overview of the previous studies of
control shows that the mainstream literature on control has consistently argued that
referential dependence between an overt matrix argument and an embedded null subject is
characteristic of non-finite clauses which contain a PRO subject. Moreover, although some
evidence for finite control involving pro in several languages has been presented, a PRO
analysis of finite control has been firmly established in the literature.
This thesis, however, argues that the currently established approach to Obligatory
Control (OC), which is confined to PRO, cannot account for OC in Korean, and provides an
empirical and theoretical analysis of finite control containing a pro subject in Korean.
Although finite OC in Korean differs from non-finite OC in other languages in that the
former can allow an overt NP coreferential with a matrix argument in the null subject
position, finite OC in Korean displays the same properties of OC which are widely
employed as the criteria for defining OC in non-finite clauses.
This thesis adopts the formal approach to finiteness in which finiteness is defined as
an ability of licensing nominative subjects. However, reviewing the cross-linguistic data in
the literature reveals that the feature determining finiteness should not be restricted to just
Tense and Agreement, as the formal approaches have argued, and that languages may vary
in determining finiteness. It also explores the relevance of Mood and Modality as the
manifestation of finiteness in Korean. Based on this, this thesis argues for the CP status of
finite OC in Korean and a pro analysis of the null subject in the constructions.
2
Through an investigation of six complementation types that have or have not been
grouped under the types of control in the literature along with ninety matrix predicates
which are classified into nine different categories based on their semantic class, this thesis
further argues that OC in Korean cannot be explained by a solely syntax-based or
semantically-based theory. OC in Korean is mainly the result of multiple semantic factors,
but syntactic and pragmatic factors can also play a role in determining control.
Abstract Approved: _________________________________________________________
Thesis Supervisor
_________________________________________________________
Title and Department
_________________________________________________________
Date
FINITE CONTROL IN KOREAN
by
Kum Young Lee
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Linguistics in
the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
December 2009
Thesis Supervisor: Professor William D. Davies
Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
__________________________
PH.D. THESIS
____________
This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of
Kum Young Lee
has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the
Doctor of Philosophy degree in Linguistics at the December 2009 graduation.
Thesis Committee: ________________________________________
William D. Davies, Thesis Supervisor
________________________________________
Alice L. Davison
________________________________________
Stanley Dubinsky
________________________________________
Sarah Fagan
_________________________________________
Roumyana Slabakova
To my parents who gave me love and the Korean language.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As I look back on my years at the University of Iowa, I realize that I have had
many invaluable experiences both academically and personally. My genuine interest in
linguistics has blossomed under the tutelage of the professors and courses in the
graduate program of the linguistics department at the University of Iowa. First, from the
bottom of my heart I would like to thank William D. Davies, my academic and thesis
adviser. Throughout my MA and PhD courses, he has given clear and even elegant
lectures on Syntax. He is truly responsible for my growth as a syntactician and linguist.
Without his guidance and support I could not have completed this thesis. I will always
remember his steadfast work, and genuine care and understanding for his students.
I would also like to thank the other committee members of my thesis: Stanley
Dubinsky, Alice L. Davison, Roumyana Slavacoba, and Sarah Fagan. They read my
dissertation thoroughly, and gave much valuable input.
I am also tremendously thankful for all the professors who have broadened my
perspectives on linguistics: William D. Davies, Alice L. Davison, Roumyana Slavacoba,
Catherine Ringen, Jill Beckman, Elena Gavruseva, and Jerzy Rubach.
I owe a debt of gratitude to my professors at Chungnam National University in
Korea where I have spent my college and graduate school years. In particular, Professor
Han Young-Mok, Toh Soo-Hee, and Kim Cha-Kyun among many other professors have
provided great encouragement and support during my study in Iowa.
My gratitude further extends to my fellow students and friends both within and
without the University of Iowa. I would particularly like to thank to Marta Tryzna, Ivan
Ivanov, Tomomasa Sasa, Jay-Young Shim, John Njue and Ann DenUyl for their
iii
friendship and assistance with my arguments and ideas. I will always cherish their
friendship. My special thanks go to Ann DenUyl who has helped me in various ways
during my stay at Iowa. She was always there for me as a genuine friend and my thanks
to her is certainly more than I am able to express here.
My family and friends in Korea are certainly not without my thanks. They always
believed in me, cared for me endlessly, and have waited for me all these years. I am
truly blessed to have such devoted and supportive family and friends.
Most of all, I thank God for walking with me all these years at Iowa. Without Him,
none of this would have been possible and most certainly would not have been as
meaningful.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …..…………………………………………………… viii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION .…………………..………………………………………….. 1
1.1 General Goals of This Study.….………………….……………………….….. 1
1.2 Previous Studies on Control and the Main Issues of this Study ...…………… 4
1.2.1 Syntactic Theory of Control in Generative Grammar .……….………….. 4
1.2.1.1 Transformational Grammar and Government & Binding (GB)
Frame Work ……..………………...……………………………….... 4
1.2.1.2 Minimalist views of OC …………………….…………………..….. 10
1.2.1.2.1 The Case-theoretic Account …………….……………….……... 10
1.2.1.2.2 The Movement Theory of Control ..….……………..………….. 12
1.2.1.2.3 The Agree-based Account ....……….….………………………. 13
1.2.2 Syntactic/Semantic Analysis of Control in Non-Derivational Grammar .. 16
1.2.2.1 The Lexicalist Accounts ....………………………………………….. 16
1.2.2.1.1 Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) ....….….…………………... 16
1.2.2.1.2 Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) .….…………… 17
1.2.2.2 Semantic Accounts of Control ....……………………………………. 19
1.2.3 Finite Control …………………………………………………………… 21
1.3 Methodology and Data Sources …………………………………………….. 27
1.4 Structure of This Study ….…..……………………………………………… 28
2. FINITENESS AS A NOMINATIVE SUBJECT LICENSING AND MOOD
AND MODALITY AS FINITENESS ...……………….………….……….….. 30
2.1 Finiteness as Nominative Subject Licensing .…………….………................ 31
2.1.1 Finiteness and Subject Licensing in Generative Grammar ...…….…….. 31
2.1.2 Language Variation in Nominative Subject Licensing ..…….…………. 39
2.1.2.1 Tense or Agr as a Nominative Case Assigner ……………………… 39
2.1.2.2 Mood, Modality, or Aspect as a Nominative Case Assigner ….……. 49
2.2 Mood and Modality as Finiteness in Korean .….……….…….…………….. 58
2.2.1 Defectiveness of Tense and Agr in Nominative Case Assignment …….. 59
2.2.2 Mood and Modality on Verbs and Complementizers and Their
Projections ...…………………………………………………………… 69
3. FINITE CONTROL AND SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTATION IN
KOREAN .....…..……………………………………………………………….. 85
v
3.1 Classification and Properties of Obligatory Control …………..…………… 86
3.2 Finite Control as OC in Korean ..………………………………..………….. 91
3.2.1 Finiteness of Control Complement Clauses …………………………….. 92
3.2.2 OC Properties of Structures ……………………………………………. 108
3.3 Types of Sentential Complements and Finite Control …….…….………… 115
3.3.1 Nominalization and Control ….…………….……………….................. 118
3.3.2 Adnominalization and Control …..…………………………………….. 123
3.3.3 Interrogative Complements and Control .……………………………… 130
3.3.4 Quotative Complements and Control .…………………………………. 134
3.3.5 Intentive Complements and Control ......…………….….……………… 138
3.3.6 Resultative Complements and Control .…...…………………………… 141
4. SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF CONTROL COMPLEMENTS IN KOREAN
……….………………………………………………………..……………… 151
4.1 The Structure of Finite Control Complements and pro in Korean ….……… 152
4.2 Syntactic Properties of the Null Subject in Finite Control ....……….……… 162
4.2.1 Case on a Controllee ...…………………………………………………. 162
4.2.1.1 Quantifier agreement …………………………………..….……..… 163
4.2.1.2 Honorific suffix agreement ...….…………………..………….…… 165
4.2.1.3 Occurrence of an Emphatic Subject Pronoun in Control
Constructions ..………………………………………………….…. 167
4.2.1.4 Availability of a Controllee Conjoined with a Lexical DP .……….. 168
4.2.2 Agree Features of Controlee …..………………………………………. 171
4.2.3 Pro Different From the LD reflexive Caki and a Pronoun .….………. . 175
4.2.3.1 Different Distributions of the LD reflexive Caki and Pro ..…..…… 176
4.2.3.2 Different References and Capability of LD Control ….…..…….…. 179
4.2.3.3 Sloppy vs. Strict reading and de re vs. de se interpretation. .…..….. 184
4.3 The Status of Serial Verb Constructions As Non-Finite Control ..……….… 189
4.3.1 Monoclausal Status of Serial Verb Constructions .………………….…. 190
4.3.1.1 Clausemate Condition on NPIs ..…………………………………… 193
4.3.1.2 Placement of Sentential Adverbs ....…….……………………….…. 198
4.3.1.3 Scope of Wh-Adverbs ..…..………………………………………… 203
4.3.2 VP Analysis of Serial Verb Constructions ….………………………….. 207
5. CONTROLLER CHOICE IN OBLIGATORY CONTROL IN KOREAN …… 226
5.1 Problems for Syntactic Analyses of Obligatory Control ……………………. 227
5.1.1 Locality and C-Command ...…………………………………………….. 227
5.1.2 Tense, and Agreement …………………………………………………... 232
vi
5.2 Roles of Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics in Controller Choice …………. 244
5.2.1 Roles of Matrix Predicates and Complementizers ……………………… 245
5.2.1.1 Predicates and Complementizers Inducing Inherent Control ...…….. 246
5.2.1.2 Control-neutral Predicates ......……………………………………… 253
5.2.1.3 Combination of a Predicate and a Complementizer ...…….…….….. 264
5.2.2 Control Effects of Mood and Modal Markers in -Ko complements ...….. 271
5.2.3 Control Effects of Syntactic and Semantic Properties of Embedded
Clauses and Pragmatics ….…..………………………………………….. 276
5.2.4 Control Shift………….………………………………………………….. 282
6. CONCLUSION ….…………………………………………………………….... 291
REFERENCES ….….……………………………………………………………… 296
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACC
ADV
ADN
AH
AOR
ASP
C/COMP
CONJ
COP
DAT
DET
DC
DR
ERG
EXH/PROP
FS
FUT
HON
HUM
IMP
IND
INF
GEN
LOC
M
MP
MS
NEG
NOM
NOML
OBL
PASS
PERF
PL
PROG
PROM
PRS
PRT
PST
Q
RET
SH
S/SG
Accusative Case
Adverb
Adnominalizer
Addressee Honorific
Aorist
Aspect
Complementizer
Conjecture
Copular
Dative Case
Determiner
Declarative
Direction
Ergative Case
Exhortative/Proposative
Feminine Singular
Future
Honorific
Humble
Imperative
Indicative
Infinitive
Genitive Case
Locative Case
Masculine
Masculine Plural
Masculine Singular
Negative
Nominative Case
Nominalizer
Oblique Case
Passive
Perfect
Plural
Progressive
Promissive
Present
Particle
Past
Question
Retrospective
Speaker Honorific
Singular
viii
SUBJ
TOP
VOL
Subjunctive
Topic
Volitional
ix
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. General Goals of This Study
Over the past 40 years, much attention has been paid to control constructions such
as (1) in linguistic research.
(1) a. Pati tried [eci/*j to study hard].
b. Pati persuaded Johnj [ec*i/j/*k to study hard].
Although there is no overt subject in the embedded clauses in (1), intuitively, we know
that the embedded subjects in (1a) and (1b) refer to the matrix dependent Pat and John,
respectively. That is, the matrix subject Pat in (1a) is also semantically the subject of
the embedded verb, while the matrix object John in (1b) is also semantically the subject
of the embedded verb. Within the generative paradigm, it is assumed that the embedded
clauses in (1) include an empty category ‘ec’, which has come to be referred to as
“PRO”, and the matrix arguments are said to “control” the reference of the PRO. That
is, “control” indicates the relation of co-reference between the null subject of to
infinitival complements and one of the matrix arguments. Thus, the former is called
subject control and the latter object control. The co-indexation of the null subject with
other than one of the matrix arguments renders the sentence ungrammatical.
As will be discussed in detail in the next section, these constructions have long
been examined, touching on many different topics of the grammar, such as Binding
theory, Case theory, and Finiteness. Recently, in particular, control constructions have
2
been at the center of linguistic debates with respect to the nature of the empty category
in the constructions. That is, there have been attempts to integrate control and raising
constructions (Hornstein 1999, 2003; Boeckx & Hornstein 2007) within the Minimalist
Program, replacing PRO with an NP trace of A-movement, as represented in (2).
(2) [Johni [VP ti tried [TP ti [to [VP ti study hard]]]]].
Regardless of whether the null subject is PRO or trace, within the generative grammar,
the lack of an overt embedded subject in control constructions is generally attributed to
the lack of projections or features associated with finiteness that license the structural
nominative Case to the subject of a clause. That is, standard approaches to control have
focused on the correlation between non-finiteness and the nature of the null subject.
However, cross-linguistic research such as Landau (2004) has revealed that
control can also exist in a finite context, challenging the correlation between the null
subjects of non-finite constructions and the matrix arguments.
(3) Gil1 hivtiax
[še-ec1 yitna’heg
yafe]…
Hebrew
Gil promised that-ec will-behave.3SG.M well
‘Gil promised to behave…’
(Landau 2004)
Compared to the to infinitives in (1), the embedded clause in (3) is considered to be
finite in that it is inflected for Tense and Agreement, and thus can license nominative
Case on the null subject.
3
However, the empty category in (3), like those in (1), obligatorily refers to a matrix
argument (here, the matrix subject Gil), and no overt lexical NP coreferential with the
matrix subject can occur in the position. Thus, Landau argues that the empty category
must be PRO.
Korean also shows the existence of finite control, as follows.
(4) a. Johni-i Billj-eykey [ec i/*j/*k ttena-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
J-NOM B-DAT
leave-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-DC
‘Johni promised Bill that hei would leave.’
b. Johni-i Billj-eykey [kui/*j/*k/cakii/*j/*k-ka ttena-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
J-NOM B-DAT
he
/self-NOM
leave-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-DC
‘Johni promised Bill that hei/selfi would leave.’
The empty category in (4a) is obligatorily controlled by the matrix subject John and no
antecedent outside of the matrix clause is permitted. However, finite control in Korean
is very different from nonfinite control in (1) and finite control in (3) in that an overt NP
coreferential with one of the matrix arguments can occur in the null subject position. In
(4b), ku 'he' and caki 'self' stand in the same relationship to the matrix clause as does the
null subject in (4a); all are obligatorily coreferential with John, the matrix subject. This
suggests that finite control in Korean is not solely a property of a specific syntactic
category PRO.
This thesis provides an empirical account of finite control constructions in
Korean through an investigation of sentential complements and the correlation between
4
finiteness and control in Korean. In particular, this thesis mainly argues that the
currently established approach to Obligatory Control (OC), which is confined to PRO,
is insufficient to account for OC in Korean and that controlled complements in Korean
are finite clauses with null pronominal subjects. In addition, this thesis argues that OC
in Korean cannot be accounted for solely in a syntax-based or a semantically-based
theory, providing evidence that OC in Korean is derived from very complex factors. To
be more precise, it is determined primarily by multiple semantic factors and syntactic or
pragmatic factors to a lesser extent.
Compared to significant amounts of research on control in English, there are
comparatively few studies on control in Korean. Considering the fact that crosslinguistic research has revealed that languages vary in many ways and that not all
languages make use of the same syntactic structure to display the same linguistic
phenomenon, an attempt to explore control constructions in languages other than
English will provide not only a better account for the facts of control, but also better
insight to the nature of language. In particular, considering the very existence of finite
control in Korean, the investigation of syntactic and semantic properties of control
constructions in Korean will extend the notion of control to ‘finite control’ and shed
light on some current issues on control.
1.2. Previous Studies on Control and the Main Issues of this Study
In this section, I will review the previous studies of control, pointing out the
major issues throughout the history of the study of control, which are directly related to
the main issues of this study, and then briefly address the main issues in Korean OC
constructions that will be examined in this thesis.
5
1.2.1. Syntactic Theory of Control in Generative Grammar
1.2.1.1. Transformational Grammar and Government & Binding (GB)
framework
The first major generative analysis of control was Rosenbaum (1967), in which
sentences with control were derived through the application of a transformation referred
to as Equivalent Noun Phrase Deletion (Equi-NP Deletion). Equi NP Deletion is a
transformational rule that deletes the subject of subordinate clauses under identity with
the subject or object of the next higher clauses. Rosenbaum (1967) attempts to predict
controller choice in terms of his Minimal Distance Principle (MDP), which states that
the NP closest to the subject of the complement is its controller under the
transformation of Equi-NP Deletion. The MDP correctly predicts the controllers in (5).
(5) a. Pat tried to study hard.
b. I persuaded John to come.
Compared to (5a), in which the matrix subject Pat is the controller, the controller in
(5b) is the matrix object John, not the matrix subject I since the matrix object is the NP
closest to the subject of the complement. This object control is derived by the
application of Equi NP Deletion, as shown in (6).
(6) I persuaded [NP John [S [NP John] [VP come]]
↓
I persuaded [NP John [S for [NP John] [VP to come]]
↓
Base structure
Complementizer Placement
6
I persuaded [NP John [S for [VP to come]]
Equi NP Deletion 1
↓
I persuaded [NP John [S [VP to come]]
Complementizer Deletion
However, the MDP makes the wrong predication about the controller in the
sentence with the matrix verb promise. 2
(7) John promised Pat to leave.
In (7) the controller is John not Pat, although Pat is the NP closest to the subject of the
complement.
In the framework of Government & Binding (Chomsky 1981, 1986), Equi-NP
deletion is abandoned and the analysis of control phenomena is based on the empty
category PRO, which has no overt counterpart. PRO is different from the other empty
categories, namely pro, trace, and variable, in terms of the features that define it.
(8) PRO:
pro:
[+anaphoric, +pronominal]
[–anaphoric, +pronominal]
NP-trace: [+anaphoric, –pronominal]
variable:
[–anaphoric, –pronominal]
1
In Rosenbaum (1967), it was referred to ‘Identity Erasure Transformation’.
2
Rosenbaum (1967) treats subject control in promise as a lexical exception.
7
These empty categories are subject to the Binding Principles stated in (7).
(9) Binding Principle A: An anaphor must be bound in its governing category.
Binding Principle B: A pronominal must be free in its governing category.
Binding Principle C: An R-expression must be free.
However, PRO’s features give it an ambiguous property. As a pronominal it must be
free in its governing category, while as an anaphor it must be bound within its
governing category. Therefore, its reference cannot be determined on the basis of the
Binding Principles, as it must simultaneously obey two contradictory Principles A and
B. Chomsky (1981) proposes to resolve the contradiction by means of what came to be
known as the PRO Theorem: PRO must be ungoverned. The distribution of PRO in
ungoverned positions prevents PRO from bearing Case and from occurring in finite
clauses. Therefore, PRO is excluded from subject and object position in finite clauses.
That is, PRO is in complementary distribution with overt DPs, which must be Casemarked, as shown in (10).
(10) a. Bill thinks [Jane/*PRO is alone].
b. Bill thinks [John should meet Jane/*PRO].
PRO accounts for controlled subjects in a similar way as Equi-NP deletion does: there
are two different nominals at deep structure, each of which receives one different theta
role. Being exempt from the Binding Theory, the interpretation of PRO is handled by
8
Control Theory, which is a distinct module of the Grammar that is responsible for the
choice of controller in OC.
In contrast to Chomsky (1981), Bouchard (1984) assumes that PRO is either a
pronominal or anaphor. Locally controlled PROs are bound anaphors, and long-distance
controlled PROs and arbitrary PROs are pronominals. Thus, the theory of control does
not exist. According to Bouchard (1984:34), the notion of government 3 plays a crucial
role in binding and must be incorporated in the definition of binding as in (11).
(11) Binding: α binds β if and only if α governs β and α assigns its R-index to β.
The formulation of binding in (11) has immediate consequences for the relation
between an antecedent and an anaphor. That is, it forces the relation to have the four
basic properties of anaphors; the antecedent-anaphor relation is obligatory, unique,
local, and has structural conditions, such as c-command. Bouchard assumes that
anaphors are functionally defined as elements bound by an antecedent in the sense of
(11), and pronominals are elements freely indexed at surface structure. For example,
(12) a. John tried [S PRO to leave].
b. John knows [S' how [S PRO to behave himself/oneself]].
3
Government
In the structure [γ...β...α...β...],
α governs β if and only if
(i) α is an immediate constituent of γ
(ii) where ψ is a maximal projection, if ψ dominates β, then ψ dominates α. (where
maximal projections are NP, PP, AP,S'(-Vmax))
9
In (12a), S' deletion takes place since the position of COMP is empty. Thus, PRO is
governed by the subject of the higher clause and gets its R-index from the subject.
Therefore, PRO in (12a) is functionally determined to be an anaphor. However, if the
COMP is filled as in (12b), S' deletion is blocked and consequently, S' blocks
government by a Binder. Since PRO gets no R-index by a Binder, PRO is freely
indexed at S-structure. Therefore, the PRO has a pronominal interpretation.
In contrast to the analyses within GB framework above, Williams (1980) relates
control to the notion of predication, i.e. the relation between subject and predicate. In
this analysis, the structure of OC complements is [PRO VP] which is a case of S in
position of predication, as shown in (13).
(13) Johni promised Bill [S PRO [VP to leave]]i
The embedded clause in (13) is defined to be a complex predicate with PRO as the
“predicate variable” and the matrix subject NP is indexed with it, not with a PRO. The
coindexing of predicates and their antecedents derives Predicate Structure (PS) from
surface structure and PS is subject to the c-command restriction on indexing. 4 Williams
(1980) argues that the c-command requirement distinguishes Obligatory Control from
Non-Obligatory Control (NOC), and provides the properties of OC, as follows:
(14) a. Lexical NP cannot appear in the position of PRO.
b. The antecedent precedes the controlled PRO.
4
The C-Command Condition on Predication
If NP and X are coindexed, NP must c-command X or a variable bound to X.
(Williams 1980:205)
10
c. The antecedent c-commands the controlled PRO.
d. The antecedent is thematically or grammatically uniquely determined.
e. There must be an antecedent.
[PRO VP] in NOC is not in position of predication such as (15a) and thus, S is not
coindexed with an NP in PS and it is marked arb(itrary), as shown in (15b).
(15) a. [PRO to leave] is nice (for Bill).
b. [PRO to leave]arb is nice (for Bill).
Therefore, for Williams (1980) the notion of c-command plays a central role in
explaining why to infinitives exhibit OC in certain contexts and NOC in others. This
notion of c-command as well as MDP, in fact, becomes fundamental to syntactic
theories of control.
1.2.1.2. Minimalist views of OC
1.2.1.2.1. The Case-theoretic Account
To account for the problematic distribution of PRO within the GB framework,
Chomsky & Lasnik (1993) and Martin (1996) propose a Case-theoretic account of PRO
in which PRO is marked for a special type of Null Case, which is restricted to PRO and
is licensed by nonfinite INFL. However, Martin (2001) points out that Chomsky &
Lasnik (1993) have no account of Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) and raising cases
of infinitives, as shown in (16).
11
(16) a. *John believes [PRO to have solved the problem].
b. John believes [Mary to have solved the problem].
c. *John seems [PRO to leave].
d. John seems [t to leave].
If nonfinite INFL always assigns Null Case, the PRO should occur under an ECM and a
raising verb. However, as can be seen in (16a), PRO is not compatible with an ECM
verb and (16b) shows that an ECM verb has something other than Null Case that needs
to be checked against an NP. Also (16c) and (16d) show that Null Case will not work
for a raising verb. To solve this problem, Martin (2001) adopts Stowell’s (1982)
proposal in which control infinitives, in contrast to ECM and raising verb infinitives,
are specified for Tense, and proposes that control verbs select infinitival complements
headed by [+tense, –finite] INFL, while raising verbs select infinitival complements
headed by [–tense, –finite] INFL. Therefore, in Martin’s proposal, only a control
infinitival can check Null Case and a raising infinitival does not check Case.
However, Hornstein (1999) criticizes the Null Case theory as being stipulative –
Since PRO is the only lexical item able to check or bear the Null Case and only
nonfinite I can check or assign the Null Case, Null Case itself winds up being
definitional and not externally motivated. Moreover, there are empirical problems in the
Null Case theory in that there appear to be many instances of Case-marked PRO, as
addressed in Sigurðsson (1991), Landau (2003), and Cecchetto & Oniga (2004) among
others.
12
1.2.1.2.2. The Movement Theory of Control
The Movement theory of control (O’Neil 1995; Hornstein 1999, 2003; Boeckx &
Hornstein 2007) eliminates PRO by reducing OC to A-movement effects and PRO to an
NP-trace. In order to do this, Hornstein (1999, 2003) also dispenses with the Theta
Criterion stipulation that each argument bears only a single theta role, and analyzes
theta-roles as features that are provided by verbs and checked by DPs. In his analysis,
the embedded subject must move to the matrix subject position to be Case-licensed;
thus, control structures are basically the same as the standard raising structures. The
difference between control and raising is whether the landing site of NP-movement is to
a theta position or non-theta position. That is, in raising, the embedded subject checks
the theta feature of the embedded verb by initial Merge and then moves to the matrix
subject position, which is a non-theta-position, in order to check its Case. In control
structures, however, the embedded subject moves into a theta position to check its Case,
checking two theta features through the movement. These are illustrated in (17) and
(18).
(17) a. John seemed to leave soon.
θ
b. [TP John [T [VP (John) seem [TP (John) [to [VP (John) leave soon]]]]]].
NOM
(18) a. John tried to leave.
θ
θ
b. [TP John [T [VP (John) try [TP (John) [to [VP (John) leave]]]]]].
NOM
13
In short, the Movement analysis of control unifies control and raising as a single
syntactic phenomenon. However, it has been extensively criticized in the recent
literature (Culicover & Jackendoff 2001, Jackendoff & Culicover 2003, Landau 2003,
Kiss 2005), arguing for a control module separate from raising.
1.2.1.2.3. The Agree-based Account
In contrast to the Movement theory of control, Landau (1999, 2004) claims that
PRO does cross-linguistically exist in OC constructions and that raising and control are
substantially different. However, unlike the Null Case theory, Landau’s analysis does
not rely on Case to account for control. Instead, OC is analyzed as an instantiation of
the operation Agree (Chomsky 2000, 2001) holding between a matrix Probe and an
embedded anaphoric element. In Landau’s analysis, control verbs select a CP
complement with a distinct Co, which may carry both [Agr] and [T] features, and the Co
in turn selects an IP with distinct [T] features. The [T] feature on the head of IP can be
selected or free. Complements with free Tense will carry no [T] feature on their Co,
whereas selected Tense can be further divided into two types of Tense: i) anaphoric
Tense, which must be identical to the matrix Tense, and ii) dependent Tense, which is
dependent on the matrix Tense but does not need to be identical to it. Landau
(2004:839) proposes that the selection of the right type of tense on the embedded Io
must be mediated by matching of feature values of Co interfacing with the matrix verb,
as shown in (19).
(19) V.......[CP C[±T] [IP I[±T] VP]]
selection
checking
14
Landau (2004:839) assumes that the criterion for [+T] is semantic, not morphological:
A clause may be tensed without carrying any Tense morphology (e.g., Partial Control
infinitives) or untensed despite its Tense morphology (e.g., controlled subjunctives in
the Balkan languages). By contrast, the feature [Agr], which is a bundle of φ-features, is
purely morphological. Thus, [+Agr] is present iff there is Agreement morphology. This
means that the Io of infinitives is [–Agr], whereas the Io of subjunctives and indicatives
is [+Agr]. Co, on the other hand, can be specified as [+Agr] when it heads a clause with
dependent Tense. Following Reinhart and Reuland (1993) and Reuland and Reinhart
(1995), Landau (2004:841) also assumes that DPs capable of independent reference,
such as a lexical DP and pro, are endowed with the feature [+R], whereas anaphoric
DPs, such as PRO, are [–R]. That is, Landau suggests that PRO in OC is a null SEanaphor of sorts, lacking any inherent specification of φ-feature. In this analysis, [+R] is
assigned to Io and Co only when they are specified as [+Agr, +T], and any other
combination results in [–R]. Note that no [R] is assigned when there is no [T] or [Agr]
feature. In this analysis, derivations of Exhaustive Control (EC) infinitives and Partial
Control (PC) infinitives are illustrated in (20) below.
(20) a. [CP DP....F.. [CP Co[–T] [IP PRO[–R] [I’Io[–T, –Agr, –R] [VP tPRO..]]]]]
Agree
Agree[+Agr] Agree[–T]
Agree[–Agr, –R]
b. [CP DP....F.. [CP Co[+T, +Agr, +R] [IP PRO[–R] [I’ Io[+T, –Agr, –R] [VP tPRO..]]]]]
Agree[+Agr, +R] Agree[+Agr, +R]
Agree[+T, ±Agr]
Agree[–Agr, –R]
15
Landau argues that the complements in EC constructions, such as (20a), are untensed
and lack agreement. In (20a), the specification [–T] feature on the Io guarantees that the
[R] feature of Io is [–R], making the Agree relation between tPRO and Io possible. [–T] on
the Io then checks the Agree relation with Co. In addition, PRO specified as [–R]
establishes an Agree relation with the matrix F(unctional head) which in turn is in an
Agree relation with the matrix subject. On the other hand, since PC infinitives such as
(20b) bear dependent tense, both Io and Co bear [+T] and Co also bears [+Agr]. In the
derivation in (20b) PRO and the matrix F check off two opposing [R] values. To
eliminate its [+R] feature, Co enters a second Agree relation with the matrix head F,
which inherits [+R] from the DP argument. According to Landau (2004:848), the fact
that Co bears [+Agr] does not stop this feature from entering Agree with [–Agr] of Io
since [Agr] on both heads is semantically uninterpretable and phonologically null.
Therefore, the resulting chain of Agr-coindexation ensures that DP controls PRO.
In summary, since Rosenbaum (1967), transformational grammar has adopted a
sentential (or propositional) account of control. In GB (cf. Manzini 1983), the control
complement is CP with PRO, compared to a raising complement which contains an NP
trace in subject position. However, the Movement theory of control takes control
complements to be an IP and reduces PRO to a trace of a moved argument. This has
given rise to recent debates on the nature of the null subject in control complements.
Syntactic approaches to control generally focus on deriving the properties of OC vs.
NOC control constructions and do not explain the roles of predicates in determining
control, except as it concerns their argument structure, wherein the MDP is invoked.
16
1.2.2. Syntactic/Semantic Analysis of Control in Non-Derivational Grammar
1.2.2.1. The Lexicalist Accounts
1.2.2.1.1. Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG)
LFG (Bresnan 1982, 2001; Kaplan & Bresnan 1982; Mohanan 1983; Dalrymple
2001) has long made a distinction between functional control and anaphoric control. In
functional control, the controlled element is the SUBJ(ect) function of either
XCOMP(lement) or XADJ(unct). Since XCOMP and XADJ lack their overt SUBJ in
C(onstituent)-structure, the SUBJ of XCOMP and XADJ must be controlled by some
Grammatical Function (GF) which is referentially identical in order to satisfy the
completeness condition, which states that an F-structure must contain values for the GF
that is subcategorized by the predicate. The control relation is captured by the sharing of
the same F-structure by the controller and the controlled element.
Functional control constructions include not only controlled PRO constructions,
but also ECM and NP-movement constructions. Thus, the differences between (subject)
raising and control are assumed to be semantic in nature. That is, the structural
difference between rasing and control is the thematic structure of the matrix verb. In
this respect, LFG’s functional control is much like Hornstein’s Movement theory of
control. The structural difference between rasing and control is represented in the Fstructure equations in their lexical entries and in their semantics, such as (21).
(21) a. seem V (↑ PRED) = ‘seem <(↑ XCOMP)> (↑ SUBJ)’
(↑ SUBJ) = (↑ XCOMP SUBJ)
17
b. try V
(↑ PRED) = ‘try <(↑ SUBJ), (↑ SUBJ)>’
(↑ SUBJ) = (↑ XCOMP SUBJ)
The angle brackets of the PRED contain the thematic arguments. Unlike the raising verb
seem which does not select for a thematic subject and thus has the thematic subject
outside the brackets, the control verb try selects for a thematic subject and thus has the
thematic subject inside the brackets.
Aanaphoric control is different from functional control in that it does not involve
the sharing of F-structure and requires only identity of reference between controller and
controlee. In contrast to functional control, anaphoric control allows for cases where
there is no overt controller within the same sentence. That is, the controller of
anaphoric control need not be in a local argument position which corresponds to NOC
in syntactic accounts of control. Therefore, In LFG, anaphoric control is subject to
semantic (thematic) constraints, while functional control is stated in terms of a
hierarchy of grammatical functions (Sag & Pollard 1991:105). Farkas (1988) and Sag &
Pollard (1991) argue that Bresnon’s (1982) control theory fails to predict the
fundamental correlation between type of semantic relation and controller choice.
1.2.2.1.2. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG)
HPSG (Pollard & Sag 1987, 1991, 1994) proposes an integrated theory of the
syntax and semantics of complement control. Similar to other lexicalist frameworks,
such as LFG, control in HPSG (Pollard & Sag 1987, 1991, 1994) involves structure
sharing only of indices, which are parts of the syntactic elements involved in the control
relation (Asudeh 2005:466).
18
(22) a. Bill persuaded John to attend the meeting.
category
b. persuade:
...∣HEAD∣VFORM inf
ARG-ST <NP, NP[1], VP ...∣SUBJ <NP[1]>
>
As can be seen in (22b), in control constructions, there is structure sharing not of whole
arguments, but only of their INDEX values. That is, the VP[inf] has its own argument
SUBJ<NP[1]> which share the INDEX value ‘[1]’ with the argument of the verb
persuade. In this grammar, like LFG, OC constructions contain an infinitival VP in
which there is no structural position for a syntactic subject. Thus, the complements are
assumed to be syntactically non-sentential but semantically propositional.
However, unlike LFG, HPSG argues that the principles which identify the
controller argument must make reference not to grammatical functions, but to the
thematic roles which are assigned to the arguments of predicates in the semantic feature
structure (Grover 1995:49). Pollard & Sag (1994) proposes the classification of types of
relations in which all control predicates belong to one of these semantic classes, as
shown in (23).
(23)
relation
influence
persuade
appeal cause
commitment
promise
...
intend try ...
orientation
...
want
hate expect
...
19
In summary, LFG and HPSG have treated Obligatory Control in terms of structure
sharing, challenging the PRO analysis of Obligatory Control. In their proposals, the
syntactic structure of OC infinitives is a VP, lacking a Tense projection and resulting in
subjectless (i.e., PRO-less) infinitives. Also, it is worth pointing out that with the
exception of (23), the LFG/HPSG approaches are notational variants of Equi NP
Deletion.
1.2.2.2. Semantic Accounts of Control
Since Jackendoff (1972) first suggested that controller assignment is determined
by semantic (or thematic) roles rather than by purely syntactic factors (e.g. structural
configurations or grammatical relations), as has been frequently assumed (Sag &
Pollard 1991:64), there have been several different types of semantic accounts of
control in the literature: the predicational approach (Chierchia 1983, 1984; Dowty 1985;
and Culicover & Wilkins 1986), the thematic relation-based approach (Jackendoff 1972;
Nishigauchi 1984; and Culicover & Jackendoff 2006) and others.
Chierchia (1983, 1984), Dowty (1985), and Culicover & Wilkins (1986) base their
analysis of control relations on a theory of predication. They assume that controlled
complements are VPs and that these have the semantic type property rather than
proposition. In fact, the predicational approach to control has been proposed by
Williams(1980) within the GB framework. However, unlike Chierchia (1983, 1984),
Williams argues that the controlled complements are syntactically clauses, while they
are semantically property-like. Chierchia (1983, 1984) denies the relevance of syntactic
control and proposes that the control effect arises as a result of the entailment relation
that can be captured in terms of meaning postulates, such as the following:
20
(24) try’ (P) (x) →□j P (x)
cf. □j = a context dependent modal operator
(Chierchia 1984:34)
(24) states that whenever x tries to bring about P, then in all the contextually relevant
situations (namely those where what x tries actually succeeds) x does P.
On the other hand, Jackendoff (1972), Nishigauchi (1984), and Culicover &
Jackendoff (2006) predict the controller on the basis of thematic relations. In particular,
Culicover & Jackendoff (2006) argue that regardless of any locality, control can be
accounted for in terms of thematic roles. In their analysis, control is a semantic relation
between two arguments at Conceptual Structure (CS) that can be realized syntactically
through a non-finite construction (which lacks a subject), as in English, or through a
finite clause with an overt or an empty subject, as in languages such as Greek and
Hebrew (Culicover & Jackendoff 2006:135). For instance, the control phenomena in the
following examples can be accounted for in terms of the CS-binding relation meeting
thematic conditions.
(25) a. Robini intended to ileave.
b. Robini’s intention to ileave.
The predicate INTEND which is a two-place relation; one of whose arguments is an
animate entity, the intender, and the other is an action, selects actional complements.
The Actor of the action argument of INTEND is necessarily bound to the intender. Thus,
21
as a consequence of the inherent binding within the predicate INTEND, any verb that
contains this predicate as part of its meaning will have a control equation in which the
intender uniquely controls the actional complement (Culicover &Jackendoff 2006:140).
In summary, semantic accounts of control have argued that controller assignment
is determined by semantic roles rather than by purely syntactic factors, basically
capturing semantic properties of control predicates and their relation with the matrix
arguments. However, whether the structure of OC is bigger than VP or not is still a
matter of controversy.
1.2.3. Finite Control
Although the mainstream literature in control studies has consistently argued that
referential dependence between an overt matrix argument and an embedded null subject
is characteristic of infinitival or non-finite clauses, some evidence for finite control in
several languages has been presented, including Korean (Yang 1982, 1985; Borer 1989;
Gamerschlag 2007; Lee 2007; Madigan 2008), Spanish (Suñer 1984), Serbo-Croation
(Zec 1987), Persian (Hashemipour 1989; Ghomeshi 2001), Greek (Terzi 1992, 1997),
Japanese (Uchibori 2000), Balkan languages (Landau 2004), and Brazilian Portuguese
& Finnish (Modesto 2007). That is, it has been proposed that OC, where obligatory
coreference is established between an overt matrix argument and an embedded null
subject, can also obtain in finite clauses.
As for as Korean, Yang (1982, 1985) first noted that there are control phenomena
in finite contexts.
22
(26) a. Johni-i Billj-eykey [ec*i/j/*k ttena]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
J-NOM B-DAT
leave-C
persuade-PST-DC
‘John persuaded Bill to leave.’
b. Johni-i Billj-eykey [ec i/*j/*j ttena-keyss-ta]-ko malha-yess-ta.
J-NOM B-DAT
leave-VOL-DC-C say-PST-DC
‘John told Bill that he would leave.’
c. Johni-i Billj-eykey [kui/*j/*k/cakii/*j/*k-ka ttena-keyss-ta]-ko malha-yess-ta.
J-NOM B-DAT
he
/self-NOM
leave-VOL-DC-C say-PST-DC
‘John told Bill that he/SELF would go.’
Compared to (26a) which is often called nonfinite control in the literature, the examples
in (26b) and (26c) are considered to be finite control. Yang (1985) argues that even
overt lexical items can be locally controlled in Korean, as shown in (26c), where ku ‘he’
or caki ‘self’ is controlled by the matrix subject John, and that the locally controlled
empty category should be treated as pro rather than PRO. Yang claims that the local
control in Korean is entirely lexically determined. That is, according to him, the control
effect in (26a) is triggered by the semantics of the control predicate seltukhata
‘persuade’ and control effects in (26b, c) by the volitional modality of the embedded
clause keyss.
On the other hand, Borer (1989) argues that in the case of OC in Korean, the INFL
node in an infinitive clause which is [–tense, +Agr] is an anaphoric Agr. In other words,
control effects are manifested when the embedded Agr is anaphoric. According to her,
all empty categories are subject to the I-identification requirement which states that all
23
empty categories must be coindexed with an I-identifier, where I-identifier means a
member of a well-defined set of coindexed antecedents with a set of sufficiently rich
inflectional features (Borer 1989:71). Thus, the anaphoric Agr which cannot I-identify
pro must inherit features from its binding antecedent, resulting in Obligatory Control.
Finite control has been analyzed in a number of other languages, particularly
Balkan languages. Zec (1987) propose that controlled complements in Serbo-Croation
are finite clauses with null pronominal subjects.
(27) Petar je
P
pokušao da
Aux tried
dodje.
Comp come (Pres)
‘Petar tried to come.’
The controlled complement to the matrix verb pokušao has an overt complementizer,
and so is clearly a CP. Zec (1987) argues that there is demonstrably a null pronominal
subject in the embedded clause since it is fully inflected for tense and agreement
information and that the control relation is reducible to a highly constrained anaphoric
relation, specifically that of a bound anaphor and its antecedent.
However, the distribution of pro in finite control in Balkan languages has been
hotly debated. For example, Terzi (1997), Landau (2004, 2005), and Kapetangianni &
Seely (2007) among others argue that finite control in Balkan languages should be
analyzed as involving PRO, not pro. Terzi (1997) proposes a PRO analysis for finite
control in Greek and provides a licensing mechanism for PRO in finite contexts. She
argues that the defective Tense of subjunctives checks Null Case and licenses PRO in
24
the Balkan languages. However, for Landau (2004, 2005), ‘defective Tense’ does not
play a crucial role in control.
(28) a. Ion1 vrea
Ion
[ca
Dan/pro1/2 să rezolve problema].
wants that Dan/pro
PRT solve the-problem
‘Ion1 wants Dan/him2/PRO1 to solve the problem.’
b. Hem1 kivu
še-atem2/pro2
Romanian
telxu
(Landau 2005)
ha-bayta mukdam.
they hoped that-you (pl)/pro will-go.2PL home
Hebrew
early
‘They hoped that you (pl) would go home early.’
c. Gil1 hivtiax
[še- ec1 yitna’heg
yafe]…
Gil promised that-ec will-behave.3SG.M well
‘Gil promised to behave…’
Hebrew
(Landau 2004)
According to Landau, the subjunctive clauses in (28) carry dependent Tense [+T] (e.g.,
irrealis), but only (28c) licenses PRO, unlike the examples in (28a, b), which license a
lexical DP or pro. As can be seen in the coindexation in the English translation (28a, b),
when the null subject is pro, it is not controlled. That is, the pro in (28a, b) can refer to
the matrix subject or some other person. In contrast, when the null subject is PRO, as in
(28c), it is controlled by the matrix subject Gil. According to Landau, Hebrew allows
pro only for 1st and 2nd person and PRO only for a 3rd person null subject. To account
for this distributional difference, Landau (2004:846) proposes the following
mechanisms.
25
(29) a. [CP DP....F.. [CP Co[+T, +Agr, +R] [IP [I’ Io[+T, +Agr,+R] [VP DP/pro [ –R],1st/2nd..]]]]]
Agree
Agree[+T,+Agr,+R]
Agree[+Agr, +R]
b. [CP DP....F.. [CP Co[+T, +Agr, +R] [IP PRO[–R] [I’ Io[+T,+Agr,+R] [VP tPRO..]]]]]
Agree[+Agr, –R ]
Agree[+Agr] Agree[+T,+Agr,+R]
Agree[+Agr]
(29a) is the derivation of No control corresponding to (28b) and (29b) is the derivation
of OC corresponding to (28c). As can be seen in (28), PRO contrasts with pro in terms
of the specification of [R]. That is, the anaphoric nature of PRO is captured by the
specification of [-R], while lexical DP or pro are specified for [+R]. This featural
contrast is encoded in the position of Co and thus yields/cancels the control possibilities.
Similarly, Kapetangianni & Seely (2007) proposes that temporal independence
does not always correlate with Non-Obligatory Control, as shown in (30).
(30) hthes
o
Yanis
entharine
ti
Maria
na
yesterday the-NOM John-NOM encourage-3SG/PST the-ACC Mary-ACC NA
erthi
avrio
sta
genethlia
tu
come-3SG/PRS tomorrow to the-ACC birthday-ACC his
‘Yesterday, John encouraged Mary to come to his birthday party tomorrow.’
Kapetangianni & Seely (2007:139) propose that the na clause in Modern Greek in (20)
is temporally matrix-independent with [+Agr], but it is associated with necessary OC
with a PRO subject. Kapetangianni & Seely (2007) suggest that certain predicates select
phi-defective I which cannot check nominative Case, while others select phi-complete I
26
which can check nominative Case and that consequently, the former causes the OC
properties, while the latter causes NOC properties. However, there have been proposals
that controlled subjects in Modern Greek are not always PRO (cf. Philippaki-Warburton
& Catsimali 1999; Spyropoulos & Philippaki-Warburton 2001; Philippaki-Warburton
2004; and Spyropoulos 2007). These proposals in general capture the finite properties
of the complement clauses, such as nominative Case on the null subjects, as an
argument for pro and against the possibility of controlled PRO in this environment.
Modern Greek is not the only language for which controversial proposals regarding the
nature of the null subject in control complements have been made. The recent studies of
control in Korean (Gamerschlag 2007; Madigan 2008), unlike Yang (1982, 1985) and
Borer (1989), argue that the null subject in control complements is PRO.
As discussed above, the cross-linguistic research reveals that non-finiteness is not
a necessary requirement for OC and Obligatory Control can occur in a finite context.
Moreover, the review of the previous studies of control shows that the structural
property of the complement clauses and the syntactic nature of the null subject in finite
control are still controversial. This thesis provides an empirical account of finite control
in structures containing a pro subject in Korean through exploring the concept of
finiteness and the finite properties of control complements in Korean. As for control
complements, this thesis attempts to investigate a full range of complementation types
including serial verb constructions that have or have not been grouped under the types
of control in the literature. Furthermore, this thesis provides ample data indicating that
OC in Korean cannot be explained by a solely syntax-based or semantically-based
27
theory and that OC is mainly the result of multiple semantic factors, but syntactic or
pragmatic factors also play some roles in determining control.
1.3. Methodology and Data Sources
For the purpose of this thesis, a large amount of Korean data has been collected
from Korean corpora and from natural speech, and native speakers of Korean have been
consulted in order to assure the grammaticality and acceptability of the data included in
this thesis. As for the corpora, most of the data in this thesis come from two major
Korean corpora: one is the Korean National Corpus, the Sejong corpus, which contains
more than 89 million words. I use the raw corpus of modern Korean, which includes
around 64 million words from newspapers, magazines, academic works, literary works,
quasi-spoken data and other sources. The other corpus is the KAIST corpus, which is a
large-scale Korean corpus, containing about 70 million eojeol 5.
Ninety matrix predicates have been compiled for this thesis and classified into
nine different categories based on their semantic class: 1) Implicative, 2) Aspectual, 3)
Directive/Manipulative, 4) Desiderative, 5) Utterance, 6) Propositional, 7) Perception,
8) Factive, and 9) Interrogative predicates. The data involving matrix predicates which
are followed by a Modal auxiliary, such as -l su iss ‘can’ and ya hata ‘must/should’, are
not selected in this thesis under the assumption that the modal auxiliary may change the
structure of the predicates and influence the control effect that may be triggered by the
lexical meaning of the predicates.
The data collected based on the predicate types have been analyzed with respect to
six complementation types: 1) Nominalizations, 2) Adnominalizations, 3) Quotative
complements, 4) Interrogative complements, 5) Intentive complements, and 6)
5
An eojeol is a Korean spacing unit which may consist of more than one morpheme.
28
Resultative complements. I look first at the linking of the lexical semantics of matrix
verbs and its relevance for control. The results will show how particular classes of verbs
behave with regard to control phenomena. Secondly, I examine the correlation between
semantic verb class and complementation patterns in order to find out whether there are
specific syntactic or semantic restrictions in regards to control effects.
1.4. Structure of This Study
In this section, I outline the remainder of this thesis. Chapter 2 provides a brief
review of the formal approaches to finiteness, which has been assumed to consist of
Tense and Agreement, which assign nominative Case to subjects of clauses. In addition,
I will review the cross-linguistic data in the literature revealing that languages may vary
in determining finiteness and that the features determining finiteness may not be
restricted to just Tense and Agr. Pointing out the problems of Tense and Agr as
licensing features of a nominative subject in Korean, I will further explore the relevance
of Mood and Modality as the manifestation of finiteness in Korean.
Chapter 3 presents a brief review of the classification of OC and the diagnostics
for OC that have been previously employed in the literature. Then, I provide evidence
for finiteness of control complement clauses in Korean and discuss the existence of OC
in a finite clause. This chapter also discusses syntactic and semantic properties of
different types of sentential complements in some detail and examines whether there is
a correlation between the meaning of matrix predicates and the complement type in
determining control.
Chapter 4 provides empirical evidence showing that OC complements in Korean
are CPs that can allow pro or an overt controlled lexical NP. In this chapter, it is further
29
argued that pro in OC complements is different from the long distance reflexive caki
and from a pronoun, providing some evidence supporting the argument. Additionally,
this chapter provides some evidence showing that some serial verb constructions in
Korean that are claimed to involve non-finite control consist simply of VPs involving
argument sharing and argues that those constructions should not be analyzed as OC
constructions.
Chapter 5 discusses some syntactic issues regarding OC constructions in Korean
that can be problematic for the purely syntax-based analyses of control in the literature
and argues for the key role of semantics in determining the controller in OC
constructions in Korean. However, unlike previous studies arguing that OC is
determined by the lexical semantics of the matrix predicates involved, it is argued that
OC in Korean cannot be completely explained by the lexical properties of a selecting
predicate alone. Rather, it is derived through more complicated semantic factors as well
as syntactic and pragmatic factors.
Chapter 6 concludes the thesis and summarizes the main points. It further
discusses the contribution of this thesis and addresses remaining issues.
30
CHAPTER 2
FINITENESS AS NOMINATIVE SUBJECT LICENSING AND
MOOD AND MODALITY AS FINITENESS
As shown in the previous chapter, the correlation between non-finiteness and
control has been challenged and the existence of finite control in several languages,
such as Korean and Balkan languages, has been proposed. The issue of whether an
embedded clause in control constructions is finite is crucial since it gives rise to
different accounts of the null subject in the constructions. In other words, the
controversial issue of whether the syntactic nature of the controlled subject is a PRO or
pro is dependent on the finiteness of the embedded clauses.
Finiteness has been employed in analyses of syntactic domains and structural Case
licensing in subject position in traditional as well as formal literature. For example, in
most formal approaches to finiteness, finiteness is defined as the feature licensing
nominative Case on subjects of clauses, and Tense and Agreement (Agr) features are
considered to be the elements responsible for the assignment of nominative Case.
However, the cross-linguistic concept of finiteness in general is still a matter of
controversy, and the picture is complicated by the fact that there is no clear mapping
from the notion of finiteness to any single morphological or syntactic expression. In fact,
there is no clear consensus as to what determines finiteness and languages may vary by
employing different morpho-syntactic features that are responsible for finiteness, as will
be discussed in the following sections.
In this chapter, I will briefly review the formal approaches to finiteness, which
have been assumed to consist of Tense and Agr that assign nominative Case to subjects
31
of clauses. In addition, I will review the cross-linguistic data in the literature revealing
that languages may vary in determining finiteness and that the feature determining
finiteness may not be restricted to just Tense and Agr. Pointing out the problems of
Tense and Agr as licensing features of a nominative subject in Korean, I will further
explore the relevance of Mood and Modality as the manifestation of finiteness in
Korean (and possibly other languages). This analysis basically holds the conventional
notion that nominative Case is correlated with finiteness. However, unlike most formal
approaches, in this analysis finiteness is also assumed to be closely associated with
Mood or Modality as reflected in morpho-syntactic expressions.
2.1. Finiteness as Nominative Subject Licensing
2.1.1. Finiteness and Subject Licensing in Generative Grammar
In traditional grammar, the notion of finiteness has been employed to characterize
a clause which displays propositional independence and such propositional
independence has been argued to correlate with a subject in nominative Case. This is
based on the observation that morphological Case marking on NPs denotes grammatical
relations and the distribution of Cased NPs is tied to particular positions in the structure:
(1) a. She /*Her likes him.
b. She likes him/*he.
c. She sang for him/*he.
(2) a. John believes that she loves him.
b. She tried (*she) to finish the work.
32
(1a) and (1b) show that the external argument of the verb likes takes only nominative
Case, while the internal argument of the verb takes only accusative Case. (1c) shows
that accusative Case is also assigned to NPs that are complements of prepositions.
Traditional grammar proposes that the root clauses in (1) are all finite since the verb
forms bear morphological Tense and Agreement marking. The traditional view that only
nominative subjects can occur in the subject position of finite clauses has been driven
by the contrast in subject licensing in the embedded clauses, as shown in (2). Unlike
(2a), in which the embedded subject occurs in nominative Case, the subject of the to
infinitival clause in (2b) cannot appear overtly. Traditional grammar accounts for the
contrast in terms of the finite vs. non-finite distinction. The embedded clause in (2a) is
finite since the verb bears Tense and Agr marking, while the to infinitive in (2b), which
bears no Tense and Agr marking on the verb, is non-finite. This leads to the relation of
subject licensing and finiteness in traditional grammar. That is to say, finite verbs which
are inflected for Tense and Agr are associated with a nominative subject, while
nonfinite verbs are associated with lack of a nominative subject.
The GB framework took the traditional notion of morpho-syntactic finiteness and
developed it as a property of a functional category independently projected. That is, the
GB framework proposed that the head of the clause, INFL or I, is the syntactic element
that can be specified for the Tense and Agr features of verbs. Thus, the distinction
between finite and non-finite clauses can be explained by the feature composition of I.
To be more specific, the I of a finite clause contains the feature specifications [+Tense,
+Agr], whereas the I of a non-finite clause contains the contrast feature [–Tense, –Agr].
Under this dichotomy of I, the occurrence of nominative Case on a subject is correlated
33
with the positive specification for Tense and Agr. This correlation correctly accounts
for the grammaticality contrast in the following examples.
(3) a. It is likely that John will be sick.
b. *Johni is likely that ti will be sick.
c. She tried PRO/*she to finish the work.
d. John believes her to love Bill.
The embedded clauses in (3a) and (3b) are finite so that the subjects of the clauses must
be nominative Case-marked. Compared to (3a), in which the overt subject in nominative
Case occurs in the embedded clause, (3b) is ungrammatical since the embedded subject
of (3b) already gets Case in the embedded clause and has no motivation to move, and
having moved gets Case twice. Contrary to (3a) and (3b), the embedded subject cannot
be assigned nominative Case in (3c). Contrary to (3a) and (3b), the embedded subject
cannot be assigned nominative Case in (3c). Since a to infinitive is not finite, it cannot
assign nominative Case to its subject so that the overt nominative subject of the
infinitive in (3c) leads the construction to be ungrammatical. 6 As already discussed in
1.2.1.1, the GB theory of Case assumes that there is a PRO subject in non-finite clauses
where Case is not licensed. That is, the restricted distribution of PRO into ungoverned
positions prevents PRO from bearing Case and from occurring in finite clauses. This
leads us to assume that lexical nominals and PRO appear in complementary distribution.
6
This is a violation of ‘the Case Filter’ which is a requirement that every overt NP must
be assigned abstract Case.
34
However, not all non-finite clauses take PRO subjects. (3d) shows that some non-finite
clauses can allow the overt subjects in accusative Case to appear. In order to explain the
Case assignment to subjects of infinitive clauses as in (3d), the GB framework assumes
that non-finite I is not a Case assigner and that infinitival IP is not a barrier to outside
government. 7 Under this approach, the example in (3d), which is often referred to as
Exceptional Case-Marking (ECM), is explained in terms of the subject of the to
infinitive clause being assigned accusative Case by the matrix verb believe. In the GB
theory of Case, therefore, structural Cases are assigned under the notion of government.
That is to say, a verb governs its canonical object, finite I governs the subject of the
clause, and an ECM verb governs the subject of its IP complement, as illustrated in (4).
(4) a. [VP V NP]
b. [IP NP VP]
c. [VP V [IP NP . . .]
However, within the GB theory of Case, it is not clear exactly what feature is
responsible for the nominative Case on the subject of a clause, as already pointed out by
many linguists, such as Stowell (1982), Reuland (1983), and Haegeman (1991). If it is
the case that the type of clause is determined by the feature specification of I in terms of
[Tense] and [Agr], logically four types of I are possible, as given in (5).
The notion of “government’ is defined in such a way that “α is governed by β iff α is
c-command by β and no barrier intervenes between α and β.”
7
35
(5) a. [+Tense, +Agr] I
b. [+Tense, –Agr] I
c. [–Tense, +Agr] I
d. [–Tense, –Agr] I
Given this typology of I, it is apparent that different assumptions as to what feature is
responsible for the nominative Case on the subject of the clause will make different
predications about nominative Case assignment to the subjects governed by I’s such as
in (5b) and (5c) and in turn, make different predictions about finiteness of the clause. If
we assume that Tense is the licenser for nominative Case, the I in (5b), but not (5c),
assigns nominative Case to its subject and thus (5b), but not (5c), can be classified into
finite clauses. However, if we assume that Agr is the licenser for nominative Case, it
will bring the opposite result. Chomsky (1980) claims that [+Tense] I assigns
nominative Case to the subject of the clause. However, in his later work (1981, 1986),
he claims that the [+Agr] feature, not the [+Tense] feature, assigns nominative Case.
Also, Case might be assigned only when both features [+Tense, +Agr] are present such
that only (5a) would assign it. Indeed, there have been other controversial proposals
over the years with respect to what feature assigns nominative Case, as will be
discussed in the sections to come.
In the early version of Minimalist syntax (Chomsky 1993, 1995), IP is split into
TP and AgrP 8 and Case is assumed to be a uniformly uninterpretable syntactic feature
which must be checked in a Spec-head configuration. That is, a Case feature on an NP
must be checked by the corresponding feature on a Case-licensing head in order for the
8
The split-IP hypothesis is initiated by Pollock (1989).
36
derivation to converge. Under this framework, nominative Case is checked by virtue of
matching the Case feature between DP and T. Unlike the GB framework, the most
influential early Minimalist proposal concerning PRO (Chomsky & Lasnik 1993, 1995;
Watanabe 1993; Bošković 1997; Martin 2001) argues that PRO has Null Case which is
checked by nonfinite T. Martin (2001) argues that the ability to check Case on an NP is
a property of [+Tense].
Adopting Stowell (1982) and Bresnan (1972), in which
[+Tense] in control infinitives is assumed to be in some sense future-oriented, he
proposes that control infinitives, like finite clauses, but contrary to ECM and raising
infinitives, are specified for Tense.
(6) a. [ +Tense, +Finite] checks nominative Case: finite clauses
b.[ +Tense, –Finite] checks Null Case: Control infinitives
c. [–Tense, –Finite] checks no Case: ECM and raising infinitives
(6) shows that Martin associates finite clauses with nominative Case and nonfinite
clauses with Null Case or no Case, based on its temporal properties. Under this analysis,
finite clauses license a nominative subject, control infinitives license a PRO subject, and
other infinitives license other types of subjects, such as a DP-trace or a lexical subject.
However, Martin does not discuss what kind of Case [–Tense, +Finite] can check in the
mechanism. Although he claims that Case checking of nonfinite T depends crucially on
its temporal properties, it is not clear whether or not the same property affects Case
checking of finite T. If Martin’s proposal for the Case licensing is on the right track,
what we can assume here is that the nominative Case licensing feature is not necessarily
37
a Tense feature. In fact, there has been a claim that Agr is the relevant finiteness
parameter questioning the nature of Tense as a finiteness parameter in some languages,
such as European Portuguese and Turkish (as will be discussed in the next section).
The more recent version of Minimalist syntax (Chomsky 2001, 2006; Landau
2001; Pesetsky and Torrego 2004) proposes that Case checking is satisfied by Agree
which is an operation of feature-valuation between Probe and Goal, capturing the
relationship between the featural specification of C and I domain. That is, this analysis
assumes that C bears some syntactic features associated with the features of T. This
turns out to be a crucial factor in terms of whether embedded subject DPs are licensed
by the complement clauses or are active for Agree operations with relevant heads in the
matrix clauses. According to Chomsky (2001), control clauses, which fall together with
finite CPs, can assign Case to their subjects, while raising clauses, which are finite TPs,
cannot assign Case and thus the subject NPs are active for Agree operation. 9
However, the connection of Tense and Agr feature to nominative Case has not
always been clear and what feature values the nominative Case in minimalist syntax is
still controversial. For instance, Chomsky (2001) assumes that nominative Case is not a
feature of T, but is valued under Agreement with a phi-complete T probe, where phicomplete T is taken to depend on a phi-complete C. That is, the nominative Case of D
itself is not matched, but deletes under matching of phi-features. On the other hand,
Pesetsky and Torrego (2004) argue that C, T and DP all have uninterpretable Tense
features and that nominative Case is an instance of an uninterpretable Tense feature on
9
In many ways, using CP as a means by which to control “transparency” of the
embedded clause to outside factors is analogous to S’ deletion of early Transformational
Grammar, but is different in that S’-deletion creates ECM clauses.
38
D which can serve as a goal for an uninterpretable Tense feature on C just as well as T
can. Moreover, in Landau (2001, 2004, 2006), finiteness is not necessarily reduced to
just Tense and Agreement, but just Tense and Agreement are relevant for the licensing
of different kinds of subjects (Adger 2007:40). That is, Landau employs referential
features of DPs, [±R], whose specification crucially depends on the specification of
[Tense] and [Agr] features, (as discussed in 1.2.1.2.3) and argues that the licensing of
PRO vs. overt NPs/pro in embedded clauses 10 depends on the interaction of Tense, Agr,
and referential features on the functional heads, C and I. Unlike Martin (2001), Landau
(2006) argues that PRO bears standard Case, relying on the phenomenon of Case
concord in Icelandic and Balkan languages, as shown in (7).
(7) a. Strákarnir
vonast til [að PRO
the boys.NOM hope
for
vanta ekki alla
PRO.ACC to-lack not all.ACC in the-school
‘The boys hope not to be all absent from school.’
b. Anangasan tin Eleni
í skólann].
[PRO
na
milisi
(Icelandic)
afti i idhja].
Forced.3PL the Eleni.ACC PRO.NOM PRT speak.3SG she herself.NOM
‘They forced Helen to speak herself.’
c. Ion a
ajutat-oi
[PROi
(Greek)
să
ajungă eai
prima].
John has helped-her.ACC PRO.NOM PRT arrive she.NOM the-first
‘John has helped her to arrive first.’
10
(Romanian)
Similar to Chomsky (2001), Landau assumes that ECM and raising infinitives lack a
CP layer.
39
As shown in the examples above, the type of Case on PRO can vary across languages.
PRO in an infinitival clause (7a) can bear quirky accusative Case and PROs in
subjunctive clauses (7b) and (7c) bear nominative Case. Landau argues that PRO in
nominative can occur even in finite clauses that can be specified for [+Tense] and
[+Agr]. This implies that finiteness of embedded clauses plays no prominent role in
explaining the occurrence of overt and empty subjects of the clauses.
As discussed so far, the formal approaches to finiteness characterize finiteness as
an ability of licensing nominative subjects, capturing the fact that overt subjects with
nominative Case are restricted to finite clauses in many languages. However, there are
still controversial issues as to what feature determines finiteness and what the relevant
category is hosts finiteness. More importantly, the question of whether finiteness
correlates with nominative subjects is essential for control theory, considering that the
role of nominative Case in accounting for the overt distribution of DPs plays a central
role in accounts of the distribution of subjects in embedded clauses. If Landau’s (2001,
2004, 2006) proposal that PRO in nominative Case can occur in finite contexts is right,
the distinction between PRO and pro in terms of finiteness can no longer be maintained.
However, the identification of PRO and pro in finite contexts is still a controversial
issue that may rely on the notion of finiteness.
2.1.2. Language Variation in Nominative Subject Licensing
2.1.2.1. Tense or Agr as a Nominative Case Assigner
As discussed above, both earlier and more recent approaches to finiteness in
general have defined finiteness as a licenser of nominative Case on subjects and
considered Tense and Agr features to be the relevant features for finiteness. If
40
nominative Case on subjects is an indication of finiteness, a finite vs. non-finite
distinction in terms of Tense and Agr features may not be the same cross-linguistically
since some non-finite structures with one or the other of (or both) Tense or Agr can
assign nominative Case to their subjects. Indeed, it has been already claimed in the
literature that languages might have a parametric choice of Tense and Agr with respect
to nominative Case assignment. 11
First, consider the languages in which a [+Tense] feature is claimed to assign
nominative Case to the subject of the clause. Well-known languages of this sort include
Modern Greek (Iatridou 1993), Romanian (Alboiu 2004), and West Flemish (Haegeman
1985). First consider the following Greek data.
(8) a.vlepo ton Kosta
see
na
tiganizi
psaria.
DET K.ACC SUBJ fry.3SG fish
‘I see Kostas fry fish.’
b. *Idha/vlepo ton
Kosta
na
tiganize
psaria.
(I) saw/see DET K.ACC SUBJ fry.3SG.PST fish
‘I saw/see Kosta fried fish.’
(9) a. elpizo o
Kostas
na
tiganizi
psaria
hope DET K.NOM SUBJ fry.3SG fish
‘I hope Kostas fries fish.’
11
Hwang (1997:33) parameterizes nominative Case checking in such a way that T with
the [+Tense] feature checks off the nominative Case feature in English-type languages,
while T with phi-features removes such a feature in Portuguese-type languages.
According to Iatridou (1993), in Classical Greek, [+Agr] feature is the relevant element
for nominative Case assignment.
41
b. elpizo o
Kostas
na
tiganise
psaria
hope DET K.NOM SUBJ fry.3SG.PST fish
‘I hope Kostas fried fish.’
As is the case for most Balkan languages, Modern Greek lacks embedded infinitival
complements and generally employs subjunctive clauses in their place. As shown in (8)
and (9), the overt subjects of na-subjunctive clauses in Modern Greek can occur in
either nominative or accusative. The examples in (8) corresponding to ECM
constructions in English bear subject-agreement makers on their verbs and the subjects
are marked in accusative Case. When the embedded verbs are marked for past Tense,
the clause becomes ungrammatical, as shown in (8b). The embedded verbs in (9) also
agree with their subjects in person and number. However, unlike the examples in (8),
the examples in (9) show that the subjects of the embedded clauses can be marked in
nominative Case and the embedded clause can host past Tense-marking. This indicates
that the [+Tense] feature, not the [+Agr] feature, assigns nominative Case to the subject
of a clause. Iatridou (1993:178-181) provides further examples supporting the
correlation between the [+Tense] feature and nominative Case.
(10) a. tha prospathisi na erthi.
will tries.3SG
comes.3SG
‘He will try to come.’
b. iposchethika
ston Kosta na dhiavaso
promised.1SG to
Kosta
afto to vivlio.
read.1SG this
book
42
‘I promised Kosta to read this book.’
c. *echi/iche
tin kalosini na efige.
has/had.3SG the kindness
left.3SG.PAST
‘He has/had the kindness to leave.’
The sentences in (10) are examples of subject control in Modern Greek. The embedded
verbs in the na subjunctive clauses are marked for Agreement and the subjects of the
subjunctive clauses are always coreferential with the matrix subject. Contrary to the
examples in (9), there are no overt subjects in the subjunctive clauses in (10). Iatridou
argues that the lack of a nominative subject is due to the [-Tense] property of the
embedded clause. This is borne out since the embedded verbs of those constructions
cannot be marked for past Tense, as can be seen in (10c). Therefore, it is reasonable to
think that the contrast between overt and non-overt subjects in (9) and (10) is derived
from the opposite value of Tense features. That is, the nominative subjects of the
embedded clauses in (9) are due to the [+Tense] features of the embedded clauses. A
similar pattern is found in Romanian (Alboiu 2004:57, 63).
(11) a. Am
reuşit
[să
plec
(*mȋine)].
AUX.1SG managed [SUBJ leave.1SG tomorrow]
‘I managed to leave (*tomorrow).’
b. Victor ȋncearcă (*Mihai) să
Victor try.3SG
cȋnte
(*Mihai) SUBJ sing.3SG
‘Victor is trying (*Mihai) to sing.’
43
c. Am
vrut
AUX.1SG wanted
[(ca
Mihai) să
plece
mȋine].
[(that Mihai) SUBJ leave.3SG tomorrow]
‘I wanted for Mihai to leave tomorrow).’
The examples in (11a) and (11b), which are the typical examples of subject control,
trigger an obligatory Tense dependency between the să subjunctive and the matrix
clause. However, (11c), which is not an Obligatory Control structure, shows that the
subjunctive clause allows for a Tense domain distinct from that of the matrix clause.
That is, unlike (11a) and (11b), (11c) can take the independent semantic Tense denoted
by the temporal adverb mȋine ‘tomorrow’. Alboiu (2004:63) takes the absence of
independent semantic Tense in control subjunctives to be related to the failure to value
nominative Case on the embedded subject DP. The availability of complementizer ca
‘that’ and a lexical subject, contrary to (11b), further shows that the subjunctive
complement is specified for Tense. Note that as in Modern Greek, the embedded verbs
in the Romanian data agree with their subjects in person and number. This provides
evidence that Tense features, not Agr features, play a crucial role in licensing overt
subjects in Romanian.
Another instance of a language displaying a correlation between a [+Tense]
feature and nominative Case assignment is West-Flemish. Haegeman (1986:134)
proposes that mee nominative-cum-infinitive (NCI) clauses in West-Flemish 12 are to be
12
According to Haegeman (1986:125), West-Flemish allows a nominative subject to
appear with a te-infinitive in the environment of certain prepositions such as mee ‘with’,
voor ‘for’, and deur ‘by’, although like Dutch, West-Flemish infinitivals normally take
PRO or accusative NP subjects.
44
related to finite tensed clauses and that they have an abstract INFL in COMP, which is
specified for [+Tense], but unspecified for [±Past] and [-Agr]. One of the similarities
between finite and mee-NCI clauses is found in tet focus constructions, as given in
(12). 13
(12) a. Da-tet Valère morgen
weggoat.
that-tet Valère tomorrow away goes
‘that Valère goes away tomorrow.’
b. Mee tet Valère weg te goan.
with
Valère away to go
‘because Valère goes away.’
c. *Mee tet PRO weg te goan.
with
PRO away to go
‘because PRO goes away.’
d. *Dan-k gisteren
that-I tomorrow
tet Valère zagen weggoan.
Valère saw
leave
‘that I saw Valère leave tomorrow.’
As shown in the above examples, the focus marker tet can occur in Comp position in
both finite (12a) and mee-NCI constructions (12b), while it cannot occur in normal
infinitives in which the subject is PRO (12c) or accusative (12d) in form. Thus,
Haegeman argues that the NCI in (12b) is finite in the sense that the focus marker tet
13
Haegeman (1986) does not give English translations for the examples in (12) through
(16). Therefore, if there is any mistake in the translations, it is mine.
45
signals the presence of a finite COMP. She provides further evidence that mee-NCI
constructions pattern together with pure finite clauses.
(13) a. Mee dan-k da
gisteren
gezeid heen goa-se
with that-I that yesterday said
zie morgen
weg.
have goes-she she tomorrow away
‘Because I said that yesterday she would go away tomorrow.’
b. Mee dan-k gisteren nie moisten werken heen-k gekust.
with that-I yesterday not had-to
work
have-I cleaned
‘Because I had not to work yesterday I have cleaned.’
c. Mee dan-k morgen
moeten werken heen-k gisteren
with that-I tomorrow have-to work
gekust.
have-I yesterday cleaned
‘Because I have to work tomorrow I cleaned yesterday.’
(14) a. Mee ik da gisteren
te zeggen hee-se
with I that yesterday to say
dat hus
gekocht.
has-she that house bought
‘Because of my saying that yesterday she had bought that house.’
b. Mee ik da gisteren te zeggen goa-se
with I that yesterday to say
dat hus
kopen.
goes-she that house buy
‘Because of my saying that yesterday she would buy that house.’
c. Mee ik tnoaste joar weg te goan heen-k dat hus
with I next
year away to go
verkocht.
have-I that house sold
‘Because of my going away next year I have sold that house.’
46
The NCI examples in (14) show that the embedded clauses can select temporal
adverbials denoting a time location independent of that of the matrix clauses, just as the
pure finite embedded clauses in (13) can. However, non-finite clauses cannot be
temporally independent of the matrix clauses and the time reading of the non-finite
clause always depends on that of the matrix clause. This is illustrated in the following
examples.
(15) a. *K-heen vee
geld
verdiend mee PRO gisteren
gazetten
te verkopen.
I-have much money earned with PRO yesterday newspaper to sell
‘I have much money earned with PRO yesterday newspapers to sell.’
b. K-verdienen vee
I-earn
geld
mee PRO gazetten
te verkopen.
much money with PRO newspaper to sell
‘I earn much money with PRO newspapers to sell.’
Based on the examples above, Haegeman claims that the INFL of the NCI constructions
has Tense just like that of the pure finite clauses and the Tense property assigns
nominative Case to the subject. However, Haegeman (1986:127) provides some
examples suggesting that unlike pure finite clauses, INFL of NCI constructions with a
lexical subject lacks Agreement.
(16) a. Mee dan-k da
gezeid heen.
with that-I that said
have
‘Because I have said that.’
47
b. *Mee-k da
te zeggen
with-I that to say
‘Because of my saying that’
c. Mee ik da
te zeggen
with I that to say
‘Because of my saying that’
Contrary to the pure finite clause in (16a), the NCI clause in (16b) does not allow the
subject clitic -k. Instead, NCI clauses must use the full pronoun form, as in (16c).
Haegeman hypothesizes that the unavailability of cliticization in the NCI constructions
may be derived from lack of Agr which can be a nominative Case assigner, assuming
that the clitic is a lexical realization of Agr. If Haegeman is on the right track, it appears
that the Agr feature has nothing to do with nominative Case assignment in NCI
constructions.
In contrast to the languages discussed so far, there are some languages in which
nominative Case assignment is claimed to be dependent on Agr rather than Tense
features. Two well known languages are European Portuguese and Turkish. 14 European
Portuguese infinitives exhibit subject Agreement, but do not exhibit Tense distinctions,
as shown in (17).
(17) a. Será
difícil
will.be difficult
14
[eles/pro
aprov-ar-em
a
proposta].
they.NOM/pro approve-INF-3PL the proposal
In addition to the languages above, Brazilian Portuguese (Lightfoot 1991), Catalan
and Italian (Picallo 1984), Irish (McCloskey 1986), and Latin (Cecchetto & Oniga 2001)
have been assumed to license nominative case by Agr.
48
‘It will be difficult for them/pro to approve the proposal.’
b. Será
difícil
[PRO aprov-ar (*-em)
will.be difficult
a
proposta]
PRO approve-INF-3PL the proposal
‘It will be difficult (*for them) to approve the proposal.’
The example (17a) shows that when an infinitival clause is inflected for Agreement, it
can take a lexical NP or pro subject, just as a normal finite clause. However, the
Agreement morphology is not compatible with a PRO subject. Note that the embedded
subject in (17a) contains a lexical subject in nominative Case. This indicates that lack of
Tense does not render the structure non-finite. Raposo (1987) argues that in European
Portuguese the Agr feature of INFL assigns nominative Case to its subject only if it is
itself specified for Case. 15
Another instance of a language for which it is reported that Agreement features
are a necessary condition for nominative assignment is Turkish (i.e. George and
Kornfilt 1981; Kornfilt 1984, 2007).
15
In fact, Raposo (1987:96) argues that Agr alone cannot assign case, and there must be
a sufficiently local Case assigner that is accessible to Agr in order for Agr to receive
Case and to assign nominative Case.
(i) a. *Eles estão ansiosos [pro votar-em
a proposta].
they are anxious pro to vote-3PL the proposal
b. Eles estã ansiosos de/por [pro votar-em a proposta].
According to Raposo, (ia) is ungrammatical since adjectives do not assign Case and
thus there is no source of Case for the nominal INFL in the complement clause. In
contrast, the subject of the inflected infinitive, pro, in (ib) is assigned Case since Agr in
(ib) is Case-marked by the dummy preposition de/por and activates its Case-assigning
abilty.
49
(18) a. Ahmet
[biz-i
viski-yi
iç-ti]
san-iyor.
Ahmet.NOM we-ACC whisky-ACC drink-PST believe-PRS
‘Ahmet believes us to have drunk the whisky.’
b. Ahmet
[biz
viski-yi
iç-ti-k]
san-iyor.
Ahmet.NOM we-NOM whisky-ACC drink-PST-1PL believe-PRS
‘Ahmet believes we drank the whisky.’
The embedded clauses in (18) are inflected for past Tense, but (18a) differs from (18b)
in that the former is not inflected for Agr features and has an accusative subject, while
the latter is inflected for Agr features and has a nominative subject. Absence of person
Agreement on the verb in (18a) correlates with ECM, but the appearance of the Agr
morpheme in (18b) makes a nominative subject possible. That is, the examples in (18)
seem to demonstrate that Tense cannot determine finiteness without the presence of
Agreement, supporting the theoretical claim that Agr, not Tense, assigns nominative
Case in Turkish. However, Aygen (2002) provides counter-arguments to the claim and
proposes that Mood and Epistemic Modality features are the nominative Case assigner
in Turkish. This will be discussed in the next section.
2.1.2.2. Mood, Modality, or Aspect as a Nominative Case Assigner
Unlike the general view that Tense or Agr features are the nominative Case
assigner, there have been a few proposals that Mood, Modality, or Aspect features are
intimately associated with nominative Case assignment. For instance, Aygen (2002)
proposes that Mood and epistemic Modality features, not Tense or Agr features, account
50
for nominative Case-licensing in Turkish. First, Aygen (2002:212) provides counterarguments to the claim that Agreement is the relevant finiteness parameter in Turkish.
(19) a. Kürşat
[biz
kek-i
Kürşat.NOM we-NOM
ye-di-k]
san-ıyor.
cake-ACC eat-PST-1PL think-PROG
‘Kürşat thinks us to have eaten the cake.’
b. Kürşat
[biz-i
kek-i
ye-di-(k)]
san-ıyor.
Kürşat.NOM we-ACC cake-ACC eat-PST-(1PL) think-PROG
‘Küşat thinks that we have eaten the cake.’
(19b) shows that Agr can occur in the ECM complement with no impact on the
accusative Case assigned to the embedded subject. That is, its optionality in ECM does
not affect the unavailability of nominative Case and thus challenges the Agr-based
account for finiteness. Aygen (2002) claims that nominative Case in those environments
is licensed neither by Tense nor Agr features, but via a composite feature consisting of a
Mood feature on C and a epistemic Modal feature on F(inite) head. Consider the
following examples.
(20) a. Kürşat
gel-di.
Kürşat.NOM come-PERF/PST.3SG
‘Küşat came/has come.’
b. Ben
[Kürşat
gel-di]
san-dı-m.
I. NOM Kürşat.NOM come-PERF/PST.3SG think-PERF/PST.1SG
51
‘I thought Küşat came/has come.’
c. Ben
[Kürşat-ı
gel-di]
san-dı-m.
I. NOM Kürşat.ACC come-PERF/PST.3SG think-PERF/PST.1SG
‘I thought Kürşat came/has come.’
(20a) is a root clause and the examples in (22b) and (22c) are complex sentences
involving the root clause. As far as the verbal inflection is concerned, the embedded
clause in (20b) and the ECM complement in (20c) are identical to the root clause in
(20a). However, unlike (20b), (20c) does not assign nominative Case, but accusative
Case. This is problematic for regarding Tense and/or Agr as a nominative Case licenser.
Based on the assumption that Agreement morphology in clausal predicates is a
manifestation of a Mood feature on C and Lyons (1977)’s proposal that Tense is a kind
of Modality,
16
Aygen (2002) argues that the root clause in (20a) and the embedded
clause in (20b) are finite in that they both bear [+indicative Mood] via the unmarked
Agreement marker and epistemic Modality (denoting the highest possible probability)
via the Aspect/Tense marker di. 17 However, the ECM complement clause in (20c) is
16
Lyons (1977) defines Tense as a specific kind of modality as follows:
(i) Present is a product of factivity and non-remoteness.
(ii) Past is a product of factivity and remoteness.
(iii) Future is a product of non-factivity and non-remoteness.
17
According to Aygen (2002:178), the Modal properties of this morpheme have been
discussed extensively in the literature. He proposes kinds of Modality and the
corresponding conventional terms of ‘tense’ and conditionals, as follows:
Epistemic Modality
Factivity
[+Remote]
Past
[-Remote]
Present
Non-Factivity
[+Remote]
Cfs
[-Remote]
Future
52
nonfinite since it lacks epistemic Modality. The argument for the absence of epistemic
Modality in the ECM complement clause in (20c) is based on the distributional
properties of epistemic Modal morphemes in the clauses, which are discussed below.
(21) a. Ben
[Kürşat
gel-iyor-du
/miş-ti]
/ecek-ti
I.NOM Kürşat.NOM come-PROG-PERF/PST/FUT-PERF/PST/PERF-PST-3SG
san-dı-m.
think-PERF/PST.1SG
‘I thought that Küşat was coming/was going to come/had come.’
b. Ben
[Kürşat
gel-ebil-ir]
I.NOM Kürşat.NOM come-epistemic modality/ability-AOR
san-dı-m.
think-PERF/PST.1SG
‘I thought that Küşat might/could come.’
c. *Ben
[Kürşat
gel-meli/meliydi/ebilir/ebilirdi] san-dı-m.
I.NOM Kürşat.NOM come-deontic obligation
think-PERF/PST.1SG
‘I thought that Küşat might/could come.’
The examples in (21) are finite complement clauses which occur in indicative Mood. As
can be seen in (21a), the complex Aspect/Tense markers expressing past events which
in turn encode epistemic Modality can occur in the complement clauses. Also, (21b)
shows that the Modal marker ebil which can denote epistemic Modality or a deontic
53
Modal of ability can occur in the finite complement clause. 18 However, (21c) shows that
finite complement clauses do not allow Modal markers or complex inflectional forms
which denote a deontic Modal of obligation. In these respects, ECM complement
clauses pattern differently from finite complement clauses.
(22) a. *Ben
[Kürşat-ı
gel-iyor-du
/ecek-ti
/miş-ti]
I.NOM Kürşat-ACC come-PROG-PST/FUT-PST/PERF-PST-3SG
san-dı-m.
think-PERF/PST.1SG
‘I thought that Küşat was coming/was going to come/had come.’
b. Ben
[Küşat-ı
gel-di/ecek/iyor/miş/ir/meli/ebil-ir]
I.NOM Küşat.ACC come-ASP
/deontic modality-AOR
san-dı-m.
think-PERF/PST.1SG
‘I considered Küşat to have come/to be coming/to have to (to be required to)
come/to be able to come.’
The example in (22a) shows that the complex Aspect/Tense markers expressing past
events cannot occur in the complement clause. Also, (22b) shows that the ECM clause
does not allow epistemic Modality, but allow only Aspect/Tense and deontic Modality
morphemes. On the basis of this, Aygen argues that both [+Mood] and [+Epistemic
Modality] are required to license nominative Case. Therefore, even when there is
18
According to Aygen (2002: 171), Modal morphemes in Turkish are ambiguous
among various types of Modality, unless disambiguated by a Modal adverb.
54
[+Mood], lack of epistemic Modality makes the structure ECM. Aygen extends this
analysis to languages other than Turkish, examining ECM constructions in English,
European Portuguese, and Japanese. Aygen (2002:236) argues that the redefinition of
finiteness accounts for Turkish as well as languages where subject Case varies with
Mood (Arabic, Navajo), languages with no Tense morphology but only epistemic
Modality (Native American languages studied by Chafe and Hockett), and languages
with nominative subjects in infinitivals (European Portuguese, Italian) in a uniform way
along with English.
In a similar vein, Singh (1994:150) provides problematic data for the Tense or Agrbased analysis of nominative Case assignment and proposes the dependency between
Case assignment and the Modal auxiliaries or Aspect in Hindi. 19
(23) a. Use
bahut pi:ta:
she-ACC very
gaya:.
beat-PERF-MS go(lit.)-PERF-MS
‘She was beaten very much.’
b. *vah
bahut
she-NOM very
pi:ti:
gayi:.
beat-PERF-FS go(lit.)-PERF-FS
19
Singh (1994:156-157) excerpts some Palestinian Arabic data from Mohammad
(1988:233) and argues that Tense and Agr do not trigger nominative Case in the
language.
i) raɁytu l-walad-a/*u
yadurusu fi l-maktabat-i
saw-1S the-boy-ACC/NOM study-3SM in the-library-GEN
‘Lit. I saw the boy studies in the library.’
Adopting Mohammad’s analysis that unlike English Subject-to-Object Raising
constructions, the verb of the embedded clause in the above example is fully inflected
with Tense, Singh concludes that although the embedded clause is fully inflected for
Tense and Agr, the embedded subject NP is accusative and thus the inflectional features
cannot assign nominative Case to the subject.
55
‘She was beaten very much.’
(24) a. laRki:
ko
dauRna:
tha:.
girl-FS-OBL ACC run-INF-MS be-PST-MS
‘The girl had to run.’
b. *laRki:
dauRni:
thi:.
girl-FS-NOM run-INF-FS be-PST-FS
‘The girl had to run.’
The examples in (23) show that although there is a possibility of agreement on the verbs,
which may assign nominative Case, the subjects do not appear in nominative Case and
do not show Agreement with the verb. That is, in the passive sentences in (23), the
subject occurs in the accusative Case, not in the nominative Case and the Agreement
morphology on the verbs has nothing to do with the subject. This implies that Agr on
the verbs does not assign nominative Case to the subject. Similarly, the examples in (24)
show that an accusative subject, but not nominative subject, occurs, although Tense and
Agr are marked on the verbs. These examples clearly demonstrate that Tense and Agr
are not the nominative Case assigners. Instead, Singh (1994) proposes that Aspect and
Modality can assign nominative Case. 20
(25) a. laRke
kita:b
paRhte
the.
boy-MP-NOM book-FS-ACC read-IMP-MP be-PST-MP
20
In fact, Singh (1994) argues that there are some other factors, such as verbal
compounding and transitivity, affecting Case assignment in Hindi and that intransitivity
is closely related to nominative Case assignment. However, for the purposes of this
thesis, I’ll not address this issue.
56
‘The boys read/were reading the book.’
b. laRkō
ne
kita:b
paRhi:
thi:.
boy-MP-OBL ERG book-FS-ACC read-PERF-FS be-PST-FS
‘The boys did read the book.’
c. laRke
kita:b
paRh sake
the.
boy-MP-NOM book-FS-ACC read can-PERF-MP be-PST-MP
‘The boys could read the book.’
d. *laRkō
ne
kita:b
paRh saki:
boy-MP-OBL ERG book-FS-ACC read
thi:.
can-PERF-FS be-PST-FS
‘The boys could read the book.’
e. laRkō
ne
kita:b
paRhi:
thi:.
boy-MP-OBL ERG book-FS-ACC read-PERF-FS be-PST-FS
‘The boys (did) read the book.’
The subject in (25a) takes nominative Case which is phonologically null, while the
subject in (25b) takes ergative Case which is realized as ne. Singh (1994:122) accounts
for the contrast in the Case assignments with respect to the different Aspect markers on
the verbs. That is, in (25a) the nominative Case is triggered by the imperfect Aspect,
while in (25b) the ergative Case is triggered by the perfect Aspect. 21 Furthermore, Singh
21
Although the verb in (23a) is marked for the perfect Aspect, the subject does not
assign ergative case. This has to do with the passive structure. Singh (1994) argues that
Case in Hindi is assigned at d-structure. Based on this, the subject cannot be assigned
ergative case at s-structure.
57
argues that a Modal auxiliary can assign nominative Case to its subject. 22 Although (25c)
is a perfect transitive clause, the subject takes nominative Case, not ergative Case.
According to Singh (1994:190), the presence of a Modal auxiliary in (25c) blocks the
assignment of ergative Case, and the argument which is assigned ergative Case
elsewhere is assigned nominative in the context of a Modal auxiliary. The
ungrammaticality of (25d), contrary to (25e), shows that ergative Case is not compatible
with a Modal auxiliary.
To sum up, cross-linguistic data in the literature suggest that the solely Tense or
Agr-based analysis of finiteness cannot fully account for a variety of nominative Case
assignment and that the primary factor in determining finiteness that licenses a
nominative subject may vary from language to language. In the next section, I will
propose that nominative subjects in Korean cannot be licensed in a way that depends on
22
This is suggestive for the question as to what assigns nominative case to the subjects
in English mandative subjunctives.
(i) a. It is essential that he be/*is told immediately.
b. Mary insisted that he meet/*met her.
c. I require that he (*do) not arrive late.
d. I require that under no circumstances he do that.
As can be seen in (ia) and (ib), the uninflected verb morphology in the subjunctive
clauses casts a doubt on nominative Case assignment in terms of Tense and Agr features.
Roberts (1993:323-324) proposes that there is a null Modal operator in English
mandative subjunctives, based on some syntactic properties of the subjunctives, such as
the lack of Do-insertion (ic), the placement of a negative adverb phrase with auxiliary
inversion (id). If Roberts is on the right track, it might be possible to assume that the
null Modal operator can assign nominative Case to the subject of the clauses in an
analogous way in which a Modal auxiliary in Hindi can assign nominative Case.
Also, it is worthwhile noting that there have been some functional approaches
defining finiteness in terms of grammatical specification for Tense and Modality on the
verb on the basis of English verb forms (cf. Langacker 1991; Halliday 1994).
58
the formal features T and/or Agr, but Mood and Modality, 23 adopting the position that
finiteness is not a property solely associated with Tense or Agr, but is a property of the
C system that may interact with the inflectional domain.
2.2. Mood and Modality as Finiteness in Korean
As discussed the previous sections, in generative grammar, finiteness has been
identified as a property of a clause that assigns nominative Case to its subject. In formal
grammar, Tense and Agreement have been mainly considered to be the overt
morphosyntactic expressions of finiteness and not much attention has been paid to
Mood and Modality as a property of finiteness. However, functionally oriented
approaches to finiteness in the literature often take Mood and Modality into account as
syntactic and semantic categories defining finiteness. In fact, in the functional
approaches, finiteness has been defined in terms of presence or absence of various
syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors, such as Tense, Agreement, Modality,
illocutionary force, and politeness (Holmberg et al. 1993; Klein 1998; Vincent 1998;
Bisang 2007). Some researchers have defined finiteness as a scalar phenomenon which
expresses the degree of integration of a clause into its immediate clausal environment
(cf. Givón 1990; Dik 1997). The structural reduction of a clause involves the loss of
verbal properties (such as Tense, Aspect, Mood, or person/number marking) and the
acquisition of nominal properties (such as Case, co-occurrence with determiners,
omission of verbal arguments or their encoding as possessors or obliques) on the part of
the verb describing the dependent event (Nikolaeva 2007:7). In short, the functional
23
A Mood or Modality-based analysis might offer a new insight into the finite
properties of subjunctive clauses in many languages including Balkan languages, and
well account for some languages like Chinese and Vietnamese where Tense and
Agreement are not lexically realized.
59
approaches in general suggest that there is no uniform relation between finiteness and
its expression both cross-linguistically and within individual languages. 24
One important thing to note, however, is that there seems to be general agreement
between the formal and functional approaches that absence of certain syntactic or
semantic properties is correlated with the inadmissibility of overt subjects and the lack
of independent clausehood; however, there is little agreement with respect to what
factor indicates finiteness. In the following sections, I will provide some problems for
the Tense or Agr-based approaches to finiteness in Korean, and propose that Mood and
Modality on verbs and complementizers, depending on clause type, are the crucial
factors determining finiteness in Korean. This proposal is mainly based on the formal
approaches in which finiteness is defined as capacity to license nominative Case to the
subject of a clause. However, the proposal is also in line with the functional approaches,
arguing that the category defining finiteness is not restricted to the morphosyntactic
feature Tense and Agreement and actually involves various syntactic and semantic
factors which are language-specific and construction-specific.
2.2.1. Defectiveness of Tense and Agr in Nominative Case Assignment
In the literature on nominative Case assignment in Korean, it is generally held that
Agr is responsible for the assignment of nominative Case (c.f. H.-S. Han 1989; Ahn &
Yoon 1989; Ryu 1994; Yang 1996). Agr in Korean is realized as the subject honorific
morpheme, -si, which is marked on the verb and is limited to contexts where the
referent can be honored by the speaker. Unlike English, in which Tense and Agr never
occur separately, Agr in Korean occurs independently of Tense, as illustrated in (26).
24
Cristofaro (2007) provides a detailed survey of functional approaches to finiteness.
60
(26) a. Mina-nun [nay-ka ku
M.-TOP
il-ul
kkuthnay-(*ess)]-tolok towa-cwu-ess-ta.
I-NOM the job-ACC finish-PST-C
help-give-PST-DC
‘Mina helped me to finish the job.’
b. Mina-nun [kyoswu-nim-i
M.-TOP
ku
il-ul
kkuthnay-si-(*ess)]-tolok
professor-HON-NOM the job-ACC finish-HON-PST-C
towa tuli-ess-ta.
give-PST-DC
‘Mina helped the professor to finish the job.’
c. Sensayng-nimi-kkeyse
Minaj-eykey [tangsini-i
teacher-HON-NOM.HON M.-DAT
ki-o
ttena-si-(*ess)]-
self.HON-NOM leave-HON-PST-
yaksokha-yess-ta.
NOML-DR promise-PST-DC
‘The teacher promised Mina to leave.’
The embedded clauses in (26) have been taken to be typical examples of non-finite
clauses in the literature. This is because the constructions are rendered ungrammatical if
the embedded verb takes the past Tense or perfect Aspect morpheme -ess. In (26a) the
honorific marker does not appear. However, in (26b-c) the subjects of the embedded
clauses are to be honored and thus the honorific marker si does occur in agreement with
the subject. The fact that these are analyzed by many as nonfinite clauses and the
subjects take nominative Case suggests that Agr features, not Tense features, assign
nominative Case in Korean.
61
However, the subject honorific marker does not always co-occur with a
nominative subject. Consider the following examples.
(27) a. Emenim-eykey-nun isiptay-ka
Mother-DAT-TOP
kacang hayngpokha-si-ess-ta.
twenties-NOM most
be happy-HON-PST-DC
‘Her twenties was the happiest time for the mother.’
b. Sensayngnim-uy
son-i
khu-(*si)-ta.
teacher.HON-GEN hand-NOM big-HON-DC
‘The teacher’s hands are big.’
c. Na-eyekey ce
I-DAT
meli-ey
iss-nun
emenim-i
poi-(*si)-
that far away-LOC to.be-ADN mother.HON-NOM seen-HON-
n-ta.
PRS-DC
‘The mother who is far away is seen to me.’
d. Apecii-kkeyse
halapenimj-kkey
[tangsini-i
cip-ey
fatehr-NOM.HON grandfather.HON-DAT.HON self.HON-NOM home-LOC
ka-(*si)-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-si-ess-ta.
go-HON-VOL-DC-C propmise-HON-PST-DC
‘Father promised the grandfather to go home.’
The honorific marker in (27a) agrees with the non-nominative subject emenim ‘mother’,
not with the nominative subject isiptay ‘twenties’. One might assume that the NP in
nominative Case in (27a) triggers the honorific marking on the verb since the non-
62
nominative NP who deserved to be honored by the speaker is in an inalienable
possession relation with the NP in nominative Case. In fact, Korean people often
overuse the subject honorific agreement in a similar situation. For example, in (27b) the
occurrence of the honorific marker is, strictly speaking, ungrammatical since the
nominative subject son ‘hand’ is not the referent who can be honored by the speaker.
However, many Korean people consider the sentence acceptable because the possessor
of the son ‘hand’ is the genitive subject sensayngnim ‘teacher’ who deserves to be
honored. Therefore, some studies (Suh 1977; Yoon 1989) claim that -si is not a
grammatical agreement marker, but is pragmatically oriented. However, there are some
Cases in which the honorific marker -si cannot occur, even when the nominative subject
is directly honored by the speaker. The examples in (27c) and (27d) show that the
occurrence of the honorific marker makes the sentences ungrammatical, although it
agrees with the nominative subject apenim ‘mother’ and tangsin ‘self’, respectively.
This clearly demonstrates that the honorific marker need not be present for the
assignment of nominative Case in Korean.
Also, an analysis that Tense assigns nominative Case is not tenable in Korean. As
already shown in (26), a non-finite complement clause is not compatible with the overt
past Tense marker -ess, but the nominative subject is still possible. Yim (1985) claims
that nominative Case in a non-finite clause is assigned by an abstract Tense element.
This is in line with the common view that some English infinitives have their own
‘semantic Tense’ (Bresnan 1972; Stowell 1982; Bošković 1997; Landau 2000; Martin
2001; Pesetsky and Torrego 2004). Landau (2000:57-59) motivates this semantic Tense
63
in terms of the presence vs. absence of a temporal adverbial that is in conflict with
another temporal adverbial modifying the matrix clauses, as follows.
(28) a. *Yesterday, John began to PRO solve the problem, tomorrow.
b. *Today, John managed to PRO have finished his duties yesterday.
c. Yesterday, John hoped to PRO solve the problem, tomorrow.
The examples in (28a) and (28b) show that the event time of the complement clause is
simultaneous with the matrix event and thus, precludes the occurrence of a temporal
adverb different from the matrix event. In contrast, the example in (28c) shows the
possibility of conflicting temporal adverbs between the matrix clause and the
complement clause and so the event time of the complement clause is not the same as
the matrix clause. According to Landau, the aspectual and implicative infinitives in (28a)
and (28b) are untensed, whereas the desiderative infinitive in (28c) is tensed –
specifically, specified for irrealis Tense. 25 Landau (2004:822) calls the Tense in (28c)
dependent Tense which describes a situation where the Tense of the embedded clause is
constrained by (though, crucially, not necessarily identical to) the matrix Tense. 26
Similar to the desiderative infinitive in English, non-finite complements in Korean can
carry their own semantic Tense, as follows.
25
There is some disagreement with respect to the classification of tensed vs. tenseless
infinitives. Contrary to Landau (2000), Bošković (1997) and Martin (2001) argue that
implicative complements are tensed.
26
According to Landau, whether the embedded tense is dependent or independent is
determined by the semantic class of the matrix verb.
64
(29) a. Ecye,
Minai-ka Pata-eykey [nayil
yesterday, M.-NOM P-DAT
ki-lo
(kunyei-ka) cenyek-ul
sa]-
tomorrow she-NOM dinner-ACC buy-
yaksokha-yess-ta.
DNOML-DR promise-PST-DC
‘Yesterday, Mina promised Pata to buy dinner tomorrow.’
b. Ecye,
Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [nayil
yesterday M.-NOM P.-DAT
(kunyej-ka) ttena]-tolok
tomorrow she-NOM leave-C
seltukha-yess-ta.
persuade-PST-DC
‘Yesterday, Mina persuaded Pata to leave tomorrow.’
The examples in (29) show that the complement clauses can take the temporal adverb
nayil ‘tomorrow’ which is in conflict with the temporal adverb modifying the matrix
clause ecey ‘yesterday’. This may suggest that the dependent Tense independently
assigns nominative Case to the embedded subjects. However, if these examples are
tensed, but still non-finite, it is not clear why the tensed non-finite clauses in Korean
can take overt nominative subjects, while the English tensed infinitives cannot.
Moreover, the following examples show that not all (of the so-called) non-finite clauses
can take dependent Tense.
(30) a.*Ecye,
Minai-ka [nayil
kunyei-ka cikcep
ku kakey-lul
yesterday, M.-NOM tomorrow she-NOM in.person the store-ACC
65
wunyengha]-ki-(lul) sicakha-yess-ta.
run-NOML-ACC
begin-PST-DC
‘*Yesterday, Mina began to run the store in person tomorrow.’
b.*Ecye,
Minai-ka [nayil
cakii-ka
ku mwuncey-lul
phwul]-leyko
yesterday M.-NOM tomorrow self-NOM the problem-ACC solve-C
sitoha-yess-ta.
try-PST-DC
‘*Yesterday, Mina tried to solve the problem tomorrow.’
As shown in (30), the complement clauses selected by the aspectual verb sicakhat‘begin’ and the implicative verb sitoha- ‘try’ cannot host semantic Tense distinct from
the matrix clauses, just as the English infinitives in (28a, b). However, note that unlike
the English infinitives, nominative subjects can still occur in the complement clauses.
This is shown in the following examples.
(31) a. Minai-ka [kunyei-ka cikcep
ku kakey-lul
wunyengha]-ki-(lul) sicakha-
M.-NOM She-NOM in.person the store-ACC run-NOML-ACC
begin-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Mina began to run the store in person.’
b. Minai-ka [cakii-ka
ku mwuncey-lul phwul]-leyko sitoha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM self-NOM the problem-ACC solve-C
‘Mina tried to solve the problem.’
try-PST-DC
66
The examples in (31) show that the sentences in (30) are grammatical if the conflicting
temporal adverbs do not appear and that nominative subjects can occur in the
complement clauses. This suggests that nominative Case in complement clauses is
assigned by something other than Tense features.
Note further evidence that Tense cannot assign nominative Case.
(32) a. Mina-ka hakkyo-ey ka-*(ta).
M.-NOM school-LOC go-DC
‘Mina went to school.’
b. Mina-ka hakkyo-ey
ka-ss-*(ta).
M.-NOM school-LOC go-PST-DC
‘Mina went to school.’
c. Ney-ka
hakkyo-ey
ka-(*ss)-*(la).
you-NOM school-LOC go-PST-IMP
‘You go to school.’
d. Wuli-ka
hakkyo-ey
ka-(*ss)-*(ca).
we-NOM school-LOC go-PST-PROP
‘Let’s go to school.’
Unlike root clauses in English, which must be headed by a tensed element, root clauses
in Korean cannot end with a bare Tense morpheme and are obligatorily headed by a
Mood suffix which indicates the speaker’s illocutionary force. As shown in the above
67
examples, the Mood suffixes are not tensed and appear outside the position of Tense
morphology. Note that the verb form in (32a), unlike that in (32b), is temporally or
aspectually unspecified, but denotes a past event. This temporal interpretation is gained
by the declarative Mood marker -ta which asserts the event as an objective fact. Also
note that nominative subjects can appear in imperative sentences (32c) and in
proposative sentences (32d). Imperative and proposative sentences are commonly
thought of as nonfinite clauses in that compared to declarative sentences they tend to
show reduced Tense and Agreement morphology and show no overt subject. For
example, the English sentences corresponding to the Korean imperative and proposative
sentence in (32c) and (32d) cannot take an overt nominative subject. According to
Hwang (1997) who assumed that nominative Case is checked by a [+Tense] feature,
imperative sentences in English are [–Tense, +Agr] and thus their lexical subjects
cannot be marked with nominative Case, but bear unmarked accusative Case. He
supports the claim, relying on accusative Case marking of conjoined DP subjects in
imperatives, as shown in (33).
(33) a. You and him/her/them/*he/*she/*they make a deal!
b. Don’t you and him/her/them/*he/*she/*they fight again!
Considering that imperative and proposative sentences in Korean are also not tensed,
but nominative Case is still assigned to the subject in those sentences, it suggests that
the Mood suffixes are responsible for assigning nominative Case.
This is further supported by the following data.
68
(34) a. John-i [Mina-ka/lul
chencay-(yess-ta)/la-ko] mit-ess-ta.
J-NOM M-NOM/ACC genius-(PST-DC)/DC-C believe-PST-DC
‘John believed that Mina was/is a genius.’
b. John-i [Mina-*ka/lul
chencay-lo] mit-ess-ta.
J-NOM M-NOM/ACC genius-as
believe-PST-DC
‘John believed Mina to be a genius.’
The matrix verb mit- ‘believe’ has been widely accepted as an ECM verb in the
literature. However, the embedded clause in (34b) can be analyzed as a small clause in
that its predicate is a Prepositional Phrase without verbal morphology such as Tense or
Mood, and its subject bears only accusative Case. On the other hand, the embedded
clause in (34a) can bear past Tense and the declarative Mood suffix ta/la, and its subject
can bear either nominative or accusative Case. These differences seem to be derived
from the fact that the small clause does not bear any Mood suffix, contrary to the
embedded clause in (34a) where the declarative Mood marker occurs. Note that ECM in
Korean shows very unique characteristics in that it is possible to assign Case into finite
clauses and it is optional: the subject is not obligatory ECMed. 27 To be more specific,
Korean ECM differs from English ECM in that the former bears Tense morphology and
hosts the complementizer -ko, while the latter does not bear any Tense morphology and
hosts a to infinitive. In addition, Korean ECM is similar to the Turkish ECM structure
in (20c) in that the embedded clause can bear Tense morphology. However, compared
27
Also, it is well known that Korean ECM constructions are confined to contexts where
the embedded predicate is a member of the adjectival or copular subset of stative
predicates (Yoon 1989).
69
to Turkish ECM which Aygen (2002) considers non-finite because its subject is marked
with accusative Case due to lack of epistemic Modality, Korean ECM is analyzed as a
finite clause in that it takes a declarative Mood suffix. Therefore, the embedded verb is
capable of assigning nominative Case to its subject, as it in the case of the occurrence of
nominative subject in (34a). Then, a natural question arises as to how accusative Case is
licensed on the subject in ECM constructions. I assume that the DP receives a
nominative Case in the embedded subject position, while the DP receives an accusative
Case from the matrix verb in Spec of CP of the lower clause. DP-movement of the
embedded subject to Spec, CP in (34a) is motivated by the need to have a [+Focus]
feature checked off. 28 This suggests that the contrast in the Case marking of the
embedded subjects in (34a) does not result from the difference in finite properties of the
embedded clause.
Since the presence of Tense or Agr does not necessarily result in the assignment
of nominative Case on the subject of clauses in Korean, it is necessary to propose a
third mechanism for nominative Case-assignment in Korean. I propose that Mood or
Modality licenses nominative Case on the subject in Korean.
2.2.2. Mood and Modality on Verbs and Complementizers and Their
Projections
Korean verb stems cannot stand alone and are followed by a series of verbal
endings which perform various grammatical functions, such as Tense, Aspect, sentence
type, speech level, and conjunction. The combination of verbal endings is very complex
and each ending interacts closely with others in realization of its grammatical functions.
28
J.-M. Yoon (1989) and J.-S. Lee (1991) argue for a similar analysis in more depth.
70
The following are examples of two of the possible largest verbal paradigms and a rough
representation of the paradigms.
(35) a. cap-hi-si-ess-ess-keyss-sup-ni-kka?
catch-PASS-SH-PST-PERF-CONJ-AH-IND-Q
‘Do you think he/she might have been caught?’
b. cap-hi-si-ess-ess-keyss-te-la-(ko)
catch-PASS-SH-PST-PERF-CONJ-RET-DC-C
‘(It looked like he/she) had been caught.’
c. Verb stem-Causative/Passive-Subject Honorific-Tense-Aspect-ModalAddressee.Honorific-Modal-Sentence type-Complementizer
As can be seen in (35), the verb stem cap- ‘catch’ can be followed by complex verbal
endings: the derivational suffix ‘passive/causative’, the subject honorific suffix -si, the
complex Tense/Aspect suffixes ess-ess, denoting past perfect, the Modal suffix -keyss,
denoting the speaker/hearer’s conjecture, the retrospective Modal suffix -te, the
addressee honorific suffix -sup, the indicative Modal suffix -ni, sentence type suffixes,
and the quotative complementizer -ko. Mood, denoting illocutionary force/sentence type,
is marked on the verbs by a sentence final ending, and Modality can be marked on the
verbs by a prefinal ending. 29 The sentence final Moods include declarative, imperative,
29
In general, Modality is considered to be a semantic domain, and Mood is treated as a
grammaticalization of Modality and thus is expressed in the verbal paradigm. However,
Mood and Modality are defined and classified in various ways and frequently overlap in
the literature. In this thesis, I will distinguish Mood from Modality in that the former is
represented by a sentence final ending marking illocutionary force and the latter is
represented elsewhere.
71
interrogative, and proposative and their marking is obligatory in main clauses, while
Modality includes injective, retrospective, indicative, and so on, and its marking is
optional. Thus, the optional Modality marking on verbs is not relevant to the issue of
finiteness in this thesis. As briefly discussed in 2.2, formal approaches to finiteness
often treat Mood, which is associated with different speech acts, as a subcategory of
finiteness. In fact, from a perspective of a functional approach, Bisang (2007:129)
proposes that Korean finite clauses are determined by a set of suffixes occurring in the
final slot of the verbal paradigm. These suffixes are characterized by the interaction of
illocutionary force and politeness, as shown in table (36) cited from Bisang.
(36) Sentence Enders 30
Declarative
Plain
po-n-ta
see-IND-DC
Intimate
po-a
see-INF
Familiar
po-ney
see-DC
Blunt
po-o
see-BL
Polite
po-a-yo
see-INF-POL
Deferential po-p-ni-ta
see-AH-IND-DC
30
Interrogative
Imperative
Proposative
po-ni
see-Q
po-a
see-INF
po-na
see-Q
po-o
see-BL
po-a-yo
see-INF-POL
po-p-ni-kka
see-AH-IND-Q
po-a-la
po-ca
see-INF-IMP
see-PROP
po-a
po-a
see-INF
see-INF
po-key
po-sey
see-IMP
see-PROP
po-o
__
see-BL
po-a-yo
po-a-yo
see-INF-POL
see-INF-POL
po-si-p-si-o
po-p-si-ta
see-SH-AH-RQ-IMP see-AH-RQ-PROP
The sentence enders are based on Sohn (1999:355-358) and the list of the sentence
enders in (36) does not include all possible sentential endings, such as the apperceptive
suffix -kwun and the promissive -ma.
72
It is beyond the scope of this thesis to give a full account of how the illocutionary force
and politeness interact with respect to finiteness, examining the full Mood and Modality
systems in Korean. What is important here, however, is that neither Tense nor Agr is the
crucial factor in determining finiteness.
Since the sentence final endings, which denote illocutionary force as well as
politeness, are the distinctive factors for finiteness in Korean root clauses, they are also
most likely the crucial factor for finiteness in the subordinate clauses where they can
occur.
(37) a. Na-nun [Kiho-ka tomangka-ss-ta]-nun
I-TOP
sasil-ul
al-ass-ta.
K.-NOM run.away-PST-DC-ADN fact-ACC know-PST-DC
‘I knew that Kiho ran away.’
b. Na-nun Mina-eykey [Kiho-ka tomangka-ss-ta]-ko
I-TOP
M.-DAT
malha-yess-ta.
K.-NOM run.away-PST-DC-C tell-PST-DC
‘I told Mina that Kiho ran away.’
c. Mina-ka [Kiho-ka tomangka-ss-e-yo]-lako
malha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM K.-NOM run.away-PST-INF-POL-C tell-PST-DC
‘Mina said, “Kiho ran away”.’
As can be seen in (37), the sentence-final Mood markers can occur in a subordinate
clause, although the occurrence of the politeness forms, except the plain forms, are
restricted to direct quotative sentences (37c).
73
Now, consider the following subordinate clauses in which Mood markings do not
occur on the verbs.
(38) a. Mina-ka [Inho-ka ttena-(*yess)]-ki-lul
kangyoha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM I.-NOM leave-PST-NOML-ACC force-PST-DC
‘Mina forced Inho to leave.’
b. Na-nun [ku-ka
I-TOP
mwusahi tochakha-yess]-ki-lul
he-NOM safely
pala-n-ta.
arrive-PST/PERF-NOML-ACC want-PRS-DC
‘I hope that he arrived/has arrived safely.’
c. Na-nun [imi
I-TOP
ku-ka
ttena-ss]-um-ul
al-ass-ta.
already he-NOM leave-PST/PERF-NOML-ACC know-PST-DC
‘I knew that he already left/had left’
In Korean, there are two types of sentential nominalizers -um and -ki. The motivation
for the analysis of -ki and -um as nominalizers is that they can be followed by Case,
such as accusative Case -(l)ul, and behave as noun-like elements. Compared to the
sentential nominalizer -um, which is compatible with the past Tense or perfect Aspect
suffix -ess, the nominalizer -ki shows some restrictions in taking the suffix. The
distributional difference between the two nominalizers has long been a controversial
issue in the literature. However, it is generally argued among Korean linguists that the
nominalizers carry inherent Modalities; -um carries realis Modality, while -ki carries
irrealis. Thus, the contrast in their Modalities has been argued to cause the
74
complementary distribution; -um clauses describe factual events, while -ki clauses often
denote non-factive events (this will be discussed in detail in section 3.3.1.)
Note that unlike the following Turkish nominalization in (39a, b) cited from
Kornfilt (2007:316-317), overt subjects in nominative Case are possible in Korean
nominalization.
sınav-ı
(39) a. [Sen-in/*φ
geç-eceğ-in]-i
bil-iyor-um
/bil-
you-GEN/NOM test-ACC pass-FUTFN-2SG-ACC know-PRSPR-1SG/knowiyor-du-m.
PROG-PST-1SG
‘I know/knew that you will/would pass the exam.’
sınav-ı
b. [Sen-in/*φ
geç-me-n]-i
isti-yor-um
/iste-di-
you-GEN/NOM test-ACC pass-NFN-2SG-ACC want-PRSPR-1SG/want-PSTm/isti-yeceğ-im.
1SG/want-FUT-1SG
‘I want/wanted/will that you should pass the exam.’
c. [Sen
sınav-ı
geç-ti-n]
san-ıyor-um.
you-NOM test-ACC pass-PST-2SG believe-PRSPR-1SG
‘I believe you passed the test.’
(39a) is an example of factive (= indicative) nominalized embeddings, which are
temporally independent from the matrix clause, and (39b) is an example of non-factive
(= subjunctive) nominalized embeddings which are dependent on the matrix temporally.
75
Compared to the verbal embedded clause in (39c), in which the subject bears
nominative Case, the subjects in the nominalized clauses are genitive. Kornfilt (2007)
claims that the Agreement markers on the clauses give rise to syntactic finiteness and it
licenses nominative subjects in verbal embedded clauses, while it licenses genitive
subjects in nominal clauses. That is, overtness of subject is closely related to finiteness
in Kornfilt’s analysis of Turkish.
What is more interesting here is that the nominalizers occur in the slot for a Tense
morpheme in a verbal clause. Kornfilt claims that temporal independence is expressed
by the nominalization marker itself, just as in fully verbal clauses. This holds true of
Korean nominalizers, although they do not appear in the slot for Tense or Aspect
marker as do Turkish nominalizers, as can be seen from the fact that a Tense/Aspect
suffix can occur with them, as in (38b, c). To be more specific, the irrealis Modality on
the nominalizer -ki denotes a non actual event and thus provides an unrealized future
interpretation, while the realis Modality on the nominalizer -um denotes an actual event
and thus by implication provides a non-future Tense interpretation. In fact, there are
many languages that show no morphological difference between irrealis Modality and
future Tense. Therefore, in (38a), the -ki nominalizer encodes that the event of the
nominalized clause is not actual and is unrealized with respect to the matrix verb.
However, the -ki nominalizer in (38b) does not encode that the event of the nominalized
clause is unrealized. Rather, it denotes the speaker’s attitude toward the actuality of the
event. That is, the past Tense or perfect Aspect marker implies that the event of
‘arriving’ (has) happened, but the -ki nominalizer encodes the speaker’s unsureness
about whether the event (has) happened in a safe manner or not. Thus, the -ki
76
nominalizer with the irrealis Modality can be compatible with the past Tense or Aspect
marker.
In addition, Irish is another language demonstrating that Tense distinctions can be
seen across a whole range of complementizer-like elements, including relative particles,
negative complementizers, and complementizers signaling temporal relations (Adger
2007:34). Consider the following Irish examples from Adger.
(40) a. Rith leat sula
bhfeicfear tú
run with before see.PASS
you
‘Run along before you are seen.’
b. D’éag sé sular
thánig
an sagart.
die.PST he before.PST come.PST the priest
‘He died before the priest came.’
The complementizers sula and sular which head adverbial clauses show a past vs. nonpast distinction in Irish, although Tense can also be marked on the verbs. A similar
phenomenon is found in Korean adnominalized sentences modifying a following noun
phrase by means of the adnominal endings, ‘-(u)n, -(nu)n, and -(u)l’. 31
(41) a. Na-nun [Kiho-ka o-(*ss)]-l
I-TOP
kes-ul
al-ass-ta.
K.-NOM come-PST-ADN thing-ACC know-PST-DC
‘I knew that Kiho would come’
31
In the literature on Korean, the categories of the nominalizers and adnominalizers are
often treated as complementizers.
77
b. Na-nun [Kiho-ka o-(*ss)]-nun
I-TOP
kes-ul
al-ass-ta.
K.-NOM come-PST-ADN thing-ACC know-PST-DC
‘I knew that Kiho was coming.’
c. Na-nun [Kiho-ka o-(*ss)]-n
I-TOP
kes-ul
al-ass-ta.
K.-NOM come-PST-ADN thing-ACC know-PST-DC
‘I know that Kiho came.’
(42) a. Na-nun [Kiho-ka keki-ey
I-TOP
ka-ss]-ul
kes-ulo
sayngkakha-n-ta.
K.-NOM there-LOC go-PST/PER-ADN thing-DR think-PRS-DC
‘(lit.) I think that probably, Kiho went/have gone there’
b. Na-nun [Kiho-ka keki-ey
I-TOP
ka-(*ss-ess-te)]-nun
kes-ul
mol-ass-
K.-NOM there-LOC go-PST/PER-RET-ADN thing-ACC forget-PST-
ta.
DC
‘I didn’t know that Kiho was going/goes there’
c. Na-nun [Kiho-ka keki-ey
I-TOP
ka-ss-ess-te]-n
kes-ul
ic-
K.-NOM there-LOC go-PST-PER-RET-ADN thing-ACC forget-
ess-ta.
PST-DC
‘I forgot that Kiho had gone there’
The examples in (41) show that no past Tense suffix can occur in the adnominalized
clauses. Instead, the adnominalizers -(u)n, -(nu)n, and -(u)l show contrast in Tense; -(u)l
denotes future Tense,
-(nu)n present Tense, and ‘-(u)n past Tense. However, the
78
examples in (42) provide more information about the adnominalizers. Compared to -nun
in (42b), which is not compatible with any Tense, Aspect, or Modal suffix, -ul in (42a)
can take the past Tense or perfect Aspect suffix -ss. Despite the appearance of the suffix
-ss, the adnominalized clause in (42a) expresses that the speaker does not know that the
actual event of ‘going’ has happened at the moment of speech. That is, the suffix -ss
implies that the event of going (has) happened, but the irrealis Modality of -ul overrides
the actuality of the event and conveys the speaker’s uncertainty about whether the event
really happened. The other adnominalizer -(u)n can take the retrospective Modal suffix
-te or its combination with the past Tense and the perfect Aspect suffix, as in (42c).
Note that without any Tense or Aspect suffix, the adnominalized clause in (42b) can
express the habitual action of ‘going’ or an ongoing action that is happening at the time
of speech event. This tells us that the adnominalizer carries certain Modality. Indeed, it
is generally argued that the adnominalizers as well as the nominalizers in Korean
encode certain Modalities and that the Modalities can be interpreted from the viewpoint
of Tense or Aspect. This is illustrated in Table (43).
(43) Modality on Nominalizers and Adnominalizers 32
Modality
Irrealis/Non-factive
Realis/Factive
32
Nominalizers
-ki
-(u)m
Adnominalizers
-(u)l
-nun
-(u)n
Tense/Aspect
Future
Present (Progressive)
Past
Alternatively, it is often argued in the literature that -nun and -(u)l denote indicative
and prospective Mood/Modality, respectively.
79
So far, it has been argued that the nominalizers and adnominalizers in Korean
carry certain Modality and that certain Tense distinctions on the adnominalizers are
derived from their inherent Modalities. Note that the nominalizers and adnominalizers
are attached to the verb forms as sentence final endings and that in those clauses Tense
morphology is not allowed or is restricted to certain contexts, yet the occurrence of a
nominative subject, which is one of the important criteria for finiteness, is allowed. This
suggests that the Modality on the nominalizers or adnominalizers determines the
finiteness of the clauses. That is, when a Mood ending, which encodes illocutionary
force and politeness, becomes unavailable in an embedded clause, the Modality on a
nominalizer or adnominalizer takes over the role of the Mood ending and determines
finiteness of the clause. This analysis is based on two basic assumptions. First, the
nominalizers and adnominalizers in Korean occur in a C position. Second, Mood and
Modality are an inherent property of the clause, adopting Frajzyngier’s (1995) analysis
in which a complementizer is considered to be a component of some types of clauses on
the condition that a complementizer is understood as representing the Modality of the
clause. 33
In a similar vein, I propose that in the Cases of subordinate clauses, where no
Mood endings can occur, a complementizer takes the role of the Mood endings. That is,
a complementizer encodes a certain Modality of a clause; i.e. the speaker’s attitude
toward the proposition determines finiteness of the clause. Consider the following
examples.
33
Frajzyngier argues that occurrence of a complementizer is necessary as a Modality
marker of a clause, but a main clause does not need to have a complementizer if
inherently marked. To be specific, he argues that indicative sentences have an inherently
defined epistemic Modality and in non-indicative main clauses the Modalities are
encoded by syntactic devices such as word order, and morphological changes on the verb.
80
(44) a. Minho-nun [caki-ka
M.-TOP
ku sang-ul
tha-(*ss)]-leyko ayssu-ess-ta.
self.-NOM the prize-ACC win-PST-C
endeavor-PST-DC
‘Minho endeavored to win the prize.’
b. Emeni-nun [Mina-ka na-wa hammkkey ka-(*ss)]-tolok helakha-si-ess-ta.
Mother-TOP M.-NOM I-with together
go-C
allow-HON-PST-DC
‘Mother allowed Mina to go with me.’
c. Swuni-ka ka-(*ss)-ya
S.-NOM
Minho-to ka-n-ta.
go-PST-only.if M.-also
go-PRS-DC
‘Minho goes only if Swuni goes.’
(44a) and (44b) are examples of complement clauses and (44c) is an example of an
adverbial subordinate clause. None of the subordinate clauses above allow the past
Tense suffix -ss to appear, but overt nominative subjects are still available. Interestingly,
the complementizers in the examples above carry an inherent lexical meaning which
can be interpreted as a Modality. The complementizer -leyko expresses the speaker’s
intention or purpose which is related to an intentional or desiderative Modality, and tolok expresses an accomplished situation that the speaker commands or insists the
addressee do and thus is related to an obligative or necessitative Modality. The
subordinating marker -ya ‘only if’ carries a conditional Modality. That is, the semantic
Modalities of the complementizers anchor a proposition in a possible world and
establish their relation to finiteness of the clause. In conclusion, I hypothesize that the
presence of Mood endings on verbs or Modalities on complementizers licenses a
81
nominative subject in Korean. 34 This analysis is in line with the proposed theory that C
domains are responsible for the realization of finiteness (cf. Platzack & Holmberg 1989;
Rizzi 1997; Krapova 2001). 35 Rizzi (1997) proposes an articulated CP domain of clause
structure given in (45).
(45) [ForceP [TopicP [FocusP [TopicP [FinP [IP…]]]]]]
The highest C projection, ForceP, is related to illocutionary force, while the lowest C
domain, FinP, can be specified for Mood, Tense, and Agreement and encodes finiteness
of a clause. In Rizzi’s system, the prepositional complementizer for in English can be
situated in the head of FinP and the complementizer that which selects a finite clause is
located in the head of ForceP. Roussou (2000) adapts Rizzi’s version of the CP domain
34
Since a Modality is encoded by a considerable range of syntactically quite diverse
item in Korean, such as Modal auxiliaries, Modal adverbs, and non-final Modal suffixes
on verbs, questions necessarily arise as to how they interact to each other with respect to
their relation to finiteness and whether there are some specific modalities which
determine finiteness of a clause. Recall that Aygen (2002) argues that an epistemic
Modality, not a deontic Modality is required to license nominative case in Turkish. I do
not offer an answer to these questions hear, but leave them to future research. One point
to make, however, is that a modality which determines finiteness of a clause is closely
related to the sentence final position. Recall that Mood endings which encode
illocutionary acts obligatory occur in the final slot of the verbal paradigms, as shown in
(35). Similarly, the presence of a complementizer carrying a certain modality is
obligatory in a subordinate clause, while non-final verbal endings which carry certain
modalities are not obligatory. In this respect, finiteness is defined as a structural
primitive occurring at the highest clausal domain.
35
In particular, Platzack & Holmberg (1989) argue that finiteness is an operator in C
which has to be realized in order to license the nominative case. Also, there are
suggestions that finiteness may be signaled by a close interaction of I and C (Kayne
1994; Vincent 1997).
82
and proposes three basic C positions; the highest C is for ‘subordination’, the middle C
clause-typing, and the lower C Modality. This is represented in (46)
(46) [C Subordinator .. [COP Clause-typing .. [CM Modal …]]] 36
In a similar vein, I postulate two basic C positions in Korean; the highest C is for a
subordinator and the lowest C for a Mood head, 37 yet the resulting structure differs from
the previous proposals above: finiteness, which licenses a nominative subject, involves
both C heads in Korean, while the previous proposals appear to consider FinP or
ModalP as the relevant projection carrying information about finiteness. 38 The highest
C hosts a complementizer which simply connects the subordinate clause to some
constituent of a higher clause or to a complementizer which carries a certain Modality
that can determine the finiteness of a clause in the absence of a Mood ending. The
36
The full version of the C structure containing relevant morphemes, which Roussou
(2000:79) proposes, is as follows:
[C pu [Topic/Focus [COp oti/an/na/as [Neg δen/min [CM θa/tna/as [I cl + V]]]]]]
Subordination
Clause-typing
Modal
37
Bhatt & Yoon (1992:49) also argue that the category known as ‘Comp’ should be
decomposed into Mood and subordinators.
38
Roussou (2000) does not directly discuss what projection is responsible for finiteness
in Greek with the reason that in languages like Greek the +/– finite distinction barely
holds since there are no infinitives. However, she argues that -na clauses in Greek
subsume the functions of the subjunctive and optative moods as well as of the infinitive
and is always finite.
83
lowest C, MoodP, corresponds to Rizzi’s ForceP and Roussou’s clause-typing
projection. 39 Under this analysis, the following tree structure is postulated.
(47)
CP
Spec
C’
MP
Spec
C
M’
TP
Mood
This analysis is based on the empirical data that a sentence final Mood marker can
occur in combination with a complementizer.
(48) a. Na-nun Mina-eykey [Kiho-ka tomangka-ss-nya]-(ko) mul-ess-ta.
I-TOP
M.-DAT
K.-NOM run.away-PST-DC-C
ask-PST-DC
‘I asked Mina whether Kiho run away.’
b. …[CP [MP Kiho-ka [TP [VP [VP tomangka- V] v] -ss T] -nya M] -ko C]…
As can be seen in (48a), the interrogative Mood suffix -nya is followed by the typical
complementizer -ko. 40 This suggests that Mood suffixes and complementizers should be
39
The CP system can be more articulated for Topic and Focus. However, this thesis
does not aim at providing a full analysis of clause structure and a theoretical analysis as
to how finiteness is licensed in the structure. This thesis concerns only with the
morphological and syntactic expressions of Mood and Modality and their syntactic
relevance to finiteness.
40
The complementizer -ko can often be omitted. In this respect, -ko differs from the
other Modal complementizers which obligatorily occur in subordinate clauses. However,
84
syntactically independent in Korean. (48b) shows the proposed structure for the
embedded clause in (48a).
In this chapter, I briefly reviewed the formal approaches to finiteness in which
finiteness has been defined as the feature licensing nominative Case on subjects of
clauses and Tense and Agreement features are widely accepted as the elements
responsible for the assignment of nominative Case. This thesis basically holds the
conventional notion that nominative Case on subjects is correlated with finiteness.
However, unlike most formal approaches, in this thesis finiteness is assumed to be
closely associated with Mood or Modality on a C structure. This is based on the fact
that the cross-linguistic data in the literature reveal that the features determining
finiteness may not be restricted to just Tense and Agr and finiteness may be associated
with variety of factors, such as Mood/Modality and Aspect, which the functionalist
approaches to finiteness commonly take into account as syntactic and semantic
categories defining finiteness. In fact, this thesis pointed out the problems of Tense and
Agr as licensing features of a nominative subject in Korean and argued that Mood on
verbs and Modalities on complementizers determine finiteness of the clauses, which
license nominative subjects.
it is argued that they both occupy the highest C head since they both function as a
subordinator and occur in the same slot of the verbal paradigms.
85
CHAPTER 3
FINITE CONTROL AND SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTATION IN KOREAN
The main purpose of this chapter is to examine whether finite control exists in
Korean, through the investigation of complementation types and their relation to
Obligatory Control (OC)/Non-obligatory Control (NOC). In this thesis, finite control
refers to control in a finite context that licenses a nominative subject. There have been
some studies arguing that Korean exhibits finite control, as discussed in chapter 1
(section 1.2.3). However, the previous studies fail to cover all sentential complements
that may show Obligatory Control. Moreover, non-finite control which has been taken
for granted in the previous studies shows similarities to finite control in terms of
syntactic properties of finiteness. This thesis attempts to examine different complement
constructions which may exhibit Obligatory Control. A careful investigation of those
constructions may give a clear account for the syntactic and semantic properties of OC
constructions in Korean, and may reveal whether the control effects are due to structural
constraints such as argument identification and locality or due to semantic constraints in
terms of the situation denoted by the matrix predicate or some other semantic factors.
The organization of this chapter is as follows. In section 3.1, I will present a brief
review of the classification of OC and discussion of the diagnostics for OC that have
been previously employed in the literature. In section 3.2, I will show some evidence
for finiteness of control complement clauses in Korean and discuss the existence of OC
in a finite clause. In section 3.3, I will investigate syntactic and semantic properties of
different types of sentential complements in some detail and examine whether there is a
86
correlation between the meaning of matrix predicates and the complement type in
determining control.
3.1. Classification and Properties of Obligatory Control
It has been widely accepted that control constructions can be classified into
several types based on the degree to which the controllee depends on the controller for
its reference. Some of types of control excerpted from Landau (2000:3) are shown
below.
(1) a. Johni tried [eci to leave early].
b. John wanted (for Mary) [ec to leave early].
Obligatory control (OC)
Non-obligatory control (NOC)
c. The chairi managed [eci to gather the committee at 6].
d. The chairi preferred [eci+ to gather at 6].
Exhaustive control (EC)
Partial control (PC)
e. Billi persuaded Maryj [eci+j to leave together].
Split control (SC)
f. It is dangerous for babies [ecarb to smoke around them].
Arbitrary control
g. It was difficult [ec to leave].
Implicit control
Contrary to Obligatory control (OC) in (1a), in which the controller and the infinitive
must be clausemates, Non-obligatory control (NOC) shows that the infinitive need not
have a clausemate controller. Hence the empty category in (1b) can refer to John, or it
can refer to Mary, if ‘for Mary’ is inserted in the sentence. The null subject in (1c) must
be identical to the controller, while that in (1d) includes more referents than the matrix
controller. These are called Exhaustive control (EC) and Partial control (PC),
respectively. Split control (SC) in (1e) indicates that the null subject of the infinitive is
87
controlled jointly by two matrix arguments. Finally, compared to Arbitrary control in
(1f), where no argumental controller occurs, Implicit control in (1g) indicates that the
controller exists but is not syntactically expressed.
Although most linguists agree that the characterization of OC vs. NOC is an
important prerequisite for the analysis of complement control, the classification of OC
vs. NOC is subject to some debate. Williams (1980) excludes partial and split control as
well as implicit control from the notion of OC, based on his rather strict characterization
of OC: i) Locality, ii) Uniqueness of antecedent, iii) C-command, and iv) Precedence,
as shown in chapter 1 section 1.2.1.1. Hornstein (1999) proposes to capture the strict
locality conditions on OC proposed by Williams via the Minimal Link Condition
(MLC: Chomsky 1995). 41 In addition, he uses the sloppy vs. strict reading and de re vs.
de se interpretation as criteria for the OC vs. NOC distinction, as will be discussed in
detail below. According to Hornstein, OC PRO must carry a sloppy interpretation under
ellipsis of the verb complement and de se interpretation. He considers only EC to be an
OC since it can be accounted for under his movement analysis, while all non-exhaustive
control readings cannot be so. However, this analysis has been challenged in recent
proposals (Landau 1999, 2000; Fuji 2006; Madigan 2006, 2008), which argue that PC
and SC are Obligatory Control. Landau (2000), in particular, analyzes all instances of
local control as OC, thus including EC, PC, SC, and implicit control.
41
MLC is an updated version of the Minimal Distance Principle (MDP) proposed by
Rosenbaum (1967). That is, the MLC excludes movement of an element α to a position
K if there is another element β of the same type which is closer to K.
88
On the other hand, there have been some proposals 42 that offer different
classifications of control, deviating from the standard classification of control above.
Stiebels (2007) and Gamerschlag (2007) propose a Structural vs. Inherent control
distinction. Structural control 43 is induced by the structure of a clausal complement,
while ‘Inherent control’ occurs in the constructions where the matrix predicate requires
Obligatory Control readings independent of the instantiated structure of complement
clauses. These controls are classified as Control-inducing constructions, and the
structures where no specific factor requires Obligatory Control reading are classified as
control-neutral constructions. In this thesis, I will basically follow Landau’s
classification of OC, but also adapt Stiebels’ (2007) classification of control in order to
show that finite control in Korean is mostly triggered by semantics of predicates or
other factors, such as complementizers. I will also employ the following criteria, which
are widely accepted in the literature as the criteria for defining OC in non-finite clauses,
in order to define the distribution of OC versus NOC in Korean.
(2) The OC/NOC Categories
a. Arbitrary control is impossible in OC, but possible in NOC.
b. Long-distance control is impossible in OC, but possible in NOC.
c. Strict-reading of PRO in gapping constructions is impossible in OC, but possible
in NOC.
42
Also, Jackendoff & Culicover (2003) distinguishes between free, nearly free and
unique control. In contrast to unique control, which is generally called OC in the
literature, free and nearly free control allow generic/arbitrary and split control. Free
control includes non-local control and control by discourse or speech act participants,
which is not allowed in nearly free control.
43
This is similar to ‘Syntactic control’ in Cormack & Smith (2004).
89
d. De re reading of PRO is impossible in OC (only de se), but possible in NOC.
Arbitrary control is the Case where no argument in the sentence is understood as
the controller of the null subject.
(3) a. Johni tried [PROi/*arb to study hard].
b. It is possible [PROarb to solve the problem].
As shown in (3b), the identity of the null subject in the construction is implicit and can
be anyone, depending on the context. That is, the potential antecedent for the null
subject is free in its reference. On the other hand, in OC structures, such as (3a), the
identity of the null subject is the matrix argument and arbitrary control is disallowed.
Similarly, the following examples illustrate that Long-distance (LD) control is
disallowed in OC, but allowed in NOC.
(4) a. Johni believes that Maryj promised him PRO*i/j to leave the town.
b. Maryi knew that it damaged John [PROi to perjure herself].
In example (4a), the only possible controller for PRO is the subject argument of the
clause immediately containing the infinitive, Mary, and the argument John, which is a
long-distance argument, cannot be the controller for PRO. However, (4b) shows that the
long-distance subject Mary can be a possible controller for PRO in Non-Obligatory
Control constructions.
90
In addition, OC vs. NOC constructions show differences in the interpretation of
the null subjects in verbal-gapping constructions, as follows.
(5) John tried to study hard, and Mary did too.
a. *Johni tried PROi to study hard, and Maryj tried PROi to study hard. (Strict
reading)
b. Johni tried PROi to study hard, and Maryj tried PROj to study hard. (Sloppy
reading)
(6) John thinks that feeding himself will be difficult, and Bill does too.
a. Johni thinks that PROi feeding himself will be difficult, and Billj thinks that PROi
feeding himself will be difficult. (Strict reading)
b. Johni thinks that PROi feeding himself will be difficult, and Billj thinks that PROj
feeding himself will be difficult. (Sloppy reading)
As shown in the examples above, OC constructions exclude the strict reading where
PRO is strictly identical to John (5a) and allow only the sloppy reading (5b), while
NOC constructions allow both strict (6a) and sloppy reading (6b).
The last well known diagnostic of OC vs. NOC structures is the de se/de re
contrast in the structures. Consider the following examples in (7) and (8) which are
originally provided by Horstein (1999:pp35-36).
(7) “(There is) a war hero who suffers from amnesia and remembers nothing of his
wartime experiences. Suppose this person (hereafter, “the unfortunate”) sees a TV
91
program describing his own exploits, and is impressed with the courage exhibited
by that person, who he does not know is himself.”
(8) a. The unfortunate expects that getting a medal would be boring.
b. The unfortunate expects to get a medal.
Given the scenario in (7), (8a) can be true, but (8b) cannot since (8b), unlike (8a),
requires a belief of self. In other words, contrary to (8b) in which only de se reading is
possible, the antecedent for the null subject of the gerund phrase in (8a) can be
ambiguous in a way captured by the de se and de re reading. That is, (8a) can be either
interpreted by the de se reading where the unfortunate is aware of himself as the person
who is getting a medal, or by the de re reading where the unfortunate is not be aware of
it and thus, expects that someone else will get a medal.
In sections 3.2.2, I will examine whether finite control constructions in Korean
display the same diagnostics for defining OC in non-finite clauses.
3.2. Finite Control as OC in Korean
The existence of OC in finite clauses has been largely discussed in the literature
on control in Balkan languages 44. However, finiteness of control complement clauses
and the nature of the null subject in the clauses are still debatable. This section
examines whether Obligatory Control is possible in a finite context in Korean and
further shows that finite control in Korean is quite different from what has been
documented in other languages. Although some evidence for finite control in Korean
has been presented in literature on Korean control (e.g. Yang 1982, 1985; Borer 1989;
44
See Landau (2004) for a pan-Balkan overview of these constructions.
92
Madigan 2006, 2008), finiteness of control complement clauses in Korean has not been
clearly accounted for.
3.2.1. Finiteness of Control Complement Clauses
Consider the following examples in which embedded clauses are headed by the
complementizer -ko.
(9) a. Apecii-kkeyse
Pataj-eykey [eci/*j hakkyo-ey ka-(si)-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-
father-HON.NOM P.-DAT
school-LOC go-HON-VOL-DC-C promise-
si-ess-ta.
HON-PST-DC
‘The father promised Pata that he would go to school.’
b. Minai-ka Pataj-ul [ec*i/j ttena-la]-ko
M.-NOM P.-ACC
seltukha-yess-ta.
leave-IMP-C persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Pata that she should leave.’
(10) Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [eci/*j/k hakkyo-ey
M.-NOM P.-DAT
ka-ss-ta]-ko
malha-yess-ta.
school-LOC go-PST-DC-C say-PST-DC
‘Minai told Pataj that eci/*j/k went to school.’
The complement clauses in (9) are analyzed as finite constructions since they bear a
Mood marker, declarative -ta in (9a) and imperative -la in (9b). In addition, (9a) shows
that -ko complement clauses can take an agreement marker -si- and a volitional Modal
marker -keyss- which can denote future Tense. This shows that -ko complement clauses
can be fully inflected for Tense and Agreement. In fact, the complement clause in (10)
93
shows that -ko complement clauses can be specified for past Tense. Therefore, -ko
complement clauses should be treated as finite clauses. However, note that the examples
in (9), contrary to the example in (10), which shows non-obligatory control, trigger the
same coreference restrictions as typical non-finite control constructions. That is, the null
subject in (9a) must be co-indexed with the matrix subject apeci ‘father’ and the null
subject in (9b) must refer to the matrix object, Pata. Any other co-reference would be
ungrammatical. Consequently, (9a) and (9b) trigger subject and object control,
respectively. Also, it is worth noting that, like a typical non-finite control construction,
the event time of the embedded clauses in (9) is unrealized or future with respect to that
of the matrix due to the volitional Modal -keyss- in (9a) and the imperative Mood
marker -la in (9b).
The following examples further show that the complement clauses in OC
constructions, such as (9) above, are finite as the null subject position can be filled with
an overt DP in nominative Case.
(11) a. Apecii-kkeyse
Pataj-eykey [tangsini/*j/*k
father-HON.NOM P.-DAT
(si)-keyss-ta]-ko
/*Wujin-i
hakkyo-ey
ka-
he/himself. HON W-NOM school-LOC go-
yaksokha-si-ess-ta.
HON-VOL-DC-C promise-HON-PST-DC
‘The father promised Pata that he/*Wujin would go to school.’
b. Minai-ka Pataj-lul [kunye*i/j/*k/*Enju-ka ttena-la]-ko
M.-NOM P.-ACC she
seltukha-yess-ta.
E.-NOM leave-HON-IMP-C persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Pata that she/*Enju should leave.’
94
c. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [kunyei/*j/*k/cakii/*j/*Enju-ka
M.-NOM P.-DAT
she
self
ttena-keyss-ta]-ko
E.-NOM leave-VOL-DC-C
yaksokha-yess-ta.
promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised Pata that she/self/*Enju would leave.’
(12) Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [kunyei/*j/k/cakii/*j/Enju-ka hakkyo-ey
M.-NOM P.-DAT
she
self
ka-ss-ta]-ko
E.-NOM school-LOC go-PST-DC-C
malha-yess-ta.
say-PST-DC
‘Mina told Pata that she/self/Enju went to school.’
The examples in (11) show that the null subject position can be filled by a phonetically
realized DP, other than a referential lexical DP. That is to say, only a null subject, ec, or
an overt pronoun or reflexive is compatible with the complement subject position in OC
constructions. (11a), which corresponds to (9a), shows that the null subject can alternate
with an honorific 3rd person pronoun/reflexive, tangsin, which refers to the matrix
subject. (11b) shows that the null subject can alternate with a normal 3rd person pronoun,
kunye, since the matrix subject is not a person who needs to be honored. Also, (11c)
shows that a reflexive pronoun, caki or casin, can occur in the null subject position as
well as a regular pronoun. Note that the overt DP pronoun in the embedded clauses has
nominative Case. Also, it is important to note that the null subject and the overt DP in
(11) display exactly the same reference possibilities. This is contrary to (12) which is
considered to be a NOC construction. The example in (12), corresponding to (10),
95
shows that the overt pronoun can refer to entities other than the matrix argument and a
referential lexical DP can occur in the subject position.
The referential property of the overt pronoun in (11) is quite distinct from that of
overt pronouns in subjunctive constructions in some languages, such as Hebrew and
Balkan languages. In those languages, unlike the Korean data (11), an overt pronominal
subject in subjunctive clauses triggers obviation. Consider the following Hebrew
examples cited from Landau (2004:p.813).
(13) a. Himlacti
le-Gil1 še-ec1/*2 yearšem
I-recommended to-Gil
la-xug
that-ec will-register.3SG.M to-the-department
le-balšanut.
to-linguistics
‘I recommended to Gil to register to the linguistics department.’
b. Himlacti
le-Gil1 še-Dani2/hu2 yearšem
I-recommended to-Gil
la-xug
that-Dani/he will-register.3SG.M to-the-department
le-balšanut.
to-linguistics
‘I recommended to Gil that Dani/he should register to the linguistics department.’
c. Himlacti
I-recommended
le-Gil1 še-ec2 terašem
la-xug
to-Gil that-ec will-register.2SG.M to-the-department
le-balšanut.
to-linguistics
‘I recommended to Gil that you should register to the linguistics department.’
96
According to Landau (2004), (13a) displays OC into a finite complement- the
embedded null subject must refer to the matrix object Gil, while (13b) with a lexical
subject and (13c) do not. (13b) shows subject obviation – the pronoun in the embedded
subject position is bound by an antecedent outside of the matrix clause – which is a
typical subjunctive property in the language. (13c) shows that the null subject is not
controlled since it is not 3rd person. Based on the empirical data above, Landau argues
that finite control is found only in null 3rd person subjects and that the null subject in
(13a) is PRO, while the null subject in (13c) is pro. However, this is not the case in
Korean finite control. Unlike the Hebrew data, the Korean data in (11) show that the
null subject can be replaced with an overt pronoun in nominative Case with the same
coreference relation between the embedded subject and one of the arguments of the
matrix clause. That is, the available interpretations are the same regardless of whether
the overt pronoun or null subject appears in the complement clause. These examples
cannot be accommodated in a scale of finiteness such as that proposed by Landau
(2004), mainly because an overt DP subject is licensed in OC constructions, where
Landau’s typology predicts that only PRO can be licensed. This implies that control can
be attested in cases where no PRO can be licensed. Related arguments will be discussed
in detail in chapter 4.
Korean is not the only language that exhibits the availability of an overt DP in the
null subject position of control constructions. It has been noted that OC constructions in
some languages can have an overt DP in the complement subject position, as follows: 45
45
Madigan (2008) further reports that Zapotec (Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes 2005)
and Japanese (Kuno 1976, Iida 1991) allow overt material to be controlled.
97
(14) a. Ana je
naterala Marijui
Ana Aux forced
∅i doddje
da
Marija (ACC) COMP
Serbo-Croatian
come
‘Ana forced Marija that she should come.’
b. Ana je
naterala Marijui
Ana Aux forced
da
onai doddje
Marija (ACC) COMP she come
(Zec 1987) 46
‘Ana forced Marija that she should come.’
(15) Anangasan tin Eleni
na
milisi
afti i idhja
Greek
forced-3PL the Eleni-ACC SUBJ speak-3SG she herself-NOM
‘They forced Helen to speak herself.’
(16) (Victor) încearcă (Victor) să
V
try. 3SG V
cînte
(Phipippaki-Warburton & Catsimali 1999)
(Victor) la trombon (Victor) Romanian
SUBJ sing.3SG V
‘Victor is trying to play the trombone.’
at trombone V
(Alboiu 2004)
The examples in (14b) and (15) show that the complement clause of OC constructions
can have an emphatic pronoun which bears nominative Case – the nominative Case is
unmarked on the emphatic pronoun in Serbo-Croatian and marked in Greek. In fact,
46
According to Zec (1987), unlike the OC constructions (14b), ‘try’ constructions do
not allow the overt subject to appear in the embedded clause, as shown below.
Petari
je pokušao da
∅i / *oni doddje
Petar(Nom) Aux tried
Comp
he come
‘Peter tried to come.’
Compared to Serbo-Croation, Korean OC does not block the occurrence of overt
pronouns in the controllee position. Even though in some cases, such as (18a) below,
the pronoun makes the sentence somewhat unnatural, it is generally acceptable if it is
stressed like an emphatic pronoun.
98
Philippaki-Warburton & Catsimali (1999) and Spyropoulos (2007) among others use
nominative Case on the null subject as an argument for ‘pro’, which occurs in a finite
context, and against the possibility of controlled PRO in this environment. Also, the
Romanian example in (16) shows that the referential lexical subject can appear in a
number of legitimate slots, including the embedded clause, although only one
instantiation of the DP subject is permitted (Alboiu 2004:56). This example
demonstrates that the missing arguments in OC constructions actually occupy a position
that is independently theta-marked and Case-assigned. Given the fact that overt subjects
in nominative Case are restricted to finite clauses, as discussed in the previous chapter,
the fact that an overt subject in nominative Case can be licensed instead of the null
subject suggests that the complement clauses we are dealing with are finite. In sum, it is
argued that the embedded clauses of OC constructions in Korean and some other
languages have finite properties. This suggests that the standard theory of Control
restricting OC to only non-finite clauses and (PRO controlees) needs to be refined.
Next, consider the following examples which are considered to be typical nonfinite control in the literature on Korean control.
(17) a. Kim kyoswui-nim-i
K.
[eci ku tayhak-ulo
olmki-e ka-(si)]-lyeko
professor-HON-NOM the university-DR move-E go-HON-C
nolyekha-si-ess-ta.
endeavor-HON-PST-DC
‘Professor Kim endeavored to move into the university.’
99
b. Apecii-kkeyse
Pataj-eykey [eci/*j cenyek-ul
Father-HON.NOM P.-DAT
sa-(si)-(*ess/keyss)]-
dinner-ACC buy-(HON)-(PST/VOL)-
ki-lo
yaksokha-si-ess-ta.
NOML-DR
promise-HON-PST-DC
‘Father promised Pata to buy dinner.’
c. Minai-ka sensayng-nimj-ul [ec*i/j ttena-si-(*ess/keyss)]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM teacher-HON-ACC
leave-HON-(PST/VOL)-C persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded the teacher to leave.’
The above examples trigger an Obligatory Control reading. That is, the missing subject
in the embedded clauses must be co-referential with a local matrix antecedent. However,
compared to the finite control constructions in (9), which can take both the honorific
agreement suffix -si- and some Tense/Modal morphemes, the complement clauses in
(17) can take only the honorific agreement suffix. Thus, the constructions in (17) are
rendered ungrammatical if the embedded verb takes any Tense morphemes. This is the
crucial reason why the complement clauses in (17) have been assumed to be typical
examples of non-finite OC in the literature (Yang 1985; Borer 1989; Madigan 2006,
2008). 47 However, regarding the definition of finiteness discussed in the previous
chapter, the complement clauses in (17) as well as (9) should be considered finite. That
is, the complementizer -lyeko and -tolok in (17a, c) and the nominalizer ki in (17b),
respectively, function as Modal complemetizers which license a nominative subject and
render the complement clause to be finite.
47
Borer (1989) assumes that certain kinds of Korean infinitives, such as (18), are
characterized as [-Tense, +Agr], and that the null subject in the non-finite is obligatorily
controlled by the matrix argument.
100
The evidence for the finiteness of the complement clauses in (17) derives from the
fact that an overt DP in nominative Case can appear in the null subject position of the
complement clauses, as follows.
(18) a. Minai-ka [kunye?i/*j/cakii /*Pata-ka ttena]-lyeko nolyekha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM she
self
P.-NOM leave-C
endeavor-PST-DC
‘Mina tried for her/self/*Pata to leave.’
b. Apecii-kkeyse
Pataj-eykey [tangsini/*j
father-HON.NOM P.-DAT
si]-ki-lo
/*Wujin-i
cenyek-ul
sa-
he/himself.HON W.-NOM dinner-ACC buy
yaksokha-si-ess-ta.
HON-NOML-DR promise-HON-PST-DC
‘The father promised Pata that he/*Wujin would buy dinner.’
c. Minai-ka Pataj-lul [kunye*i/j/*k/*caki/*Enju-ka ttena]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM P.-ACC
she
self E.-NOM leave-C
persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Pata that she/*self/*Enju leave.’
As shown in the above examples, an overt pronoun, but not a referential lexical NP, can
appear in the embedded subject position, just as in the finite OC constructions in (11).
But, the overt pronouns in (18) display exactly the same reference possibilities as when
the embedded subject is null. 48 This indicates that the constructions in (9) and (17)
should be treated as the same, that is, as finite control constructions. Otherwise, non-
48
The overt reflexive caki in (18c) cannot occur in the construction since the reflexive
in Korean is subject oriented.
101
finite analyses of the constructions must explain the complete availability of lexical DPs
in the contexts.
In addition, it is worth noting that the matrix and the complement clauses in (17)
can host conflicting temporal adverbs, as illustrated in (19).
(19) a. Olhay
cho
Kim kyoswui-nim-i
this.year beginning K.
[eci naynyen-ey ku tayhak-ulo
professor-HON-NOM
next.year
the university-DR
olmki-e ka-si]-lyeko nolyekha-si-ess-ess-ta.
move-E go-HON-C endeavor-HON-PST-PERF-DC
‘Early this year Professor Kim had endeavored to move into the university next
year.’
b. Ecye,
apecii-kkeyse
Pataj-eykey [eci/*j nayil
yesterday, father-HON.NOM P.-DAT
si-ki-lo
cenyek-ul
sa-
tomorrow dinner-ACC buy-
yaksokha-si-ess-ta.
HON-NOML-DR promise-HON-PST-DC
‘Yesterday, the teacher promised Pata to buy dinner tomorrow.’
b. Ecye,
Minai-ka sensayng-nimj-ul
[nayil ec*i/j ttena-si]-tolok seltukha-
yesterday M.-NOM teacher-HON-ACC tomorrow
leave-HON-C persuade-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Yesterday, Mina persuaded the teacher that (s)he would leave tomorrow.’
102
The example in (19a) shows that the future-oriented adverb naynyen ‘next year’ does
not conflict with the past-oriented adverb olhay cho ‘early this year’ and with the past
perfect Tense of the matrix verb. Similarly, the examples in (19b) and (19c) show that
the matrix clauses can take the past-oriented adverb ‘yesterday’ and the embedded
clauses the future-oriented adverb ‘tomorrow’. That is, the embedded clauses in (19)
include their own Tense. This temporal property of the clause has been widely accepted
as ‘semantic/dependent Tense’ which renders the clause ‘tensed’, as discussed in 2.2.1.
Given this and the fact that the embedded clauses also can take the agreement marker si, the embedded clauses in (19) can be analyzed as being specified for [+T, +Agr]
which have been considered to be the crucial features licensing a nominative subject in
the literature. In this respect, the so-called non-finite constructions in Korean are quite
different from non-finite control constructions which are analyzed as establishing a
PRO subject in many other languages. Consider the following examples.
(20) a. *Yesterday, Johni began to PROi solve the problem, tomorrow.
b. Yesterday, John hoped to PRO solve the problem, tomorrow.
(21) a.*Včera
zabravix
[PRO da zamina
yesterday forgot-1SG
utre].
Bulgarian
DA leave-1SG tomorrow
‘*Yesterday, I forgot to leave tomorrow.’
b. Včera
rešix
[utre
yesterday decided tomorrow
pro da ne puša
poveče].
DA not smoke-1SG anymore
‘Yesterday I decided that tomorrow I would give up smoking.’ (Krapova, 1999)
103
c. Mariai a
încercat [PROi/*j/*Ion
Mary has tried
să plece].
Romanian
PRO /*John PRT leave
‘Mary tried to leave.’
d. Ioni vrea
ca
Dan/proi/j să
Ion wants that Dan/pro
resolve problema.
PRT solve
the-problem
‘Ion1 wants Dan/him2 to solve the problem.’
(Landau 2005)
The English examples in (20) (repeated from (28) in section 2.2.1) show that some
infinitives can carry semantic Tense, while some cannot. According to Landau (2000),
EC constructions, such as aspectual and implicative complements, cannot carry
semantic Tense and thus are specified for [–Tense], while PC constructions, such as
desiderative and interrogative complements, can carry semantic Tense and thus are
specified for [+Tense]. However, Landau considers those constructions non-finite since
they are not fully inflected for Tense and Agr, resulting in PRO subjects. Similarly, the
Bulgarian examples in (21a) and (21b) excerpted from Krapova (1999) show a contrast
in the availability of semantic Tense in the complement clauses. Krapova (1999) argues
that these Tense distinctions determine the nature of the controlled subject. She
proposes that while the subjunctive clause in (21a) is specified as [–T, +Agr] and
checks Null Case, that in (21b) is specified as [+T, +Agr] and thus checks Nominative
Case. Consequently, the former licenses a PRO subject and the latter pro. The same
phenomenon is found in the Romanian examples in (21c) and (21d), which correspond
to implicative and desiderative infinitives in English, respectively. According to Landau
(2005), (21c) is specified as [–T, +Agr], which licenses PRO, while (21d) is specified as
104
[+T, +Agr], which licenses pro or a lexical subject. These empirical data suggest that
the so-called non-finite constructions in Korean are more likely finite clauses in that
they are fully specified for Tense, Agreement and Modality, and have the ability to
license a nominative subject.
In addition, note that the so-called non-finite OC constructions in Korean do not
differ from finite OC constructions with respect to having different temporal adverbs, as
illustrated in (22).
(22) a. Ecye
Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [eci/*j nayil
yesterday M.-NOM P.-DAT
hakkyo-ey ka-keyss-ta]-
tomorrow school-LOC go-VOL-DC-
ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
C promise-PST-DC
‘Yesterday, Mina promised Pata that she would go to school tomorrow.’
b. Ecye
Minai-ka sensayng-nimj-ul [ec*i/j nayil
yesterday M.-NOM teacher-HON-ACC
ttena-si-la]-ko
tomorrow leave-HON-IMP-C
seltukha-yess-ta.
persuade-PST-DC
‘Yesterday, Mina persuaded the teacher that he should leave tomorrow.’
The unrealized or future-oriented event time of the embedded clauses in (22) is imposed
by the volitional Modal -keyss- and the imperative Mood marker -la, and so the
adverbial nayil ‘tomorrow’ can be licensed. This is the same as the event time of the
105
embedded clauses in (17) being determined by the Modal meaning of the
complementizers -leyko, -ki and -tolok, respectively.
Lastly, consider another type of complement clause in Korean that exhibits an OC
reading - a type that has rarely been addressed in the literature on control in Korean.
Here the embedded clause is marked by an adnominal suffix, -l, -nun or -(u)n.
(23) a. Ecye
Minai-ka Pataj- eykey [eci/*j nayil
yesterday M.-NOM P.-DAT
kes-ul
cenyek-ul
sa]-l
tomorrow dinner-ACC buy-ADN
yaksokha-yess-ta.
thing-ACC promise-PST-DC
‘Yesterday, Minai promised Pata that shei would buy dinner tomorrow.’
b. Minai-ka Pataj- eykey [kunyei/*j/cakii/*j/*Enju-ka cenyek-ul
M.-NOM P.-DAT
kes-ul
she
self
sa]-l
E.-NOM dinner-ACC buy-ADN
yaksokha-yess-ta.
thing-ACC promise-PST-DC
‘Yesterday, Mina promised Pata that she/self/*Enju should buy dinner
tomorrow.’
(24) a. Sensayng-nimi-kkeyse [eci ku ai-tul-ul
teacher-HON-HON.NOM
kaluchi-(si)]-nun kes-ul
the child-PL-ACC teach-HON-ADN thing-ACC
cungtanha-si-ess-ta.
stop-HON-PST-DC
‘The teacher stopped teaching the children.’
106
b. Sensayng-nimi-kkeyse [eci kongpwuha-(si)-te]-n
teacher-HON-HON.NOM
kes-ul
cungtanha-si-
study-HON-RET-ADN thing-ACC stop-HON-
ess-ta.
PST-DC
‘The teacher stopped studying.’
c. Sensayng-nimi-kkeyse
[tangsini-
/*Enju-ka ku ai-tul-ul
teacher-HON-HON.NOM he/himself.HON E-NOM the child-PL-ACC
kaluchi-(si)]-nun
kes-ul
cungtanha-si-ess-ta.
teach-HON-ADN thing-ACC stop-HON-PST-DC
‘The teacher stopped teaching the children.’
Just like the other types of complement clauses discussed so far, all the null subjects in
the clauses in (23) and (24) necessarily refer to the matrix subject, and no other reading
is possible. However, the null subject can alternate with an overt pronoun that displays
the same reference as the null subject; no other referential lexical NP is possible. This
suggests that these types of complement clauses should be treated as finite OC
constructions.
As already discussed in 2.2.2, -l, -nun and -(u)n contrast with one another in terms
of Modality or Tense and the selection of an adnominalizer is determined by the
semantics of the matrix predicate. While the verb yaksokha- ‘promise’ in (23) selects
the irrealis Modal adnominalizer -l, the verb cungtanha- ‘stop’ in (24) selects the realis
Modal adnominalizer -nun or-(u)n . In particular, (24b) shows that the retrospective
Modal suffix -te-, which denotes ‘past (progressive)’ Tense, can appear in the
107
embedded clause. This indicates that the event time of the embedded clauses in (24) is
not “irrealis”. Therefore, unlike (23), in which the embedded clause can host a future
Tense adverb, the embedded clauses in (24) exclude the future Tense adverb. In fact,
the event time of the embedded clauses in (24) is non-distinct from the matrix event.
This is expected, considering the semantic properties of the selecting predicates. For
example, the event time of the embedded clause in (24a) is linked to that of the matrix
clause through the realis/factive Modal adnominalizer -nun and is interpreted as a past
action, although the embedded clause originally lacks a Tense marker. The examples in
(24) are very interesting in that they do not display the typical Tense property of nonfinite OC constructions: the event time of the infinitival complement is “hypothetical or
unrealized” (Bresnan 1972; Stowell 1982).
However, this does not seem to be a
peculiar phenomenon of Korean. Landau (2000:58) shows that factive and propositional
complements typically involve a realis Tense preceding the matrix Tense, as in “Today,
John claimed to have lost his car keys last week”. This might imply that the typical
Tense property is not a necessary requirement for OC constructions, particularly for
finite OC.
As discussed thus far, control constructions in Korean whose complement clauses
have been analyzed as finite or non-finite in the literature are in fact finite in that the
constructions can allow an overt lexical NP in nominative Case to appear in the null
subject position and can be also specified for Mood/Modality, Tense and Agreement.
However, just as with OC in infinitives, finite control constructions in Korean exhibit
an obligatory referential dependence between the null subject of the complement clause
and some argument of the matrix clause.
108
3.2.2. OC Properties of Structures
One might question the OC status of the finite control constructions in Korean
discussed in the previous section. However, in addition to the referential dependence,
the finite control constructions display the basic properties of OC which are employed
as the criteria for defining OC in non-finite clauses (see (2) in 3.1).
First of all, arbitrary control or control by a distant antecedent that is not in the
immediately dominating clause (LD control) is not possible in the finite control
structures, as shown in (25).
(25) a. Johni-i
[Minaj-ka Patak-eykey [ec*i/j/*k/*arb cenyek-ul
J.-NOM M.-NOM P.-DAT
sa-keyss-ta]-ko
dinner- ACC buy-VOL-DC-C
yaksokha-yess-ta]-ko malha-yess-ta.
promise-PST-DC-C
say-PST-DC
‘John said that Mina promised Pata that she would buy dinner.’
b. Johni-i
[Minaj-ka Patak-lul [ec*i/*j/k/*arb ttena-]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta]-ko
J.-NOM M.-NOM P.-ACC
leave-C
persuade-PST-DC-C
mit-nun-ta.
believe-PRS-DC
‘John believes that Mina persuaded Pata to leave.’
c. Johni-i [Minaj-ka [ec*i/j/*arb hakkyo-ey
J.-NOM M.-NOM
yess-ta]-ko
cungtanha-
school-LOC go-ADN thing-ACC stop-
sayngkakha-n-ta.
PST-DC-C think-PRS-DC
ka]-nun kes-ul
109
‘John thinks that Mina stopped going to school.’
In (25a), the null subject in the most deeply embedded clause refers to Mina, in the
immediately higher clause, but cannot have arbitrary reference or take the LD controller,
John, as its controller. The examples in (25b) and (25c) illustrate the same point. This
contrasts with NOC constructions in Korean.
(26) a. Johni-i [Minaj-ka
Patak-eykey [eci/j/*k/arb hakkyo-ey
J.-NOM M.-NOM P.-DAT
ka-n-ta]-ko
school-LOC go-PRS-DC-C
malha-yess-ta]-ko mit-nun-ta.
say-PST-DC-C
believe-PRS-DC
‘John believes that Mina told Pata that she/he goes to school.’
b. Johni-i
[Minaj-ka [eci/j/arb hakkyo-ey
J.-NOM M.-NOM
ka]-ki-lul
pala-n-ta]-ko
school- LOC go-NOML-ACC want-PRS-DC-C
mit-nun-ta.
believe-PRS-DC
‘Johni believes that Minaj wants himi/herj/someone else to go to school.’
c. Johni-i [Minaj-ka [eci/j/arb hakkyo-ey
J.-NOM M.-NOM
ka]-nun
kes-ul
pala-n-ta]-
school-LOC go-ADN thing-ACC want-PRS-DC-
ko mit-nun-ta.
C
believe-PRS-DC
‘John believes that Mina wants him/her/someone else to go to school.’
110
As shown in (26), the null subject of the most deeply embedded clauses can refer to
either Mary or the LD subject, John. Also, it can have an arbitrary interpretation,
depending on the context where the sentence is spoken.
Next, in gapping constructions, finite control constructions only admit a ‘sloppy
reading’ interpretation of the controlee, as in (27), just as non-finite control
constructions in English.
(27) a. Minai-ka
Pataj-eykey [eci/*j cenyek-ul
M.-NOM P.-DAT
sa-keyss-ta]-ko
dinner-ACC buy-VOL-DC-C
yaksokha-yess-ta.
promise-PST-DC
Wujink-to kuli-ha-yess-ta.
W.-also
so-do-PST-DC
i) ‘Minai promised Pata that shei would buy dinner and Wujink promised Pata
that hek would buy dinner.’
ii) *‘Minai promised Pata that shei would buy dinner and Wujin promised Pata
that shei would buy dinner.’
b. Minai-ka Pataj-lul [ec*i/j ttena]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM P.-ACC
leave-C
Wujink-to kuli-ha-
persuade-PST-DC W.-also
so-do-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
i) ‘Minai persuaded Pataj that shej should leave and Wujink persuaded Pataj that
shej should leave.’
ii) *‘Minai persuaded Pataj that shej should leave and Wujink persuaded Mina to
persuade Pataj that shej should leave.’
111
c. Minai-ka [eci hakkyo-ey
M.- NOM
to
ka]-nun
kes-ul
cungtanha-yess-ta. Wujin-
school-LOC go-ADN thing-ACC stop-PST-DC
W.-
kuli-ha-yess-ta.
also so-do-PST-DC
i) ‘Mina stopped going to school and Wujin stopped going to school.’
ii) *‘Mina stopped going to school and Wujin stopped Mina’s going to school.’
In the gapped sentences in (27), ‘Wjuin-to kuri-ha-yess-ta’, the empty subject cannot
take the ‘strict reading’: that is, it cannot refer to the same antecedent as in the first
clause, Mina. For example, in (27a) the only possible interpretation is that Wujin
promises that he, Wujin, will buy dinner, the sloppy reading; it cannot mean the Wujin
promises that Mina will buy dinner, the strict reading. The same holds for (27b) and
(27c).
On the other hand, NOC constructions in Korean can have both sloppy and strict
reading, as illustrated in (28).
(28) a. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [eci hakkyo-ey
M.-NOM P.-DAT
ka-n-ta]-ko
malha-yess-ta.
school-LOC go-PRS-DC-C say-PST-DC
Wujink-to kuli-ha-yess-ta.
W.-also
so-do-PST-DC
i) ‘Minai told Pata that shei goes to school and Wujin told Pata that shei goes to
school.’
ii) ‘Minai told Pata that shei goes to school and Wujink told Pata that hek goes to
112
school.’
b. Minai-ka [eci hakkyo-ey ka]-ki-lul
M.-NOM
para-yess-ta.
Wujink-to kuli-ha-
school-LOC go-NOML-ACC want-PST-DC W.-also
so-do-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
i) ‘Minai wanted to go to school and Wujin wanted Mina to go to school.’
ii) ‘Minai wanted to go to school and Wujin wanted to go to school.’
c. Minai-ka [eci hakkyo-ey
M.-NOM
ka]-nun kes-ul
para-yess-ta.
Wujink-to
school-LOC go-ADN thing-ACC want-PST-DC W.-also
kuli-ha-yess-ta.
so-do-PST-DC
i) ‘Mina wanted to go to school and Wujin wanted Mina to go to school.’
ii) ‘Mina wanted to go to school and Wujin wanted to go to school.’
Here, both interpretations are possible. Thus, in (28a) Wujin can be saying either that
Mina is going to school, the strict reading, or that he, Wujin, is going to school, the
sloppy reading. (28b) and (28c) behave similarly.
Finally, finite control structures can only receive a de se interpretation. Consider
the following scenario, (29), from Moulton (2005:5).
(29) Fred is the president of a small nation. He is watching Fred (himself) deliver an
address on television, but he is so drunk that he doesn’t recognize himself. He
thinks that the guy he is seeing is a terrible president. (Nevertheless, Fred wouldn’t
113
knowingly think such things about himself.)
(30) a. Fredi-nun [eci/*j te-isang nappun taythonglyeng-i toy-ci anh-keyss-ta]-ko
F.-TOP
anymore bad
president-NOM become-NEG-VOL-DC-C
yaksokha-yess-ta.
promise-PST-DC
‘Fredi promised that hei/*j would not be a bad president.’
b. Fredi-nun [eci/*j te-isang nappun taythonglyeng-i toy-ci anh]-ki-lo
F.-TOP
anymore bad
president-NOM become-NEG-NOML-DR
yaksokha-yess-ta.
promise-PST-DC
‘Fredi promised that hei/*j would not be a bad president.’
c. Fredi-nun [eci/*j te-isang nappun taythonglyeng-i toy-ci anh]-ul
F.-TOP
kes-ul
anymore bad
president-NOM become-NEG-ADN
yaksokha-yess-ta.
thing-ACC promise-PST-DC
‘Fredi promised that hei/*j would not be a bad president.’
The null subjects in (30) can only be given a de se reading. That is, each of the
examples in (30) display the strong implicature of Fred’s awareness of himself as the
terrible president, and thus the sentences are false since Fred does not have such a belief
about himself in the scenario. However, in NOC constructions, de re reading as well as
de se reading is possible.
114
(31) a. Fredi-nun [eci/j aphulo
F.-TOP
cohun taythonglyeng-i toy-li-la]-ko
in.the.future good
president-NOM
become-CONJ-DC-C
mit-ess-ta.
believe-PST-DC
‘Fredi believed that hei/j would become a good president.’
b. Fredi-nun [eci/j aphulo
F.-TOP
cohun taythonglyeng-i toy]-ki-lul
in.the.future good
president-NOM become-NOML-ACC
pala-yess-ta.
want-PST-DC
‘Fredi wanted that hei/j would become a good president.’
c. Fredi-nun [eci/j aphulo
F.-TOP
ul
cohun taythonglyeng-i toy]-l
in the future good
kes-
president-NOM become-ADN thing-
kitayha-yess-ta.
ACC expect-PST-DC
‘Fredi expected that hei/j would become a good president.’
As shown in (31), the null subject of the embedded clause can refer to an antecedent
which is outside of the construction. As a result, the constructions are not OC and de re
reading is possible. That is, the examples in (31) cannot be falsified by de re reading
since the examples can be interpreted in a way that Fred is not aware of his true identity
as the president.
In sum, these data above clearly display all the typical properties of Obligatory
Control in non-finite control constructions, even though the embedded clauses are
115
demonstrably finite. That is, finite control constructions in Korean can instantiate OC.
Consequently, this analysis suggests that finiteness is actually hardly relevant to OC
constructions in Korean. This is similar to the analysis of finite control in Hebrew and
Balkan languages that has been proposed by Landau (2000, 2004). However, unlike
Landau’s analysis, in which the null subjects of finite OC constructions as well as of
non-finite are assumed to be PRO, the null subjects of finite OC constructions in
Korean are best analyzed as pro. This will be motivated in chapter 5 in detail.
Given the existence of finite control, as discussed so far, the crucial distinction
between OC and NOC in Korean may depend on two factors: 1) whether a matrix
argument obligatorily binds the complement subject argument and 2) whether Rexpressions (which are intrinsically referentially indepenedent) can replace a controllee.
While no antecedent is necessary and a lexical DP including R-expressions can alternate
with a controllee for NOC, the controllees in OC constructions must have an antecedent
and they cannot be replaced by R-expressions.
3.3. Types of Sentential Complements and Finite Control
A few studies (cf. Yang 1985, Madigan 2008) have argued for finite control in
Korean. However, none of the studies addressed the complete range of finite control
constructions, focusing on only quotative complement clauses as finite control
constructions. Moreover, they differentiated
the so-called non-finite control
constructions from other finite control constructions, missing the fact that both
structures display the properties of finiteness in that an overt subject in nominative Case
can appear in the complement clause and the complement clause can be specified for
Tense, Agreement and Modality, which are widely accepted as factors determining
116
finiteness in the literature. As syntactic factors appear to be unable to account for these
control facts, perhaps the answer lies in semantic factors. In this section, I will examine
whether there is a correlation between the meaning of matrix predicates and the
complement type in determining control. There have been very few studies on this issue
(cf. Gamerschlag, 2007), although it is a very crucial issue to investigate in order to
account for the characteristics of control.
Six basic types of complements that are examined in this thesis are 1)
Nominalizations, 2) Adnominalizations, 3) Interrogative complements, 4) Quotative
complements, 5) Intentive Complements, and 6) Resultative complements. These
complements are headed by different types of elements, as illustrated in (32).
(32) Elements Selecting the Complement Clauses.
Complement types
Elements heading complements
Nominaliation
Nominalizer -ki and -(u)m
Adnominalization
Adnominalizer -(u)n, -nun, and -(u)l
Interrogative
complements
Quotative
complements
Intentive
complements
Resultative
complements
Interrogative endings -ka/kka and -na/nya
Adnominalizer -nun/(u)l + the defective noun ci
Quotative complementizer -ko
Intentive complementizer -(u)lyeko and -koca
Resultative complementizer -tolok and -key
Each complement type will be analyzed with respect to the lexical properties of the
selecting predicate and their control relation. Ninety matrix predicates have been
117
compiled to form the basis of this thesis and classified into 9 different categories, 49
based on their semantic class, as shown below.
(33) A List of the Predicates
Implicative
Aspectual
Directive/
Manipulative
Desiderative
Utterance
Propositional
Perception
Factive
Interrogative
sidohata ‘try’, noleykhata/ayssuta ‘endeavor’, 50 silphayhata ‘fail’,
kyeulihata/soholhata, ‘neglect’, samkata ‘refrain’, phihata ‘avoid’
sichakhata ‘begin/start’, keysokhata ‘continue’, kkutnayta ‘finish’,
memchwuta/cwungtanhata/cwungcihata ‘stop/cease’, kumantwuta
‘quit/stop’
kangyouhata ‘force’, seltukhata ‘persuade’, mantulta ‘make’, sikhita
‘let’, cwumwunhata ‘order’, hyeppakhata/wihyephata ‘threaten’,
myengleynghata/cihwihata ‘command’, pangcihata/makta ‘prevent/
stop’, heyonghata/helakhata ‘allow’, ceyanhata ‘propose/suggest’,
coluta ‘coax’, pwutakhata/tangpwuhata ‘ask’, yochenghata
‘request’, kanchenghata ‘beg’
wenhata/parata ‘want’, hyimanghata ‘hope’, sowonhata ‘wish’,
senhohata ‘prefer’, kalmanghata/kalkwuhata ‘desire’, tonguyhata
‘agree’, yaksokhata ‘promise’, kyeyhoykhata ‘plan’, cwunpihata
‘prepare’, uytohata ‘intend’, keylcenghata ‘decide’, kepwuhata
‘refuse/decline’, kitayhata ‘expect’, keylsimhata ‘determine/resolve’,
yokwuhata ‘ask/demand’, senthaykhata/thaykhata/koluta/chwihata
‘choose’
malhata/yaikihata ‘say’, pokohata ‘report’, potohata ‘report (in a
mass media)’, palphyohata ‘announce’
chwucenghata/chwuchukhata ‘assume’, cwucanghata ‘claim’, mitta
‘believe’, pwuinhata/pwucenghata ‘deny’, kacenghata ‘suppose’,
sayngkakhata ‘think’, uysimhata ‘doubt’, yesanghata/yechukhata
‘anticipate’
pota ‘see’, tutta ‘hear’, kwukeynghata ‘watch’, nukkita ‘feel’
hwuhoyhata ‘regret’, miwehata/silhehata ‘hate’, cohahata ‘like’,
hyemohata ‘loath’, icta/mangkakhata ‘forget’, kiekhata ‘remember’,
alta ‘know’
mwutta ‘ask’, palkyenhata/chacta ‘find out’, phaakhata ‘grasp’,
ihayhata ‘understand’, kwungkumhata ‘wonder’
49
There are no uniform verb classes in the literature. The categories employed in this
thesis are based on Landau (2000:38) and Stiebels (2007:79).
50
noleykhata/ayssuta ‘endeavor’ can be often replaced with sidohata ‘try’.
118
3.3.1. Nominalization and Control
As discussed in 2.2.2, there are two sentential nominalizers in Korean: -ki and -um
which are basically in complementary distribution. The nominalizer -ki tends to appear
in the complements of most of the aspectual, desiderative, directive/manipulative, and
implicative predicates in (33), while it tends not to appear in the complement of the
remaining types of the predicates. On the other hand, -(u)m is found in the complements
of factive, propositional, and utterance predicates, while it is not found in the
complements of the predicates where -ki can appear. The following data illustrate some
examples of the contrast in the distributions of both nominalizers.
(34) a. Minai-ka [eci/*j khephi-lul
M.-NOM
masi]-ki/*m
sicakha-yess-ta.
coffee-ACC drink-NOML start-PST-DC
‘Mina started drinking coffee.’
b. Minai-ka naj-eykey [ec*i/j/*k kecis-ul malha]-ki/*m-(l)ul kangyoha-yess-ta.
M-.NOM I-DAT
lie-ACC tell-NOML-ACC
force-PST-DC
‘Mina forced me to tell a lie.’
(35) a. Minai-ka [eci/*j ke chayk-ul
M.-NOM
ilk-ci anh-ass]-m/*ki-(l)ul hwuhoyha-yess-ta.
the book-ACC read-NEG-NOML-ACC
regret-PST-DC
‘Mina regretted reading the book.’
b. Mina-kai [eci/j cha-ey
M.-NOM
kilum-ul
chaywu-ess]-m/*ki-(l)ul ic-ess-ta.
car-DAT gas-ACC fill-PST-NOML-ACC
‘Mina forget that she/someone else filled the car with gas.’
forget-PST-DC
119
The examples above show that the aspectual predicate sicakha- ‘start’ (34a) and the
directive predicate kangyoha- ‘force’ (34b) can select only -ki complements, while the
factive predicate hwuhoyha- ‘regret’ (35a) and icta ‘forget’ (35b) can select only -(u)m
complements. This illustrates that -um occurs in cases when the event has already
occurred, while -ki is used when the event has not occurred. Note that unlike the -(u)m
complements in (35), the -ki complements in (34) show OC reading. However, the
following examples show that the choice of a nominalized complement might not be the
factor which triggers the OC reading. (36) and (37) exemplify the fact that the same
matrix predicate can sometimes select -ki complements and at others select -(u)m
complements.
Wujin-ul manna]-ki-lo 51
(36) a. Minai-ka [eci/*j tabang-eyse
M.-NOM
yaksokha-yess-ta.
coffee.shop-LOC W.-ACC meet-NOML-DR promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised that she would meet Wujin in a coffee shop.’
b. Minai-ka Minswuj-eykey [eci/i+j ttena]-ki-lo
M.-NOM M.-DAT
yaksokha-yess-ta.
leave-NOML-DR promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised Minswu to leave/that they (Mina and Minswu) would leave.’
c. Wulii-nun [eci/*j comte
We-TOP
khun cip-ulo
a little more big
isaka]-ki-lo
home-LOC move-NOML-DR
kyelcengha-yess-ta.
decide-PRS-DC
‘We decided to move into a little bigger house.’
51
Some researchers consider kilo one morpheme since the directional marker -lo cannot
be dropped, contrary to the accusative case which can be dropped, depending on the
matrix predicates.
120
(37) a. Wujini-i [eci/*j hoycang-ulose-uy yekhwal-ul chungsilhi ha-l kes-i]W.-NOM
m-ul
president-as-GEN role-ACC
faithfully do-FUT-COP-
yaksokha-yess-ta.
NOML-CC promise-PST-DC
‘Wujin promised that he would play a president’s role faithfully.’
b. Cwungkwuki-un [cwungkwuk hyekmyeng-i
Chinese-TOP
naaka-ya ha]-m-ul
Chinese
twu kaci
kil-lo
revolution-NOM two kind way-DR
kyelcengha-yess-ta.
go.forward-should-NOML-ACC decide-PST-DC
‘The Chinese decided that the Chinese revolution should go forward in two
ways.’
In (36a, b) the predicate yaksokha- ‘promise’ selects -ki complements, but in (37a) it
selects an -(u)m complement. Likewise, kyelcengha- ‘decide’ selects a -ki complement
in (36c), but an -(u)m complement in (37b). As discussed in 2.2.2, the generalization
about the complementary distribution of the nominalizers is not uncontroversial since
there are empirical examples, such as (36) and (37), showing an exception to the
generalization. However, even in the case of the exception, some predicates show a
preference for one over the other type of nominalized complement. In the above
examples, the matrix predicates are much more compatible with -ki complements than (u)m complements. This is attributed to the contrast in the Modality of both
nominalizers. Recall that the event time of control complements is generally irrealis.
Since -ki, contrary to -(u)m, denotes irrealis Modality, -ki complements are more
121
compatible with the matrix predicates than -(u)m complements. A more important thing
to note, however, is that both types of nominalized complements do not always exhibit
OC. In the literature on Korean and other languages, the verb yaksokha- ‘promise’ has
been treated as a subject control verb. Indeed, data involving the predicate in the Korean
corpora predominantly show subject control. However, the example in (36b) with the
-ki nominalizer shows non obligatory control. This suggests that the OC in (34) is
induced by factors other than the -ki nominalizer. As a matter of fact, a prominent factor
that perhaps triggers OC in (34a) is the lexical meaning of the aspectual predicate,
sicakha- ‘start’. That is, the person who does the act of starting in (34a) must
simultaneously do the act of drinking coffee, by the lexical semantics of sicakha- ‘start’.
Thus, obligatory subject control is triggered. However, the directive verb kangyoha‘force’, a non-aspectual verb, in (34b) does not always trigger OC, as will be discussed
in section 3.3.6.
The following examples further show that the choice of a -ki nominalized
complement does not necessarily trigger OC.
(38) a. Minai-ka [eci/j cip-ey
M.-NOM
ka-ki]-lul
para-n-ta.
home-LOC go-NOML-ACC want-PRS-DC
‘Mina wants (someone else) to go home.’
b. Kim kyoswui-ka
K.
[eci/j ku chayk-ul
professor-NOM
kitayha-yess-ta.
expect-PST-DC
kaycengha-l swu iss-ki]-lul
the book-ACC revise-can
exist-NOML-ACC
122
‘Professor Kim expected that he could revise the book.’
c. Ku-nun [anay-ka
he-TOP
cip-ey
tolao-ki]-lul
para/kitayha-
wife-NOM home-LOC come.back-NOML-ACC want/expect-
n-ta.
PRS-DC
‘He wants/expects his wife to come back home.’
In the examples in (38), the null subjects are not obligatorily coreferential with the
matrix subject, Mina, but can refer to someone else outside of the sentences. The
admissibility of the overt embedded subject instead of the null subject in (38c) shows
again that a -ki nominalized complement does not always trigger OC.
In conclusion, the data show that the choice of a nominalized complement does
not ensure OC, while the lexical meaning of some matrix predicates, such as the
aspectual verb sicakha- ‘start’, can trigger OC. Following Stiebels (2007) and
Gamerschlag (2007), I will call the former case ‘control neutral’ and the latter case
‘Inherent control’. ‘Inherent control’ occurs in the constructions where some semantic
factors, such as the lexical semantics of matrix predicates, require Obligatory Control
readings independent of the instantiated structure of complement clauses. ‘Controlneutral’ applies to the structures where no specific factor requires an Obligatory Control
reading and thus, a lexical NP referring to other than the matrix arguments can be
overtly realized. Therefore, nominalized complementation in Korean is analyzed as a
control-neutral structure.
123
3.3.2. Adnominalization and Control
As discussed in 2.2.2, adnominal complementizers, -(u)n, -nun, and -(u)l, contrast
with one another in terms of Modality or Tense. The choice of the adnominal endings in
Korean basically depends on the Tense of the embedded sentence and the type of the
embedded predicate. 52 There are two kinds of complementation formed by the
adnominal complementizers in Korean: 53 direct and indirect. 54 In the former case, the
adnominal endings, -(u)n, -nun, and -(u)l, replace the final endings of the embedded
predicates, while in the latter case, they are simply attached to the embedded predicates
without deleting the final ending of the predicates. This is illustrated in the following
examples.
(39) a. Kui-nun [eci ku kos-ey
he-TOP
ka]-l/nun kes-ul
kepwuha-yess-ta.
the place-LOC go-ADN thing-ACC refuse-PST-DC
‘He refused to go to the place.’
b. Emenii-nun
atulj-eykey [ec*i/j cip-ul
mother-TOP son-DAT
ttena]-l/nun kes-ul
home-ACC leave-ADN thing-ACC
52
The realis/present adnominalizer for a verb is -nun, while that for an adjective is -n.
Also, adjectives show some restrictions on the selection of the adnominalizers, which
will not be of concern in this thesis.
53
The complements headed by the adnominal endings can be divided into two types,
relativization and adnominalization, depending on whether or not the head noun is an
element of the complement clauses. The head noun in the latter case, unlike in the
former case, cannot be conceptually postulated within the complement clause (as will
be shown below) and it is coreferential to the whole complement clause. Only the latter
type is considered to be relevant to the issues of this thesis.
54
Indirect complementation is called “indirect’ because it incorporates indirect quotes
(Lee & Ramsey, 2000:204).
124
helakha-si-ess-ta.
allow-HON-PST-DC
‘The mother allowed her son to leave home.’
c. Sonyei-nun [eci chayk-ul
girl-TOP
ilk-te]-n/*nun/*l kes-ul
book-ACC read-RET-ADN
memchwu-ess-ta.
thing-ACC stop-PST-DC
‘The girl stopped reading a book.’
(39) shows examples of direct complementation. As shown in the examples, direct
complementation can involve all the adnominal endings. The embedded clauses with
the adnominal endings modify the dummy noun kes which is the head noun of the
clauses. 55 In (39a) and (39b) the adnominalizer -(u)l or -nun can follow the verb stem
ka- ‘go’ and ttena- ‘leave’, respectively. However, in (39c) only the adnominalizer -n
can appear because the verb stem is followed by the retrospective Modal suffix -te,
which denotes ‘past (progressive)’ Tense.
Unlike direct complementation, indirect complementation can involve only the
adnominalizer -nun, as can be seen in (40).
(40) a. Kunyei-nun [eci naj-eykey pimil-ul
she-TOP
55
I-DAT
malha-yess-ta]-nun kes-ul
secret-ACC tell-PST-DC-ADN thing-ACC
In addition to numerous free nouns, such as sasil ‘fact’ and il ‘matter’, there are many
defective or dummy noun, such as kes ‘thing’, ci ‘whether’, and swu ‘possibility’, which
can function as the head noun of the adnominal complements. Since what kind of the
head noun is selected is not a central issue to the discussion of this thesis, I will give
only the examples of kes complements for the adnominal complementation.
125
pwuinha-yess-ta.
deny-PST-DC
‘She denied that she told me a secret.’
b. John-un [kunye-ka
J.-TOP
she-NOM
alumtap-ta]-nun
kes-ey
tonguyha-n-ta.
beautiful-DC-ADN thing-LOC agree-PRS-DC
‘John agrees on a fact that she is beautiful.’
In the above examples, the adnominalizer -nun is attached to the embedded predicates
without deleting the sentence-final ending of the predicates.
The distribution of -(u)n complements is restricted to a few types of predicates,
such
as
factive,
perception,
utterance
and
propositional
predicates.
This
complementation generally shows no control. However, when it involves the
retrospective Modal -te- directly followed by the adnominal ending -(u)n and is selected
by an aspectual predicate, such as in (39c), it shows Obligatory Control. Compared to
-(u)n complements, -nun and -(u)l complements are compatible with almost every type
of predicate in (33) and in some cases either one can occur, as shown in (39a) and
(39b). 56 However, they do show some contrast in their distribution: -nun complements,
unlike -(u)l complements, are incompatible with many of directive predicates and -(u)l
complements, unlike -nun complements, are incompatible with aspectual and many
implicative predicates. The following are some examples of the distribution.
56
Also, in many cases, both adnominal complements can be replaced with -ki
nominalization.
126
(41) a. Nai-nun kisaj-eykey [ec*i/j cha-lul
I-TOP
driver-DAT
seywu]-l/*nun kes-ul
car-ACC stop-ADN
yokwuha-
thing-ACC ask-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘I asked the driver to stop the car.’
b. Chani-i [eci kose-lul
C.-NOM
mou]-nun/*l kes-ul
sicakha-yess-ta.
old.book-ACC collect-ADN thing-ACC start-PST-DC
‘Chan started to collect old books.’
c. Ku-tuli-un [eci Tongi-lul cwuki]-nun/*l kes-un
he-PL-TOP
T.-ACC
kill-ADN
silphayha-yess-ta.
thing-TOP fail-PST-DC
‘They failed to kill Tongi.’
As can bee seen in (41a), most directive predicates, such as yokwuha- ‘ask’, select -(u)l
complements, but do not select -nun complements. In contrast, aspectual predicates and
many implicative predicates, such as sicakha- ‘start’ and silphayha- ‘fail’, do not select
-(u)l complements, but select -nun complements, as in (41b) and (41c). These
restrictions seem to be imposed by the lexical semantics of the matrix predicates. For
example, the directive predicate yokwuha- ‘ask’ in (41a) denotes that the event or action
denoted by the embedded verb is going to be carried out by the object referent
kisa ‘driver’. Thus, the adnominalizer -l, which denotes an irrealis or prospective
Modality, can be selected, but not the adnominalizer -nun, which denotes a realis or
indicative Modality.
127
Just looking at the examples in (39) through (41), it seems that ‘direct
complementation’, unlike ‘indirect complementation’, triggers control. However, the
following examples show that the former, as well as the latter, is actually controlneutral.
(42) a. Kui-nun [nwui-ka
he-TOP
cip-ey
o]-nun
kes-cocha kepwuha-yess-ta.
sister-NOM home-DAT come-ADN thing-even refuse-PST-DC
‘He even refused to let his sister come home.’
b. Yang sacangi-un [eci mikwuk-ulo ttena]-l
Y.president-TOP
USA.-DR
kes-ul
kyelcengha-yess-ta.
leave-ADN thing-ACC decide-PST-DC
‘President Yang decided to leave for USA.’
c. Yueyni-un [1948 nyen-ulo yengkwuk-uy thongchi-ka kkuthna]-l kesUN-TOP
ul
1948 year-DR England-GEN reign-NOM
end-ADN
thing-
kyelcengha-yess-ta.
ACC decide-PST-DC
‘The UN decided that the reign of England would end in 1948.’
The examples in (39a) and (42a) employ the same matrix predicate, kepwuha- ‘refuse’
and the same adnominal ending -nun. However, unlike (39a) in which subject control
occurs, (42a) displays no control at all. The examples in (42b) and (42c) show the same
pattern. That is, (42b) shows subject control, while (42c) shows no control. In addition,
the most of the adnominal complements selected by propositional, utterance, and
perception predicates show no control, as some examples are shown in (43).
128
(43) a. Kunye-nun [oppa -ka
she-TOP
cacin-ul
towa cwu]-l
kes-ul
older.brother-NOM self-ACC help give-ADN thing-ACC
mit-ess-ta.
believe-PST-DC
‘She believed that her old brother would help her.’
b. Ceca-nun
[wuli-ka
pyenhwaha]-l kes-ul
author-TOP we-NOM change-ADN
cwucangha-n-ta.
thing-ACC claim-PRS-DC
‘The author claims that we should change ourselves.’
c. Enlon-un
[taycwung-i
ku pepan-ul
chansengha]-nun/l kes-
mass.media-TOP the masses-NOM the bill-ACC consent-ADN
thing-
ulo potoha-yess-ta.
DR report-PST-DC
‘The mass media reported that the masses consent/will consent to the bill.’
d. Ku ai-ka
[Kiho-ka tomangka]-nun
kes-ul
po-ass-ta.
he child-NOM K.-NOM run.away-ADN thing-ACC see-PST-DC
‘The child saw Kiho running away.’
The examples in (43a) and (43b) show that the -l adnominal complements selected by
the propositional predicates mit- ‘believe’ and cwucangha- ‘claim’ show no control at
all. Similarly, the examples in (43c) and (43d) show that the adnominal complements
selected by the utterance predicate potoha- ‘report’ and the perception predicate po‘see’ display no control. These tell us that adnominalization, like nominalization, is
129
control-neutral. However, just like nominal complements selected by aspectual
predicates, when adnominal complements are selected by aspectual predicates, they
show obligatory subject control, as shown in (39c) and (41b). That is, as already
discussed in the previous section, aspectual predicates always trigger Inherent control.
The following are further examples showing that adnominal complement clauses
selected by some implicative predicates require Obligatory Control reading.
(44) a. Cwumongi-un [eci/*j kot
C.-TOP
talana]-l/*nun/*n kes-ul
soon run.away-ADN
kyelsimha-yess-ta.
thing-ACC resolve-PST-DC
‘Cwumong resolved to run away soon.’
b. Taychii-nun [eci/*j Tongcin-eykey teisang
T.-TOP
T.-DAT
malul ke]-nun/*l/*n kes-ul
anymore speak.to-ADN
thing-ACC
samka-ss-ta.
refrain-PST-DC
‘Taychi refrained talking to Tohngcin anymore.’
c. Kutuli-un [eci/*j ku-lul
they-TOP
kes-un
sipcaka-ey maytal-ass-ciman
cwuki]-nun/*l/*n
he-ACC cross-LOC hang-PST-although kill-ADN
silphayha-yess-ta.
thing-TOP fail-PST-DC
‘They fail to kill him, although they hung him on the cross.’
d. Kui-nun [eci/*j saylowun calyo-lul
he-TOP
new
swucipha]-nun/*l/*n kes-ul
data-ACC collect-ADN
thing-ACC
130
keyuliha-yess-ta.
neglect-PST-DC
‘He neglected to collect new data.’
As shown in the examples above, implicative predicates show some restrictions on their
choice of complements. That is, the matrix predicate kyelsimha- ‘resolve’ can select -l
complements, but cannot select -nun and -n adnominal complements. On the other hand,
the matrix predicate samka- ‘refrain’, silphayha- ‘fail’, and keyuliha- ‘neglect’ can
select -nun complements, but cannot select the other types of adnominal complements.
However, the more important thing to note here is that they always trigger subject
control. That is, the null subjects in (44) cannot refer to a referent different from the
matrix subject, and thus an overt lexical NP other than the matrix subject cannot occur
in the subject position of the complement clauses. That is, these predicates, like
aspectual predicates, always trigger subject control regardless of the types of the
complement that they select. This will be discussed in detail in chapter 5 (section
5.2.1.1).
3.3.3. Interrogative Complements and Control
Interrogative complements are formed in two ways: one is by attaching the
interrogative endings, -ka/kka and -na/nya, to the verb and the other is by an
adnominalization headed by the defective noun, ci. The general characteristic of these
complements is that they occur with a question word, such as nwuka ‘who’ or woy
‘why’. Interrogative complements are compatible with mostly propositional, perception,
131
utterance, factive, and interrogative predicates and with some of the desiderative
predicates, such as keylcengha- ‘decide’ and senthaykha- ‘choose’.
Observe the following examples which contain the interrogative ending -ka/kka.
(45) a. Nai-nun [eci/*j ku ttye way cip-ul
I-TOP
ttena-ss-te-n-ka]-(lul) 57
the time why house-ACC leave-PST-RET-IND-Q-ACC
hwuhoyha-yess-ta.
regret-PST-DC
‘I regretted why I left home at that time.’
b. Nai-nun [cikum-kkaci-uy na-uy hayngtohn-i
I-TOP
elmana kyengmangha-yess-
now-until-GEN I-GEN behavior-NOM how
te-n-ka]-(lul)
light-PST-
hwuhoyha-yess-ta.
RET-IND-Q-ACC regret-PST-DC
‘I regretted how imprudent my behavior was.’
c. Kui-nun [Tongi-ka eti-ey
he-TOP
sal-ass-te-n-ka]-(lul)
ic-ess-ta.
T.-NOM where-LOC live-PST-RET-IND-Q-ACC forget-PST-DC
‘He forgot where Tongi was living.’
d. Sengsehakca-tuli-i [etten
kes-i
wenmwun-ey
kakkawu-l-
Biblicists-PL-NOM what.kind.of thing-ACC original.text-LOC close-FUT-
57
Based on the admissibility of the case markers in (45) and (46) below, there has been
a claim that the embedded question morphemes –ka/kka and –na/nya should be
analyzed as sentential nominalizers (cf. Kim, 1984). However, considering the
distributions of the question morphemes as verbal endings in root clauses, they will be
treated as interrogative Mood endings, not nominalizers, in this thesis. Whether they are
nominalizers or not is not central to the discussion above.
132
kka]-lul kyelcengha-yess-ta.
Q-ACC
decide-PST-DC
‘The Biblicists decided which one would be close to the original text.’
As can be seen in (45), some factive predicates, such as hwuhoyha- ‘regret’ and ic‘forget’, and some desiderative predicates, such as kyelcengha- ‘decide’, select
interrogative complements headded by -ka/kka. The interrogative complements can take
Tense/Aspect or Modal suffixes imposed by the selecting predicates. That is, in (45a)
and (45b) the complement clauses can take the retrospective modal suffix -te-, which
denotes a past (progressive) event, due to the lexical meaning of the matrix predicate
hwuhoyha ‘regret’. In contrast, the complement clause in (45d) selected by the matrix
predicate kyelcengha- ‘decide’ can take the future Tense suffix -l . Note that unlike (45a)
which shows subject control, the examples in (45b-d) show no control at all.
The same pattern can be found in the interrogative complements headed by the
interrogative ending -nya/na, as follows.
(46) a. Kui-nun [eci/*j ku il-ul
he-TOP
kyesokha-l ke-nya ma-l ke-nya-](lul)
the work-ACC continue-FUT-Q
don’t-FUT-Q-ACC
kyelcengha-yess-ta.
decide-PST-DC
‘He decided whether or not he would continue the work.’
b. Kui-nun Minkyuj-eykey [ec*i/j/k ettehkey ku
he-TOP M.-DAT
how
ton-ul
mo-ass-na]-
the money-ACC save-PST-Q
133
mul-ess-ta.
ask-PST-DC
‘He asked Minkyu how he saved the money.’
Similar to the -ka/kka interrogative complements in (45), the -nya/na interrogative
complements in (46) can take Tense or aspectual specification imposed by the selecting
predicates. Also, the examples in (46) demonstrate that -nya/na interrogative
complements cannot trigger Obligatory Control; (46a) shows subject control, but (46b)
shows Non-Obligatory control.
The other type of interrogative complement shows the same control phenomenon.
(47) a. Swunii-nun [casini-/ku-ka mwusun il-ul
S.-TOP
self/he-NOM what
wenha]-nun/l ci-(lul)
job-ACC want-ADN
whether-ACC
al-ass-ta.
know-PST-DC
‘Swuni knew what job she/he wanted/ what job she/he would want.’
b. Na-nun [anay-ka
I-TOP
eti-lo
ka-ss]-nun
/ka]-l
ci-(ka)
wife-NOM where-DR go-PST-ADN/go-ADN whether-NOM
kwungkumha-yess-ta.
wonder-PST-DC
‘I wondered where my wife went/would go.’
c. Halapecii-kkeyse
[nwuka
hoysa-lul
kyengyengha]-*nun/l
grandfather-HON.NOM who.NOM company-ACC manage-ADN
134
ci-lul
kyelcengha-si-ess-ta.
whether-ACC decide-HON-PST-DC
‘The grandfather decided who would manage the company.’
The examples in (47) include adnominalized complements headed by the defective head
noun ci ‘whether’. 58 Similar to the adnominal complements discussed in the previous
section, different types of adnominalizers can be selected depending on the lexical
meaning of the matrix predicates. That is, the factive verb al- ‘know’ in (47a) and the
interrogative verb kwungkumha- ‘wonder’ in (47b) can select either -nun or -l, while the
predicate kyelcengha- ‘decide’ can select only -l. More importantly, however, the
examples show that ci interrogative complements usually show no control. In (47a) the
reflexive pronoun casin refers to the matrix subject Swuni, but a referent other than the
matrix subject, ku ‘he’, can appear. Likewise, the examples in (47b) and (47c) show no
control.
In conclusion, the examples above show that interrogative complements are
control-neutral, just as the other complement clauses discussed so far and that no
specific predicates selecting interrogative complements show Inherent control.
3.3.4. Quotative Complements and Control
A quotative complement is a verbal complement construction that is followed by
the complementizer -ko. In general, the complementizer -ko is called a quotative particle
in the literature (cf. Sohn 1995), which marks reported speech or someone’s thoughts.
58
Considering the fact that the examples in (47) involve an adnominalization headed by
the defective noun ci, these examples can be classified as adnominalized complements.
However, since they occur with a question word and thus form an interrogative sentence
they are treasted as interrogative complements.
135
The predicates in -ko complements can bear the full range of verbal affixes found with
the matrix predicates, so some matrix predicates subcategorizing for a -ko complement
can permit Tense and Modal suffixes, as well as Mood suffixes, to be attached to the
embedded verb, as shown below.
(48) a. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [eci/*j/k hakkyo-ey ka-ss-ta]-(ko) malha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM P.-DAT
school-LOC go-PST-DC-C say-PST-DC
‘Mina told Pata that she/someone else went to school.’
b. Nai-nun [K-ka
I-TOP
ku-uy
uykeyn-ey
pantayha-li-la]-(ko) sayngkakha-n-ta.
K-NOM he-GEN opinion-LOC object-FUT-DC-C
think-PRS-DC
‘I think that K will object to his opinion.’
c. Miswuni-i [eci/j ku il-ul
M.-NOM
ha-nun kes-i
etteha-nya]-(ko) mul-
the job-ACC do-ADN thing-NOM how-Q-C
ask-
ess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Miswun asked how it would be if she/someone else does the job.’
As shown in the examples in (48), the quotative particle -ko, which can be omitted,
follows the Mood markers, such as declarative -ta (48a, b) and interrogative -nya (48c).
The predicats of the -ko complements can take a Tense marker, such as past -ss- and
future -li-, as shown in (48a) and (48b). A -ko complement can be selected by many of
the predicate types in (33), although it is not compatible with aspectual predicates or
some of the implicative and factive predicates, such as samka- ‘refrain’ and al- ‘know’.
136
The above examples also demonstrate that -ko complements do not generally induce an
OC reading.
However, when a -ko complement takes some specific Mood or Modal suffixes,
Obligatory Control can arise.
(49) a. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [eci/*j cip-ey
M.-NOM P.-DAT
ka-keyss-ta]-ko malha-yess-ta.
home-LOC go-VOL-DC-C
tell-PST-DC
‘Mina told Pata that she will go home.’
b. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [ec*i/j cip-ey
M.-NOM P.-DAT
ka-la]-ko
home-LOC go-IMP-C
malha-yess-ta.
tell-PST-DC
‘Mina told Pata to go home.’
c. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [eci+j cip-ey
M.-NOM P.-DAT
ka-ca]-ko
malha-yess-ta.
home-LOC go-PROP-C tell-PST-DC
‘Mina said to Pata that they (Mina and Pata) should go home.’
Contrary to (48), the examples in (49) show Obligatory Control. Note that the -ko
complements in (49) and (48a) are selected by the same matrix predicate malha- ‘tell’,
which is generally considered to be an NOC predicate. But the control relations are
different in each, as shown by the contrast in the coindexation of the null subject. Note
that the examples in (49) differ solely in terms of Mood and Modal markers. Clearly the
different types of Obligatory Control in (49) are triggered by the different types of
Mood and Modal markers. That is, while (49a) involves subject control induced by the
volitional marker -keyss-, (49b) and (49c) involve object and split control induced by
137
the imperative Mood marker -la and the proposative Mood marker -ca, respectively.
This shows that -ko complementation does not trigger Obligatory Control, but some
Mood or Modal markers in the -ko complements can determine control relations,
regardless of the lexical meaning of the matrix predicates. Further evidence is found in
the following examples.
(50) a. Ku kanswui-ka
coyswu-tulj-eykey [ec*i/j kkwuleanc]-ki-lul
the jailer-NOM prisoners-PL-DAT
sit.on.one’s knees-NOML-ACC
kangyoha-yess-ta.
force-PST-DC
‘The jailer forced the prisoners to sit on their knees.’
b. Emenii-nun
Sungilj-eykey-man [ec*i/j kongpwuha]-l kes-ul
mother-TOP S.-DAT-only
study-ADN
kangyoha--
thing-ACC force-
si-ess-ta.
HON-PST-DC
‘The mother forced only Sungil to study.’
(51) a. Ku namcai-ka naj-eykey ton-ul
he man-NOM I-DAT
ul
se-keyss-ta]-ko
yokwuha-mye [eci/*j sacin
money-ACC ask-and
modeyl-
picture model-
kangyoha-yess-ta.
ACC stand-VOL-DC-C force-PST-DC
‘The man forced me that he would be a model of my picture, asking me for
some money.’
138
b. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [ec*i/j John-ul manna-la]-ko kangyoha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM P.-DAT
J.-ACC meet-IMP-C force-PST-DC
‘Mina forced Pata to meet John.’
c. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [eci+j swul-ul
M.-NOM P.-DAT
masi-ca]-ko
kangyoha-yess-ta.
liquor-ACC drink-PROP-C force-PST-DC
‘Mina forced Pata to have a drink together.’
The predicate kangyoha- ‘force’ is generally considered to be an object control
predicate, and this is indeed the case in (50), in which the null subjects of the -ki
nominalized complement and the adnominalized complement refer to only the matrix
object. However, the examples in (51) present a different set of facts. Here we find
subject control (51a), object control (51b), and split control (51c), and the only
difference is again the Modality/Mood markers. This indicates that the Modal and the
Mood suffixes can override the ability of the matrix predicate to induce object control
and thus, creat different types of OC readings. That is, the Modal suffix -keyssobligatorily triggers subject control (51a), whereas the Mood suffix -la and -ca always
trigger object (51b) and split control (51c), respectively, regardless of the type of the
matrix predicate. The control effect of Mood and Modal markers of -ko complement
clauses will be further discussed in section 5.2.2.
3.3.5. Intentive Complements and Control
Intentive complements are clauses with Modal complementizers denoting the
meaning of ‘intention’ or ‘purpose’ – specifically the complementizers -(u)yeko and
139
-koca. In the literature, -koca complements have not been reported as participating
control constructions. However, they pattern similarly to -(u)lyeko complements, which
have been associated with control as can be seen in the following examples.
(52) a. Minai-ka [eci/*j ku mwuncey-lul
M.-NOM
haykeylha]-lyeko noleykha-yess-ta.
the problem-ACC solve-C
endeavor-PST-DC
‘Mina endeavored to solve the problem.’
b. Kui-nun [eci/*j tasinun kulen silphay-lul ha-ci anh]-ulyeko kyelsimha-yess-ta.
he-TOP
again
such failure-ACC do-NEG-C
resolve-PST-DC
‘He resolved not to do such a failure again.’
c. Cei-nun [eci/*j ku yenghwa-lul tanswunha-ciman caymi iss-key mantul]I.POL-TOP
the movie-ACC simple-but
fun
exist-C make-
lyeko uytoha-yess-ta.
C
intend-PST-DC
‘I intended to make a simple, but funny movie.’
-(U)lyeko 59 complements show very limited distributions: they are compatible with only
some implicative predicates, such as noleykha- ‘endeavor’ in (52a), and some
desiderative predicates, such as kyelsimha- ‘resolve’ in (52b) and uytoha- ‘intend’ in
(52c). The intentive complements cannot take any Tense or aspectual marking due to
the inherent meaning of the complementizers. That is, the complementizers constrain
59
Some researchers divide -leyko into -lye- which is an intentive Mood marker, and -ko
which is itself considered a quotative particle since in many cases -lye- can be used
without -ko. However, -ko of -leyko differs from the quotative particle -ko in that the
former cannot function as a quotative particle in these constructions. Therefore, in this
thesis, -lyeko is differentiated from -ko complements.
140
the occurrence of Tense and Aspect in the embedded clauses since they encode future
Tense information as an inherent semantic feature. Recall that the complementizer
-leyko expresses the speaker’s intention or purpose, which is related to an intentional or
desiderative Modality, as discussed in 2.2.2. As shown in the above examples, the
complements headed by the complementizer -lyeko always trigger obligatory subject
control regardless of the type of matrix predicate.
The same pattern can be found in -koca complements.
(53) a. Kui-nun [eci/*j sinsilhan kitokkyoin-i
he-TOP
faithful
toy]-koca noleykha-yess-ta.
Christian-COP become-C endeavor-PST-DC
‘He endeavored to be a faithful Christian.’
b. Nai-nun [eci/*j hyensil-lopwuthe melli talana]-koca kyelsimha-yess-ta.
I-TOP
reality-from
far
run.away-C resolve-PST-DC
‘I resolved to run away from reality.’
c. Kim kyoswui-ka [eci/*j silhem
K. professor-NOM
kyelkwa-lul cocakha]-koca uytoha-yess-ta.
experiment result-ACC manipulate-C intend-PST-DC
‘Professor Kim intended to manipulate the laboratory results.’
d. Pwumo-tuli-i [eci/*j elin
parents-PL-NOM
canye-tul-eykey
yenge-lul
kaluchi]-koca
young children-PL-DAT English-ACC teach-C
wenha-yess-ta.
want-PST-DC
‘Parents wanted to teach English to their children.’
141
The -koca complements in (53a)-(53c) show the same distributions as the -lyeko
complements in (52). However, -koca complements show compatibility with more
desiderative predicates than -(u)lyeko, such as wenha- ‘want’ in (53d). As can be seen in
the above examples, -koca complements, like -lyeko complements, always trigger
obligatory subject control, regardless of the type of matrix predicate. Note that no
referent other than the matrix subject can be allowed in the null subject position in (53d),
although wenha- ‘want’ is generally considered an NOC predicate. This indicates that
the intentive complementizer is the key factor which triggers Obligatory Control in this
construction. In this respect, the intentive complements are different from other types of
complements discussed so far. However, it is more important to note that the key factor
determining Obligatory Control in the intentive complements is the semanctic property
of the complementizers rather than syntactic property of the complement. Since the
complementizers -(u)lyeko and -koca posses the meaning of ‘intention’ or ‘purpose’, the
null subject must be controlled by an individual capable of having an intention or
purpose, and thus inducing subject control. Therefore, these complementizers are
treated as a factor triggering Inherent control.
3.3.6. Resultative Complements and Control
Resultative complements, which indicate the result or effect of a preceding cause,
are formed by attaching a resultative or causative complementizer, such as -tolok or -key,
to a verbal stem. With the exception of the subject honorific -si, no other affix can
precede the complementizers. Consequently, neither Tense nor Mood markers can
appear in the resultative complements. -Tolok complements are mostly restricted to the
142
directive/manipulative predicates, although they can be selected by some implicative,
desiderative, and utterance predicates.
(54) a. Minai-ka
sensayng-nimj-ul [ec*i/j/*k ttena-si]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM teacher-HON-ACC
leave-HON-C persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded the teacher to leave’
b. Sinpwui-nun kutulj-eykey [ec*i/j/*k casin-ul
priest-TOP
they-DAT
ttalu]-tolok kangyoha-yess-ta.
self-ACC follow-C
force-PST-DC
‘The priest forced them to follow him.’
c. Kimkwui-ka naj-lul/eykey [ec*i/j/*k ku cali-eyse
K.-NOM
I-ACC/DAT
ttena]-tolok hyeppakha-
the position-LOC leave-C
threaten-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Kimkwu threatened me that I would have to leave the postion.’
(55) a. Minai-ka ecj [sensayng-nimj-kkeyse
M.-NOM
ttena-si]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
teacher-HON-HON.NOM leave-HON-C persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded the teacher to leave’
b. Sinpwui-nun ecj [ku-tulj-i
priest-TOP
casin-ul ttalu]-tolok kangyoha-yess-ta.
he-PL-NOM self-ACC follow-C
force-PST-DC
‘The priest forced them to follow him.’
c. Kimkwui-ka ecj [nayj-ka ku cali-eyse
K.-NOM
ttalu]-tolok hyeppakha-yess-ta.
I-NOM the position-LOC leave-C
threaten-PST-DC
‘Kimkwu threatened me that I would have to leave the postion.’
143
(54) and (55) show the examples of -tolok complements selected by the
directive/manipulative predicates which are often treated as object control verbs. As
shown in (54), the null subject of the -tolok complements is coreferential with the
matrix object. That is, they seem to trigger object control. Note that the matrix object in
the constructions can bear either accusative or dative Case, depending on the lexical
meaning of the matrix predicate. In some cases, both Cases are equally possible with no
particular contrast in meaning, as in (54c). The data in (55) instantiate what has been
referred to as backward control in the literature (e.g. Monahan 2003). Here the
embedded subject controls a null object argument in the matrix clause. 60
While the -tolok complements in (54) show obligatory object control, -tolok
complements selected by predicates other than directive/manipulative predicates, such
as nolekykha- ‘endeavor’ and yaksokha- ‘promise’, do not necessarily give rise to object
control, as illustrated in (56).
(56) a. Cehuy
hoysai-nun [eci/*j te
we-POL.TOP company-TOP
60
cohun aphathu-lul
cis]-tolok
more good apartment-ACC build-C
Within the generative framework, backward control on Korean has been analyzed in
several ways: the movement based analysis (Monahan, 2003), and the semantic based
analysis (Cormack & Smith, 2004; Choe, 2006). The previous studies on backward
control show that although backward control might be possible within current
theoretical assumptions, it is not clear what mechanism constrains the distribution of
backward control and what the nature of the empty category in control constructions is.
In this thesis, a detailed discusson of backward control will be left aside for the future
research. However, considering the properties of finite forward control, as will be more
discussed in the next chapters, it is assumed that the overt DP is best analyzed as being
co-indexed with a pro argument in both forward and backward control constructions
and that the relationship between a controller and a controllee in the constructions is
best accounted for in the frame of semantics rather than syntax.
144
nolyekha-keyss-sup-ni-ta.
endeavor-VOL-AH-IND-DC
‘Our company will endeavor to build better apartments.’
b. Nayi-ka [kulen il-i
eps]-tolok yaksokha-li-ta.
I-NOM such matter-NOM not.exist-C promise-VOL-DC
‘I will promise that such a thing won’t happen.’
c. Nai-nun [Yuna-eykey mescin
I-TOP
Y.-DAT
salam-i
nathana]-tolok sowenha-yess-ta.
splendid man-NOM show.up-C
wish-PST-DC
‘I wished that a splendid man will show up for Yuna.’
(56a) shows subject control. This seems to be due to the semantic property of the matrix
predicate, nolyekha- ‘endeavor’, which often triggers subject control. (56b) and (56c)
show no control at all. Consequently, I propose that -tolok complements are controlneutral and Obligatory Control in this type of complements is basically triggered by the
matrix predicates.
Next, consider -key complements. When selected by directive/manipulative and
some implicative predicates, -tolok can often be replaced with a complementizer -key,
although in some cases -key complements might sound less natural than -tolok
complements for some Korean native speakers. In the following examples, either -tolok
or -key can occur.
(57) a. Sacangi-un
cikwen-tulj-eykey/ul [ec*i/j/*k os-ul
president-TOP employee-PL-DAT/ACC
cayuloi ip-ul
dress-ACC freely
put.on-ADN
145
swu iss]-key/tolok heyongha-yess-ta.
way exist-C
allow-PST-DC
‘The president allowed his employees to dress freely.’
b. Kyocangi-un
kyosa-tulj-ul [ec*i/j/*k haycik
principle-TOP teacher-PL-ACC
kyosa hwuwenkum-ul
dismissal teacher support.money-ACC
nay ci mos ha]-key/tolok mak-ass-ta.
make NEG
do-C
stop-PST-DC
‘The principle stopped the teachers from making support money for dismissing
teachers.’
The above examples illustrate that -key constructions generally pattern together with tolok constructions. The examples in (57) are the typical examples of the -key
complements which show obligatory object control. That is, the null subject of the -key
complements selected by the directive matrix predicates heyongha- ‘allow’ (57a) and
mak- ‘stop’ (57b) must refer to the matrix object.
However, the following examples show that -key complements, just as -tolok
complements, do not always trigger obligatory object control.
(58) a. Apecii-nun atulj-eykey [casini/j-i
father-TOP son-DAT
te
khu-ko kangha-key nukki]-key/tolok
self-NOM more big-and strong-ADV feel-C
mantul-ess-ta.
make-PST-DC
‘The fatheri made his son feel bigger and stronger/The fatheri made his son feel
146
that hei is bigger and strongger.’
b. Cey-ka
[yelepwun-tul-i
tolaka-l
swu iss]-key/tolok
I.POL-NOM you.HON-PL-NOM go.back-ADN way exist-C
noleykha-keyss-sup-ni-ta.
endeavor-VOL-AH-IND-DC
‘I will endeavor to make it happen that you can go back.’
(58) is an example of -key complements selected by the directive verb mantul- ‘make’.
In this example, the reflexive pronoun of the complement clause can refer to either the
matrix subject apeci ‘father’ or the matrix object atul ‘son’. In addition, (58b) which is
an example of -key complements selected by the implicative verb noleykha- ‘endeavor’
shows no control at all. This indicates that -key complements, just as -tolok
complements, do not always trigger obligatory object control. Thus, these
complementizers are treasted as a control-neutral factor.
With respect to resultative complements, there are some other types of -key
constructions to note. First, consider the periphrastic causative constructions formed by
the light verb ha- ‘do’ with a -key complement clause.
(59) a. Ciswui-ka Kangsanj-ul/eykey [ec*i/j/*k hakkyo-lul
C.-NOM K.-ACC/DAT
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Ciswu caused Kangsan to quit school.’
kumantu]-key/tolok ha-
school-ACC quit-C
do-
147
b. Ciswu-ka [Kangsan-i hakkyo-lul
C.-NOM
K.-NOM
kumantu]-key/tolok ha-yess-ta.
school-ACC quit-C
do-PST-DC
‘Ciswu caused Kangsan to quit school.’
Similar to the resultative complements discussed so far, the periphrastic causative
constructions show object control (59a) and backward control (59b). Also, the
complementizer -key in (59) can be replaced with -tolok with a subtle difference in
meaning: -tolok constructions produce weaker causal reading than -key constructions.
Pointing out the correlation between causative -key and -tolok constructions above,
Madigan (2008) argues that -tolok complements might be better classed with causatives.
However, -tolok complements as well as -key complements generally designate the
resulting state of the matrix event or action, which might lead to the causative reading
of complements. In fact, some of the -tolok and -key complements, such as (56) and
(58b), lack the causative meaning, but express the result of the matrix event or action.
Moreover, even if the resultative constructions can be analyzed as causative
constructions, in principle, it does not exclude the possibility that the resultative
constructions should be analyzed as control constructions.
The following represent another instance of -key constructions that has been
analyzed as control.
(60) a. Sunii-ka ppallayj-ul [ecj hayah]-key ppal-ass-ta.
S.-NOM laundry-ACC
white-C
‘Suni washed the laundry clean.’
wash-PST-DC
148
b. Sunii-ka emenij-lul
[ecj
S.- NOM mother-ACC
alumtap]-key sayngkakha-yess-ta.
beautiful-C
think-PST-DC
‘Suni thought her mother beautiful.’
(61) a. *?Suni-ka [ppalay-ka
hayah]-key ppal-ass-ta.
S.-NOM laundry-NOM white-C
wash-PST-DC
‘Suni washed the laundry clean.’
b. *Suni-ka [emeni-ka
alumtap]-key sayngkakha-yess-ta.
S.-NOM mother-NOM beautiful-C
think-PST-DC
‘Suni thought her mother beautiful.’
Wechsler (1997) divides resultative constructions into control resultatives and ECM
resultatives. For him, control resultatives are subject to semantic restrictions imposed by
the verb, while ECM resultatives lack this type of restriction. That is, the null subject in
control resultatives is a semantic argument of the matrix verb, while the null subject in
ECM resultatives is not a semantic argument of the matrix verb. According to this
classification, unlike (60b), which can be analyzed as an ECM resultative, (60a) can be
analyzed as a control resultative since ppallay ‘laundry’, which is the semantic subject
of the predicate hayah- ‘white’, is a semantic argument of the matrix verb ppal ‘wash’.
On the other hand, Kang (2001) argues that transitive resultatives such as (60a) are
control, while complement small clauses such as (60b) are ECM/raising. However, the
examples in (60) are not best analyzed as control constructions. Note that the embedded
subject in the nominative Case renders the sentence ungrammatical (61), unlike other
resultative complements, which allow an overt nominative subject in the control
149
complements, resulting in backward control. Moreover, the -key phrase in (60a) is
actually not a verbal complement but an adjunct phrase. 61 The omission of the -key
phrase in (60a) does not affect the grammaticality of the sentence. The sentence without
the -key phrase is a complete sentence, while the omission of the resultative
complement in control constructions causes the sentence to be ungrammatical. Unlike
(60a), the -key phrase in (60b) functions as a complement. However, it is not a control
construction, but a small clause. The -key construction in (60b) is different from the
resultative constructions that can create Obligatory Control in that the -key complement
does not denote a resulting state of the matrix event or action. As discussed in the
previous sections, the event time of the embedded clause in control constructions is
usually unrealized. However, the -key complements in (61b) is not related to an
unrealized future event, and the embedded subject is simply predicated to be in the state
of possessing ‘beauty’.
To sum up, it is observed that all complement types, except intentive complements,
are basically control-neutral and thus, do not trigger Obligatory Control independently.
However, certain combinations of a matrix predicate and complement type, such as tolok complements selected by directive predicates, can create Obligatory Control.
Moreover, in the case of -ko complements, Modal or Mood suffixes play a key role in
determining control. This suggests that Obligatory Control in Korean is determined by
various semantic factors rather than by purely syntactic factors. This will be discussed
in detail in chapter 5.
61
In fact, the suffix -key can be analyzed as an adverbializer (Sohn 1999:396).
(i) Kam-i
[acwu pulk-key] ik-ess-ta.
Persimmon-NOM very red-ADV ripe-PST-DC
‘The persimmons are red ripe.’
150
In this chapter, I provided some evidence for finiteness of control complement
clauses in Korean and discussed the existence of OC in finite clauses. Unlike the
previous studies arguing that Korean exhibits both finite and non-finite control, I
proposed that there is no non-finite control in Korean, providing empirical data
exhibiting that the so-called non-finite control constructions show similarities to finite
control constructions in terms of syntactic properties of finiteness. The far-ranging
investigation of complementation types with respect to their relation to OC vs. NOC
revealed that there are some semantic factors, such as the lexical meaning of aspectual
predicates and intentive complementizers, which always trigger Inherent control, and
that there is an interaction between the meaning of matrix predicates and the
complement type in determining control. In addition, it has been discussed that certain
Modal or Mood suffixes in -ko complements can trigger Obligatory Control.
151
CHAPTER 4
SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF CONTROL COMPLEMENTS IN KOREAN
The aim of the present chapter is to identify the nature of null subjects in control
complements in Korean. The question of what syntactic structure OC complements
occurs in is a central issue with respect to whether the syntactic nature of the controlled
subject is a PRO, pro or a trace. It has long been argued that there is a close correlation
between non-finiteness and the nature of PRO. However, it has also been noticed that
OC is attested in not only non-finite clauses but also in other syntactic structures, such
as subjunctives and finite embedded clauses. There are basically three approaches to the
structure of control complements in the literature: 1) the CP analysis, 2) the IP/TP
analysis, and 3) the VP analysis. Standard approaches to control, such as Chomsky
(1995), Pesetsky (1992) and Landau (2000, 2004),
62
have claimed that control
infinitives are CP, containing PRO subjects. On the other hand, some researchers, such
as Bošković (1997), propose that control infinitives have properties typical of IPs/TPs
rather than CPs. Evidence for this is generally based on the absence of a
complementizer and a Tense marker in control infinitives. Under the IP/TP analysis of
control structures, there have been two different proposals with respect to the nature of
the null subject in the control complements. One is a PRO analysis of the null subject
position and the other is a DP trace analysis under movement. Furthermore, some
researchers, such as Bresnan (1982), Chierchia (1984), and Wurmbrand (2001, 2002),
challenge the PRO analysis of Obligatory Control, arguing that at least some instances
62
Their CP analyses, though, are different in terms of Tense properties of some control
infinitives. For example, Landau (2000:74) assumes that implicative complements are
semantically untensed, whereas Pesetsky (1992) assumes that the complements are
tensed CP’s containing a phonetically (but not semantically) null tense morpheme.
152
of control involve structure sharing. In their proposals, the syntactic structure of OC
infinitives is a VP, lacking a Tense projection and resulting in subjectless (i.e., PROless) infinitives.
In this chapter, I will show that in Korean, the control complements in finite OC
constructions are full clauses in terms of having complementizers and of the availability
of overt subjects, and thus are analyzed as CPs taking pro subjects rather than PRO. On
the other hand, it will be argued that some serial verb constructions in Korean, which
are claimed to involve non-finite control, consist simply of VPs. However, the serial
verb constructions are not grouped with OC constructions, but simply involve argument
sharing.
4.1. The Structure of Finite Control Complements and pro in Korean
Standard approaches to control have claimed that control infinitives are CP with a
PRO subject. However, the CP lacks an overt complementizer and has a [-finite] TP, as
shown in (1a). This is based on empirical data in which the presence of a
complementizer leads the sentence to be ungrammatical, as shown in (1b).
(1) a. Pati wants [CP Ø [IP PROi to [VP leave early]]]].
b. *Pat wants [CP for [IP PROi to [VP leave early]]]].
c. Bill thinks [CP that [IP Jane/*PRO is alone].
In the framework of GB, the ungrammaticality of (1b) is explained by the PRO theorem:
PRO must be ungoverned. In other words, PRO is assured by the absence of a governor,
such as a complementizer. Therefore, PRO is excluded from occurring in finite clauses,
153
as shown in (1c). This in turn suggests that PRO is in complementary distribution with
overt DPs which must be Case-marked. 63 However, within the Minimalist Program, the
notion of government has been dispensed with and Case-theoretic accounts of PRO
have been proposed. For instance, Bošković (1997) claims that control complements
without any complementizer are IPs, arguing that [+Tense] non-finite clauses assign
Null Case to PRO subjects. Bošković provides some evidence that control complements
behave differently from finite clauses, as shown below.
(2) a. *[C Ø He would buy a car] was believed at that time.
b. *Mary believed Peter finished school and Bill [C Ø Peter got a job].
(3) a. [C Ø PRO to buy a car] was desirable at that time.
b. Mary tried to finish and Peter [C Ø PRO to get a job].
The ungrammaticality in (2) is related to the ECP (Empty Category Principle). That is,
the examples in (2) are ungrammatical since the empty complementizers are not
properly governed by verbs. Contrary to (2), the examples in (3) are grammatical.
Therefore, Bošković takes this evidence for the claim that control complements cannot
be a CP and thus, do not contain an empty complementizer.
63
Schütze (1997:31-35) claims that PRO and lexical subjects are not in complementary
distribution, based on some empirical data, such as below:
a. John/PRO leaving early would be rude.
b. PRO/him not picking up the kids on time, John had upset Mary.
c. Nobody/PRO move! You/PRO put your hands up!
Schütze (1997:273) claims that the presence of an event binder licenses subjects and
PRO is permitted where Tense contrasts cannot be marked.
154
The movement analyses of control (Hornstein 1999; Manzini & Roussou 2000;
Alboiu 2004) also take control complements to be an IP. However, the analyses reduce
PRO to a trace of a moved argument. In the movement analyses, the embedded subject
must move to a matrix argument position to be Case-licensed. This motivates the
movement analyses to crucially depend on a non-CP status of control complements
since the CP structure of control complements under the movement analyses would
cause a theoretical problem. For instance, in Hornstein’s analysis, a derivation begins
with a DP merging with a verb, thereby checking the verb’s theta-role and then the DP
moves into the embedded [Spec, IP] to check the D-feature of the IP. The DP further
moves into the matrix [Spec, IP] to check its Case and the D-feature of the IP via the the
matrix [Spec, VP] in order to check the theta-role of the matrix verb. Thus, if control
complements take a CP projection, A-movement from an embedded clause to the matrix
clause necessarily passes through the intermediate Spec CP of the embedded clause.
This violates the Phase-Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2000) stating that
movment of a DP out of a phase (i.e., vP and CP) is not permitted unless the DP first
moves to the edge of the phase. This is illustrated in (4). 64 Therefore, movement
analyses of control necessitate the reduced structure of control.
(4) [IP John [I [VP (John) try [CP (John) [IP (John) [to [VP (John) leave]]]]]].
merge
[Case, D]
64
[θ2]
[?]
[D]
[θ1]
This movement also can be interpreted as a violation of the Chain Uniformity
Principle: “A chain must be uniform with regard to phrase structure status.” (Chomsky
1994:18)
155
In addition, Hornstein (1999) claims that null subjects in NOC constructions are
analyzed as pro and are licensed in [Spec, IP] of CP complements. This is different
from the standard approaches to control that treat null subjects in non-finite
constructions as PRO regardless of the type of control construction, i.e., OC or NOC.
As can be seen in (5a), the availability of an overt DP in the null subject position
indicates that the position must have its Case and/or theta features checked. Therefore,
the null subject does not need to move up in order to check Case, as it does in OC
constructions. As a result, movement from the position is prohibited, as shown in (5b).
(5) a. It is believed that Bill’s/pro shaving is important.
b. *Bill’s is believed that shaving is important.
(Hornstein 1999:p.92)
Note that the previous approaches to the structure of control complements are all
based on the typical properties of non-finite control complements: i.e., lack of a
complementizer and lack of overt subject and Tense morphology. Given the analyses of
non-finite control above, it is obvious that finite control complements in Korean must
be analyzed as CP structures in which a complementizer selects a finite clause. 65
65
Recall that not only complementizers but also nominalizers and adnominalizers can
head sentential complements in Korean and that the latter are often considered
complementizers in the literature. Contrary to this, it has been pointed out in the
literature (Philippaki-Warburton 1987; Terzi 1992; Rivero 1994; among others) that a
subjunctive marker in Balkan languages is not a complementizer, but part of the
inflectional system. One piece of evidence for this is that the subjunctive particle can
co-occur with elements that are unambiguously complementizers (examples from Terzi
1997:351).
(i) Jani do [CP qё
Maria [MP tё
hajё] (Albanian)
John want-3SG COMP Mary
PRT eat-3SG
‘John wants Mary to eat.’
156
(6) a. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [senmwul-un eci/*j sacwu-keyss-ta]-ko
M.-NOM P.-DAT
present-TOP
yaksokha-
buy.give-VOL-DC-C promise-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Mina promised Pata that she would buy (her) a present.’
b. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [Con-man ec*i/j manna-la]-ko seltukha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM P.-DAT
John-only
meet-IMP-C persuade-PST-Q
‘Mina persuaded Pata to meet only John.’
c. Minai-ka
Pataj-eykey [eci+j mwues-ul
M.-NOM P.-DAT
ha-ca]-ko
ceyanha-yess-ni?
what-ACC do-PROP-C suggest-PST-Q
‘What did Mina suggest Pata that they should do?’
(7) a. Minai-ka [ku chayk-un eci/*j phal]-leyko noleykha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM the book-TOP
sell-C
endeavor-PST-DC
‘Mina endeavored to sell the book (but not others).’
b. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [Con-man
M.-NOM P.-DAT
ec*i/j/*k manna]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
John-only
meet-C
persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Pata to meet only John.’
As shown in the above examples (and discussed in 3.2), an OC reading is available in
finite control complements which are headed by a complementizer. Intuitively, the
presence of a complementizer gives the complement the flavor of a distinct and separate
(ii) Doresc [CP ca
pe Ion [MP sa-l
examineze
Popescu] (Rumanian)
wish-1SG COMP pe John
PRT-him examine-3SG Popescu
‘I wish for John to be examined by Popescu.
157
clause, a CP. Further motivation for the CP status of finite control complements in
Korean is derived from the presence of a Mood particle that projects ForceP. The
examples in (6) show that finite control complements can host the declarative Mood ta,
imperative -la, or proposative -ca. In addition, the examples in (6) show that control
complements can contain an element that projects a CP layer, such as a TopP or a
FocP. 66, 67 For instance, (6a) contains the object contrastive topic senmwul-un and (6b)
contains the object contrastive focus Con-man. 68 Similarly, the examples in (7) show
that the contrastive topic or focus can appear inside the so-called non-finite
complements, although the complements do not contain any Mood or Tense morpheme
on the verb. This evidence demonstrates that the structure of finite control in Korean
cannot be reduced to an IP/TP. In conclusion, finite control complements in Korean
should be analyzed as a CP structure. Consequently, the CP phasal nature of the
complements rules out the movement theory of control.
With respect to the type of the empty category in finite control complements, the
CP status of finite control complements suggests that the empty category of the
embedded clauses is pro. Since the embedded clauses in finite control are CPs, it is
66
It has been proposed that a contrastive topic and a wh-phrase undergo movement into
Spec of CP at LF (see Hoji 1985 and Cho 1998 for the analysis of a contrastive topic).
If it is the case, it can strongly support the CP status of the finite control complements.
However, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to address the syntactic mechanism that
licenses those elements. The important thing to note with respect to the structure of
finite control complements at issue is that the structure of the control complements
should be higher than an IP/TP since the complements contain such an information
structure.
Bošković (1995) demonstrates that topicalization, while permissible in a CP structure,
is impossible in an infinitival.
67
68
Contrastive topic in Korean is marked with morphological marker -(n)un which is
usually called as the topic marker. Also, the contrastive focus marker -man ‘only’ is
sometimes called the ‘exhaustive focus’ maker.
158
expected that two independent subjects can be licensed, both in the matrix and in the
embedded clause. In fact, this holds true, as shown in (8) in which the embedded
complements have an overt pronominal subject kunye ‘she’ and already discussed in
3.2.1.
(8) a. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [senmwul-un kunyei/*j/*kka sacwu-keyss-ta]-ko
M.-NOM P.-DAT
present-TOP she-NOM
yaksokha-
buy.give-VOL-DC-C promise-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Mina promised Pata that she would buy a present.’
b. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [Con-man kunye*i/j/*k-ka manna]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM P.-DAT
John-only she-NOM
meet-C
persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Pata that she should meet only John.’
As in the corresponding sentences in (6) and (7), an OC reading is still required despite
the overt lexical pronouns in the embedded clauses in (8). Given the typical property of
OC constructions that overt subjects are banned in the subject position of the
complement clauses, the fact that an overt pronoun in nominative Case can occur in the
embedded clause supports the claim that what is involved in finite control in Korean is
pro and not PRO. 69 However, finiteness or the CP status of control complements might
69
Similar claims for other languages have been made in the literature. See PhilippakiWarburton & Catsimali (1999), Spyropoulos & Philippaki-Warburton (2001),
Philippaki-Warburton (2004), and Spyropoulos (2007) for Modern Greek, and Zec
(1987) for Serbo-Croatian. Additionally, Suñer (1984) and Hashemipour (1985) allow
not only PRO, but also pro to be controlled, in order to account for controlled finite
complements in Spanish and Persian, respectively.
159
not necessarily guarantee that the null subject in control complements is pro,
considering the claim that PRO can be involved in finite OC constructions, such as in
Landau (2000) discussed in 3.2.1.
The following Hebrew example shows that a
nominative Case-marked PRO can occur in a finite CP.
(9) Himlacti
le-Gil1 [še-PRO1/*2/ Dani2/hu2 yearšem
I-recommended to-Gil
la-xug
that-PRO/Dani/he
will-register.3SG.M
le-balšanut].
to-the-department to-linguistics
‘I recommended to Gil to register to the linguistics department.’
‘I recommended to Gil that Dani/he should register to the linguistics department.’
(Landau 2004:p.813)
(10) a. [CP DP...F.. [CP Co[+T, +Agr,
Agree
+R] [IP[I’
Io [+T, +Agr, +R] [VP DP/pro[+R],1st/2nd...]]]]]
Agree[+T, +Agr, +R]
Agree[+Agr, +R]
b. [CP DP....F.. [CP Co[+T, +Agr, +R] [IP PRO[–R] [I’ Io[+T, +Agr, +R] [VP tPRO..]]]]]
Agree[+Agr, -R] Agree[+Agr]
Agree[+T, +Agr, +R]
Agree[+Agr] (Landau 2004:p.846)
Note that the null subject in (9), PRO in Landau’s analysis, is co-referent with a matrix
argument, while an overt DP in the same position has a different referential
interpretation. Thus, as illustrated in (10), the distribution of PRO and a lexical DP/pro
in his analysis is regulated by their inherent capability of independent reference ([±R]
feature), not by the syntactic features, i.e. [+T, +Agr] on Io and Co. However, the
160
referential difference between in a null subject and a lexical DP/pro does not obtain in
OC in Korean. In fact, the following data as well as (8) indicate that a null subject in a
finite context patterns together with a lexical pronoun in Korean.
(11) a. Nayi-ka Nej-eykey [eci/*j/*k/nay-ka/*casin-i
I-NOM you-DAT
ttena-keyss-ta]-ko malha-yess-ta.
I-NOM self-NOM leave-VOL-DC-C tell-PST-DC
‘I told you that I would leave.’
b. Nayi-ka Nej-eykey [ec*i/j/*k/ney-ka/*casin-i
I-NOM you-DAT
ttena-la]-ko
malha-yess-ta.
you-NOM/self-NOM leave-IMP-C tell-PST-DC
‘I told you that you should leave.’
c. Nayi-ka Nej-eykey [eci/j/k/nay/ney/ku(nye)-ka/*casin-i ttena-li-la]-ko
I-NOM you-DAT
I/you/(s)he-NOM/self-NOM leave-CONJ-DC-C
malha-yess-ta.
tell-PST-DC
‘I told you that I/you/(s)he/*self might leave.’
The embedded clauses in (11) are structurally identical in that they are headed by the
same complementizer selected by the same matrix predicate and they even show the
same event time, which should be unrealized at the time of the utterance. The only
difference in the clauses is the modal markers which are the factor that triggers the
different control relations in the constructions. Unlike (11a) and (11b) in which the
volitional modal suffix -keyss- and the imperative Mood suffix -la- trigger obligatory
subject and object control, respectively, (11c), which takes the conjecture modal suffix -
161
li-, shows NOC. The empty category in (11c) can refer to the speaker ‘I’, the hearer
‘you’, or a 3rd person salient from the context. Note that if the null subjects in (11a,b)
are PROs as in Landau’s analysis for the Hebrew data, we would not expect them to be
able to have the same reference as a lexical pronoun, and it would not be expected that
the null subject could obligatorily refer to any other person than a 3rd person. That is,
the fact that an overt pronoun in nominative Case can be licensed instead of the null
subject with the same referential property in Korean suggests that Obligatory Control
can be attested in cases where no PRO can be licensed. In addition, the examples in (11)
show that unlike the personal pronoun, the monomorphemic reflexive casin 70 cannot
occur in this context. This suggests that null subjects in Korean OC constructions are
pronominal, but not anaphoric in nature in that they are A-free in their local domain,
while anaphors must be locally bound. The examples in (12) show that finite control
complements can stand as independent clauses with the same referential properties of an
empty category and a lexical pronoun as in (11).
(12) a. proi/*j/*k/nay/*ney/*ku(nye)-ka/*casin-i ttena-keyss-ta.
I/you/(s)he-NOM/self-NOM
leave-VOL-DC
‘proi/I/*you/*(s)he/*self will leave.’
b. pro*i/j/*k/*nay/ney/*ku(nye)-ka/*casin-i ttena-la.
I/you/(s)he-NOM/self-NOM leave-CONJ-DC
‘(proj/*I/You/*(s)he/*self) leave!
70
Unlike caki which is restricted to 3rd person DPs, casin can refer to the 1st and 2nd
person as well as the 3rd person. Also, it is well-known that casin can function as a
long-distance reflexive.
162
c. proi/j/k/nay/ney/ku(nye)-ka/*casin-i ttena-li-la.
I/you/(s)he-NOM/self-NOM leave-CONJ-DC
‘proi/j/k/I/you/(s)he/he might leave.
This also indicates that the empty category in finite control complements is not PRO,
but pro, which has the same distribution as an overt pronoun. Considering that Korean
is a pro drop-language in which a pronoun can be dropped when it is in some sense
pragmatically inferrable, the empty category in finite control complements can be
analyzed as pro. In what follows, I will more thoroughly investigate the syntactic nature
of the empty subject at issue.
4.2. Syntactic Properties of the Null Subject in Finite Control
It has been proposed in the past that control in Korean can be established with pro
elements (cf., Yang 1984; Borer 1989). However, the recent approaches to control in
Korean, such as Madigan (2006, 2008), argue for a PRO analysis for finite control.
Moreover, the distribution and the syntactic properties of a controlled pro in Korean
have not been well addressed. In this section, I will show that the null subject in finite
control complements in Korean is pro, whose Case and formal features are checked in
an independent locality domain, i.e. CP, which is fully specified for Tense, Agreement,
and Mood. Thus, the null subject in a finite OC construction is compatible with a
pronominal nature, whether it is obligatorily controlled or not.
4.2.1. Case on a Controllee
It has been claimed in the literature that the null subject, PRO, in control
complements inherits the Case along with phi-features of the antecedent when it is
163
obligatorily controlled, whereas it bears some ‘independent’ Case when it occurs in a
structural environment which blocks OC. Contrary to this, the null subject in OC
complements in Korean can bear the nominative Case that is checked in an independent
locality domain. As discussed in the previous section, the null subject in finite control
complements in Korean can be replaced with an overt pronoun which is marked for
nominative Case. This tells us that the null subject can also take nominative Casemarking. In this section, I will provide additional evidence showing that the null subject
in OC complements in Korean must have nominative Case.
4.2.1.1 Quantifier agreement
It is well known that in Korean, post-nominal quantifiers must agree with the head
noun, as follows:
(13) a. Haksayng-(tul)-i
seys-(i)/*ul
ku chayk-ul
ilk-ess-ta.
student-PL-NOM three-NOM/ACC the book-ACC read-PST-DC
‘Three students read the book.’
b. Haksayng-(tul) seys-i
student-PL
ku chayk-ul
ilk-ess-ta.
three-NOM the book-ACC read-PST-DC
c. Haksayng-(tul)-i
student-PL-NOM
ku chayk-ul
seys-*(i)
ilk-ess-ta.
the book-ACC three-NOM read-PST-DC
(14) a. Nay-ka chinkwu-(tul)-hanthey seys-(hanthey)/*ul pheynci-lul
I-NOM friend-PL-DAT
‘I sent a letter to three friends.’
three-DAT/ACC
letter-ACC
ponay-ss-ta.
send-PST-DC
164
b. Nay-ka chinkwu-(tul) seys-hanthey pheynci-lul
I-NOM friend-PL
three-DAT
letter-ACC
ponay-ss-ta.
send-PST-DC
c. Nay-ka chinkwu-(tul)-hanthey pheynci-lul seys-*(hanthey) ponay-ss-ta.
I-NOM friend-PL-DAT
letter-ACC three-DAT
send-PST-DC
In (13a) and (14a), the quantifiers have nominative and dative Case, which are the same
Case as the nominals they modify, respectively. Accusative Case on the quantifier is
illicit. This is because of the restriction that in simplex sentences the Case marker of a
quantifier must agree with that of the noun it quantifies. The examples above show that
either the Case marker of the head noun or the quantifier can be dropped. However,
when the quantifier is floated, the omission of the Case marker causes the sentence to be
ungrammatical, as shown in (13c) and (14c). This clearly indicates that post-nominal
quantifiers in Korean must agree with the head noun. Based on this generalization, one
can deduce that the null subjects in the following examples must be marked by
nominative Case because their quantifiers are nominative. 71
(15) a. Sensayng-nim-kkeyse
haksayng-tuli-ul [eci motwu-(ka) yelsimhi
teacher-HON-NOM.HON student-PL-ACC
kongpwuha-tolok
seltukha-si-ess-ta.
study-C
persuade-HON-PST-DC
all-NOM
hard
‘The teacher persuaded all the students to study hard.’
71
See Sigurðsson (1991:331f) for Icelandic where floated quantifiers in infinitive
constructions bear the case of the null subject.
165
b. Kim sacang-i
cikwen-tuli-eykey [eci ku
Kim president-NOM employee-PL-DAT
chamsekha]-l
kes-ul
hoyui-ey
motwu-(ka)
the meeting-LOC all-NOM
myenglyengha-yess-ta.
participate-ADN thing-ACC order-PST-DC
‘President Kim ordered all his employees to participate in the meeting.’
c. Haksayng-(tul)i -i [eci cip-ey
student-PL-NOM
seys-i
ka-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-
home-LOC three-NOM go-VOL-DC-C promise-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘The students promised to, the three of them, go home.’
(15a,b) and (15c) show obligatory object and subject control, respectively. Notice that
the null subjects in (15a,b) can bear a distinct Case from the controller. That is, unlike
the object controller in (15a) and (15b) which bears Accusative and Dative Case,
respectively, the null subject must bear Nominative Case, which is evidenced by the
presence of a nominative Case-marked quantifier. This indicates that an analysis in
which the null subject in OC contexts inherits Case from its controller 72 cannot be
applied to Korean and that the null subject must be able to check Case in its locality
domain.
4.2.1.2. Honorific suffix agreement
In Korean, where subjects denote a person who is honorified, a verbal suffix -(u)siis added to the predicate.
72
Cecchetto & Oniga (2004) propose such a theory of inheritance based on the fact that
PRO always shares Case with its controller in Latin (and Italian).
166
(16) a. Sensayng-nim-kkeyse
ku ai-lul
manna-si-ess-ta.
teacher-HON-NOM.HON the child-ACC meet-HON-PST-DC
‘The teacher met the child.’
b. Nay-ka
I-NOM
ecey
ku sensayng-nim-ul
manna-ss-ta.
yesterday the teacher-HON-ACC meet-PST-DC
‘I met the teacher yesterday.’
c. Sensayng-nim-uy
atul-i
cip-ey
ka-n-ta.
teacher-HON-GEN son-NOM home-LOC go-PRS-DC
‘The teacher’s son goes home.’
As shown in (16), -(u)si- can be attached to verbs when the subject is honored by the
speaker. As Hong (1994) among many others has pointed out, grammatical subjects
honored by the speaker are responsible for -si- marking, although semantic and
pragmatic factors play a significant role. That is, while a nominative subject determines
-(u)si- marking, as shown in (16a), other NPs with Case other than nominative do not
trigger the marking, as shown in (16b) and (16c). If we assume that only nominative
NPs can trigger honorific agreement, the following data provide evidence that the
embedded null subjects are marked for nominative Case.
(17) a. Halapecii-kkeyse
[eci chayk-ul
ilk-(usi)]-ki
sicakha-(si)-ess-ta.
grandfather-NOM.HON book-ACC read-HON-NOML begin-HON-PST-DC
‘Grandfather began to read a book.’
167
b. Sensyangi-nim-kkeyse [eci cha-lul
teacher-HON-NOM.HON
kochi-(si)]-lyeko nolyekha-(si)-ess-ta.
car-ACC repair-HON-C
try-HON-PST-DC
‘The teacher tried to repair the car.’
c. Minai-ka
emenij-lul [ecj hakkyo-ey
M.-NOM mather-ACC
ka-(si)]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
school-LOC go-HON-C
persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded (her) mother to go to school.’
In (17), -(u)si- can be added to the embedded predicates, providing evidence that the
null subjects in the control constructions are marked for nominative Case.
4.2.1.3. Occurrence of an Emphatic Subject Pronoun in Control Constructions
Further evidence that embedded null subjects in Korean receive nominative Case
comes from the fact that the complement clause of control constructions can have an
emphatic subject pronoun which is obligatorilymarked with nominative Case.
(18) a. Minai-ka [nayil
eci/*j/kunyecasini/*j/cakicasini/*j-i/*ul ttena]-lyeko
M.-NOM tomorrow
herself
self-NOM/ACC
leave-C
nolyekha-yess-ta.
try-PST-DC
‘Mina herself tried to leave tomorrow.’
b. Minai-ka
Pataj-eykey [nayil
M.-NOM P.-DAT
cenyek-ul
sa]-ki-lo
eci/*j/*k/kunyecasini/*j/*k/cakicasini/*j/*k-i/*ul
tomorrow
herself
yaksokha-yess-ta.
dinner-ACC buy-NOML-DR promise-PST-DC
self-NOM/ACC
168
‘Mina promised Pata that she herself would buy dinner tomorrow.’
c. Minai-ka Pataj-lul [nayil
M.-NOM P.-ACC
eci/*j/*k/kunyecasin*i/j/*k/*cakicasin-i/*ul
tomorrow
herself
ttena]-
self-NOM/ACC leave-
tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
C
persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Pata that she herself would leave tomorrow’
The placement of the temporal adverb nayil ‘tomorrow’ in (18) indicates that the
emphatic pronouns kunyecasin and cakicasin occur in the embedded clauses. The
emphatic pronouns are complex reflexives which can be morphologically divided into
two lexical items: ‘Pronoun + casin’ and ‘caki + casin. These examples demonstrate
that emphatic pronouns can alternate with the null subjects in OC constructions,
suggesting that even when the embedded subject is null, it must be assigned nominative
Case. Note that the emphatic pronoun shows the same referential property as the null
subject, although cakicasin is not permitted in the case of object control due to the
subject orientation of Korean reflexives. This suggests that the null subjects in OC
constructions are more compatible with a pronominal nature.
4.2.1.4 Availability of a Controllee Conjoined with a Lexical DP
In Korean, when two lexical NPs are conjoined, Case is marked only on the
second conjunct and the first conjunct carries the nominal conjunctive suffix -(k)wa, 73
as shown in the following examples.
73
There is another way to make an NP coordination in Korean. In this case, Case is
marked on both conjuncts and the conjunction kuliko occurs between the conjuncts, as
follows:
169
(19) a. Mina-ka
Pata-wa hakkyo-ey ka-ss-ta.
M.-NOM P.-and
school-LOC go-PST-DC
‘Mina went to school with Pata.’
b. Mina-wa Pata-ka
M.-and
hakkyo-ey
ka-ss-ta.
P.-NOM school-LOC go-PST-DC
‘Mina and Pata went to school.’
Unlike (19a) in which only Mina is the subject of the predicate ka- ‘go’ since the two
NPs Mina and Pata are not conjoined, Mina and Pata in (19b) are conjoined and
function as the subject of the predicate ka- ‘go’. However, nominative Case is marked
only the second conjunct. The following data show the same pattern.
(20) a.*Mina-ka Pata-wa twul-man
M.-NOM P.-and
hakkyo-ey ka-ss-ta.
two-only school-LOC go-PST-DC
‘Only two, Mina and Pata, went to school.’
b. Mina-wa Pata-(ka) twul-man
M.-and
P.-NOM
hakkyo-ey
ka-ss-ta.
two-only school-LOC go-PST-DC
‘Only two, Mina and Pata, went to school.’
As shown in (20), the quantifier ‘twul-man’ can follow a head noun which involves an
NP coordination, but cannot follow a head noun which is a semantically and
Mina-ka kuliko Pataj-ka hakkyo-ey ka-ss-ta.
M.-NOM and
P.-NOM school-LOC go-PST-DC
‘Mina and Pata went to school.’
170
syntactically singular subject. Based on this property, the following examples show that
the null subject is conjoined with an overt lexical NP.
(21) a. Minai-ka [nayil
Wucin-kwa eci/kunyei/*j/cakii/*j twul-man
M.-NOM tomorrow W.-and
she
self
two-only
hakkyo-ey
school-LOC
ka]-leyko nolyekha-yess-ta.
go-C
try-PST-DC
‘Mina tried (only two, Wucin and ec/she/herself,) to go to school, tomorrow.’
b. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [nayil
M.-NOM P.-DAT
hakkyo-ey
Wucin-kwa eci/*j/kunyei/*j/cakii/*j twul-man
tomorrow W.-and
she
self
two-only
ka-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
school-LOC go-VOL-DC-C
promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised Pata that only two, Wucin and ec/she/herself, would go to
school tomorrow.’
c. Minai-ka Pataj-lul [nayil
Wucin-kwa ecj/kunye*i/j /*caki twul-man
M.-NOM P.-ACC tomorrow W.-and
she
self two-only
hakkyo-ey ka]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
school-LOC go-C
persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Pata that only two, Wucin and ec/Pata, go to school, tomorrow.’
In the examples above, the temporal adverbs occur in the embedded clause, which, in
turn, shows that the overt NP Wucin belongs to the embedded clauses. The distribution
of the quantifier twul-man shows that the subject of the embedded predicat must be
171
plural. This indicates that the NP Wucin is conjoined with a null subject. In fact, the
occurrence of the lexical pronoun kunye ‘she’ or the reflexive caki in the null subject
position shows that the null subject in the complement clauses is conjoined with the NP
Wucin, which carries the nominal conjunctive suffix -(k)wa. Therefore, it is analyzed
that the null subject in the NP coordination carries nominative Case.
4.2.2. Agree Features of Controllee
It has been claimed that PRO is anaphoric and thus, has no inherent phi features, 74
while pro is pronominal and possesses inherent phi features, as lexical NPs do.
According to Landau (2000, 2004) who argues that PRO is ‘active’ for Agree due to its
anaphoric nature, PRO in tensed complements inherits all phi-features from the
controller, including semantic plurality. However, Landau argues that PRO does not
necessarily inherit semantic singularity. This helps explain instances of PC in English,
as follows:
(22) a. John1 wanted [PRO1+ to leave together].
b. The committee1 was glad that the chair had agreed [PRO1 to gather before the
elections].
Sem. SG.
Sem. PL.
c.*The chair1 was glad that the committee had agreed [PRO1 to wear a tie].
Sem. PL.
Sem. SG
(22a) shows that controllees can differ from their controllers in semantic plurality
because the controlees refer to a set including the matrix controllers. In contrast to this,
74
Terzi (1997:343) claims that PRO in Greek subjunctive complements bears Agr
features and thus, it has to be raised to the Spec, AgrSP to check the Agr feature.
172
(22b) and (22c)
75
show that a semantically plural controller cannot control a
semantically singular PRO. Based on this evidence, Landau claims that the controller is
semantically and syntactically singular, but the controllee is semantically plural and
syntactically singular. However, this analysis is problematic when we look at the
following data from Romanian.
(23) a. *Eu vreau
I
want
b. Eu vreau
I
want
[să
plec
ȋmpreună]
SBUJ leave.1SG together
[să
plecăm
ȋmpreună]
SBUJ leave.1PL together
‘I want to leave together.’
(Alboiu 2004:60)
(23a) shows that a syntactically singular subject cannot license a semantically plural
predicate (i.e., a collective predicate) as in English (22a). The subject has to be plural,
as in (23b), in which case the OC constructions trigger exhaustive control, not partial
control. These data indicate that the null subject in OC constructions does not
necessarily inherit its phi-features from its controller. Also, as Madigan (2006) points
out, this analysis becomes problematic for Korean PC.
(24) a.*Minai-ka moyess-ta.
M.-NOM gathered-DC
‘Mina gathered.’
75
In Landau (2000:53), the coindexation of the PRO and the matrix argument shows
that they share the same semantic number.
173
b. Haksayng*(tul)-i
ppali-tul
moyess-ta
student-(PL)-NOM quickly-PL gathered-DC
‘Students gathered quickly.’
c. Wiwonhoy-ka
ppali-(*tul) moyess-ta.
committee-NOM quickly-PL gathered-DC
‘The committee gathered.’
In Korean, there is no agreement marking on a verb. However, number agreement for
subjects is optionally realized with the plural marker -tul on an adverb, a noun, a
postposition, or a complementizer. As shown in (24), the predicate moi- ‘gather’, which
is a semantically plural predicate, requires a semantically plural subject. Namely, if the
subject is not semantically plural, the insertion of a plural marker -tul is necessary, as in
(24b), whereas syntactically singular subjects can license the predicate if the subjects
are semantically plural, as in (24c). Given this, the empty categories in (25) must be
syntactically plural. This is proved by the plural marker -tul in the adverb phrase which
can occur only with a plural subject.
(25) a. Elun-tuli-un
[eci ilccik-tul ttena]-ki-lo
the.elder-PL-TOP
kyelcengha-yess-ta.
early-PL leave-NOML-DR decide-PST-DC
‘The elders decided to leave early.’
b. Minai-ka [eci+ tosekwan-eyse-(tul) moi]-ki-lo
M.-NOM
library-LOC-PL
yaksokha-yess-ta.
gather-NOML-DR promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised to gather in the library.’
174
(26) a. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [eci+ motwu/twul-man/selo
M.-NOM P.-DAT
moi-la]-ko
malha-yess-
all/two-only/each other gather-IMP-C tell-PST-
ta.
DC
‘Mina told Pata, all/two of them only/each other, to gather.’
b. Minai-ka [caki-*(tul)i+ -i
tosekwan-eyse-(tul) moi-keyss-ta]-ko
M.-NOM self-(PL)-NOM library-LOC-PL
yaksokha-
gather-VOL-DC-C promise-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Minai promised that theyi+ , themselves, would gather in the library.’
(25a) is an instance of EC in which the null subject is controlled by the matrix plural
subject and carries a [+pl] feature, while (25b) is an instance of PC in which the null
subject is not exhaustively controlled by the matrix singular subject and carries a [+pl]
feature which licenses the plural affix on the locative NP tosekwan ‘library’. In
Landau’s analysis, the controllee in EC, by definition, must match all phi-features of its
controller, while that in PC must inherit all phi-features from the controller, except
semantic singularity which is not necessarily inherited. However, (25b) shows that the
controllee in Korean PC does not inherit the syntactic singularity of its controller.
Similarly, (26a) shows that the empty subject can combine with selo or any quantifier
which is compatible with a plural subject. 76 In addition, the occurrence of an overt
76
Madigan (2006) considers (1a) an example of PC under the analysis that hamkkey
‘together’ behaves in the same manner as selo and quantifiers, such as ‘all’. However,
as shown in (1b,c), hamkkey can be compatible with a singular subject. That is, hamkkey
does not necessarily require a syntactically plural subject, unlike selo.
175
plural subject in (26b) clearly demonstrates that the controllee in this context must be
plural. Consequently, this evidence indicates that null subjects in Korean PC contexts
do not need to match the syntactic plurality of the controllers, contrary to what Landau
(2004) suggests. Since the control complements are CPs which are fully specified for
Tense, Agreement, and Mood, the null subjects can be licensed within their local
domain and thus, can carry inherent phi-features, just as lexical NPs can. Therefore,
these data support the claim that null subjects in Korean OC contexts are pro, not PRO.
4.2.3. Pro Different From the LD reflexive Caki and a Pronoun
Madigan (2006) argues that the long-distance (LD) reflexive caki is an overt form
of the null subject, PRO, in OC constructions. 77 This is reminiscent of the analysis
maintaining that control is reducible to a highly constrained anaphoric relation. 78
Following Landau’s (2000) diagnostics, 79 Madigan (2006) shows some evidence that
LD reflexive caki and the null subject of embedded clauses in Korean control
constructions behave identically under all conditions. Contrary to this proposal, I will
(1) a. Jwuhi1-ka [PRO1+ /caki-*(tul)-i1+ hamkkey ka-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
J.-NOM
self-PL-NOM together go-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-DC
‘Jwuhi promised/themselves to go together.’
b. Jwuhi1-ka [ec1/caki1-ka hamkkey/*selo
ka-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
J.-NOM
self-NOM together/each.other go-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-DC
‘Jwuhi promised that (she/self) would go together.’
c. Jwuhi1-ka [caki1-ka Mina-wa hamkkey ka-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
J.-NOM
self-NOM M.-with together go-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-DC
‘Jwuhi promised to go with Mina.’
77
Kayne (1994:70) proposes a similar claim that the PRO subject of indicative-like
infinitives is a subject-oriented anaphor.
78
It has been proposed that many of the properties of OC PRO are shared by reflexive
anaphors (Manzini, 1983; Bouchard, 1984; Martin, 1996, among others).
79
Madigan adds one more property- a referential lexical DP may not replace PRO- to
Landau’s (2000) diagnostics as properties of OC in Korean.
176
argue that the LD reflexive caki cannot be an overt form of the null subject in OC
contexts and provide some evidence supporting this position. This analysis does not
simply argue against the analysis of the LD reflexive as an overt form of PRO; it also
contends that the controlled null subject in Korean OC is not PRO, but pro, which is
different from an overt pronoun and the LD reflexive.
4.2.3.1. Different Distributions of the LD reflexive Caki and Pro
Madigan (2006) argues that wherever OC PRO occurs, the LD reflexive caki can
also occur and that the LD reflexive caki is an overt form of PRO in OC situations.
Indeed, if this is the case, the LD reflexive caki should show the same distribution as
that of PRO in OC constructions. The examples in (27) appear to support the analysis
that OC caki is an overt form of OC PRO.
(27) a. Jwuhii-ka [eci/*arb/cakii/*j/*arb/kunyei/*j/*arb-ka ttena-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
J.-NOM
self
she-NOM
leave-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-DC
‘Jwuhi promised that self/she would leave.’
b. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [ec*i/j/caki*i/j/kunye*i/j-ka cip-ey
M.-NOM P.-DAT
malha-yess-ta.
tell-PST-DC
‘Mina told Pata to go home.’
self
she-NOM
ka-la]-ko
home-LOC go-IMP-C
177
Both the empty category and caki show the same control readings: subject control in
(27a) and object control in (27b) 80. In particular, (27b) is interesting in that caki refers
to the matrix object Pata, despite the fact that caki, in general, is a subject-oriented
reflexive. However, notice that the 3rd person pronoun kunye ‘she’ in OC contexts also
shows the same distribution as the empty category, just as the controlled caki
constructions do. Moreover, the following examples in (28) show that the LD reflexive
and the null subject can have different distributions in OC constructions and that a
personal pronoun shows the same distribution as the null subject, as briefly discussed in
section 4.1. Therefore, these data provide evidence against the analysis that caki is an
OC PRO.
(28) a. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [ec*i/j/*caki/kunye*i/j -ka cip-ey
M.-NOM P.-DAT
self/she-NOM
ka-la]-ko
home-LOC go-IMP-C
seltukha-yess-ta.
persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Pata to go home.’
b. Nayi-ka [eci/*cakii/nayi-ka ku il-ul
I-NOM
kkuthnay-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-
self/I-NOM the work-ACC finish-VOL-DC-C
promise-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘I promised to finish the work.’
80
Some Korean speakers, including myself, consider caki unacceptable in (27b). The
form caki can be used as a discourse pronoun indicating ‘you’, when addressing a
person who is close to the speaker. Therefore, for the Korean who accepts caki in (27b),
caki in that case is not a pure anaphor.
178
c. Patai-ka Minaj-lopwuthe [ec*i/j/*caki/kunye*i/j-ka ttena]-ki-lo
P.-NOM M.-from
self/she-NOM
yaksok-
leave-NOML-DR promise-
pat-ass-ta.
receive-PST-DC
‘Pata got a promise from Mina to leave.’
d. Patai-ka Minaj-lopwuthe [eci/*j/*caki/kunyei/*j -ka ttena]-tolok seltukP.-NOM M.-from
self/she-NOM
leave-C
persuasion-
pat-ass-ta.
receive-PST-DC
‘Pata got persuaded by Mina to leave.’
Since (28a) has the same embedded clause containing the imperative Mood maker ‘-la-’
as (27b), it should allow the same occurrence of caki as (27b). However, unlike (27b),
caki cannot occur in (28a). In contrast, the empty category appears in both constructions
and shows object control induced by the Mood marker. The examples in (28b-d) also
illustrate that caki cannot always occur in OC contexts. (28b) shows that the reflexive
caki cannot have an antecedent referring to a 1st person singular pronoun, while the null
subject can. The examples in (28c, d) show that in passivized OC constructions, the
reflexive caki cannot replace the null subject. Given the fact that caki is subject-oriented,
the impossibility of caki replacement in (28c) is natural because the controller Mina is
not a subject of the matrix clause. On the other hand, in (28d) although the controller
Pata is the subject of the matrix clause, caki cannot replace the null subject. In these
constructions, the controllers are non-agents which do not match with the semantic role
179
of caki; namely, ‘Agent’ of the embedded predicate. That is to say, while a null subject
can have an antecedent which is an agent or non-agent controller, caki can only have an
antecedent which must be syntactically a subject and semantically an agent. This
suggests that even though the reflexive caki can replace the empty category in many
cases of OC constructions, the controlled empty category should be treated differently
from the reflexive. This also holds true for an overt pronoun, as will be addressed in
detail in the following sections.
4.2.3.2. Different References and Capability of LD Control
Another piece of evidence against the analysis of the LD reflexive as an overt form
of a controllee is that the LD reflexive and a controllee can have different referents, as
shown in the following examples.
(29) a. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [ec*i/j/i+j ttena]-l kes-ul
M.-NOM P.-DAT
yokwuha-yess-ta.
leave-C thing-ACC ask-PST-DC
‘Minai asked Pataj that shej/theyi+j would leave.’
b. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [cakii/*j-ka/caki-tul?i+k-i
M.-NOM P.-DAT
ttena]-l kes-ul
yokwuha-
self-NOM /self-PL-NOM leave-C thing-ACC ask-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Minai asked Pataj that shei /they?i+k would leave.’
c. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [kunyei/j-/ku-tul?i+j-i
M.-NOM P.-DAT
ttena]-l kes-ul
yokwuha-
she-NOM/he-PL-NOM leave-C thing-ACC ask-
180
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Mina asked Pata that shei/j would leave/that they (Mina and Pata) would leave.’
(30) a. Patai-ka
Minaj-eykey [eci/i+j ttena]-ki-lo
P.-NOM M.-DAT
yaksokha-yess-ta.
leave-NOML-DR promise-PST-DC
‘Patai promised Minaj to leave/Patai promised Minaj that theyi+j would leave.’
b. Patai-ka Minaj-eykey [cakii/*j-ka/caki-tuli+k-i
P.-NOM M.-DAT
ttena]-ki-lo
yaksokha-
self-NOM/self-PL-NOM leave-NOML-DR promise-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Patai promised Minaj that she herselfi/they themselvesi+k would leave.’
c. Patai-ka Minaj-eykey [kunyei/*j-ka/ku-tul?i+k-i ttena]-ki-lo
P.-NOM M.-DAT
yaksokha-
she-NOM/he-PL-NOM leave-NOML-DR promise-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Patai promised Minaj that shei/they?i+k would leave.’
In (29a), the null subject can refer to the indirect object or both the matrix subject and
the indirect object. However, in (29b), the reflexive caki can only refer to the matrix
subject and when it takes the plural suffix -tul, it cannot include the matrix object as its
antecedent. Compared to the reflexive caki, the overt singular pronoun in (29c) can
refer to either the matrix subject or the matrix object and the overt plural pronoun can
have a split antecedent. The similar pattern is found in the examples in (30). That is,
181
compared to the null subject in (30a) which can have split control as well as subject
control, the caki in (30b) and the pronoun in (30c) can only refer to the matrix subject,
when they are singular and have referents different from the null subject, even when
they are plural. These different referential properties provide evidence against the
analysis that the controlled caki is an overt form of a controllee.
The following examples further support the aforementioned claim, as they exhibit
different referential properties.
(31) a. Jwuhii-ka [ec yeses-si-ey manna-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
J.-NOM
six-time-at meet-VOL-DC-C
promise-PST-DC
i) ‘Jwuhii promised that (shei) would meet (someone) at 6.’
ii) ‘Jwuhii promised that (shei and someonej) would meet at 6.’
b. Jwuhii-ka [cakii/kunyei-ka yeses-si-ey manna-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
J.-NOM
self/she-NOM six-time-at meet-VOL-DC-C
promise-PST-DC
i) ‘Jwuhii promised that shei, herself, would meet (someone) at 6.’
ii)*‘Jwuhii promised that shei (and someonej) would meet at 6.’
Madigan (2006) argues that (31a) is an example of PC in Korean, and thus, the singular
form of caki is ungrammatical. However, almost all arguments can be deleted in Korean
dialogue when they are clear in the discourse, and the predicate ‘meet’ does not always
select a plural subject. Therefore, the embedded sentence can also be interpreted with a
singular null subject, which is coindexed with the matrix subject, and a missing object,
as shown in interpretation i). That is, (31a) is actually ambiguous in that it can be EC in
182
which the null subject can refer to Jwuhi only, or PC in which the null subject can refer
to a plural entity including the matrix subject. Unlike the empty category in (31a), the
reflexive caki and the personal pronoun kunye in (31b) can only refer to Jwuhi, which
forces the EC interpretation. This shows that the LD reflexive and a controllee can have
different referents
With regard to LD control, Madigan (2006) claims that LD control is impossible
with OC PRO and caki, as follows:
(32) a. Minai-ka [Pataj-ka [ec*i/j ttena-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta]-ko mitM.-NOM P.-NOM
leave-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-DC-C
believe-
nun-ta.
PRS-DC
‘Mina believes that Pata promised her to leave.’
b. Minai-ka [Pataj-ka [caki*i/j-ka
ttena-keyss-ta]-ko
yaksokha-yess-ta]-ko
M.-NOM P.-NOM self-NOM leave-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-DC-C
mit-nun-ta.
believe-PRS-DC
‘Mina believes that Pata promised her to leave.’
c. Minai-ka [Pataj-ka [kunye*i/j-ka ttena-keyss-ta]-ko
M.-NOM P.-NOM she-NOM
leave-VOL-DC-C
yaksokha-yess-ta-ko
promise-PST-DC-C
mit-nun-ta.
believe-PRS-DC
‘Mina believes that Pata promised that she would leave.’
183
In (32a, b), the empty category and caki both show the impossibility of LD control
supporting Madigan’s analysis. That is, they both are not able to take the long distant
antecedent Mina in the examples. However, (32c) is problematic for the analysis
because the overt pronoun also disallows LD control. The more critical argument
against the analysis derives from the following examples which show that unlike the
null subject in an OC context, an overt pronoun and an LD reflexive can permit LD
control.
(33) a. Minai-ka [Pataj-ka [ec*i/j cenyek-ul
M.-NOM P.-NOM
ul
ic-ess-ta-ko
sa]-ki-lo
yaksokha]-n
kes-
dinner-ACC buy-NOML-DR promise-ADN thingsayngkakha-n-ta.
ACC forget-PST-DC-C thingk-PRS-DC
‘Minai thinks that Pataj forgot that shej promised heri to buy dinner.’
b. Minai-ka
Pataj-ka [cakii/j-ka
cenyek-ul
sa]-ki-lo
yaksokha-n
M.-NOM P.-NOM self-NOM dinner-ACC buy-NOML-DR promise-ADN
kes-ul
ic-ess-ta-ko
sayngkakha-n-ta.
thing-ACC forget-PST-DC-C thingk-PRS-DC
i) ‘Minai thinks that Pataj forgot that shej promised heri to buy dinner.’
ii) ‘Minai thinks that Pataj forgot that shei promised herjto buy dinner.’
c. Minai-nun Pataj-ka [kunyei/j-ka cenyek-ul
M.-TOP
sa]-ki-lo
yaksokha-n
P.-NOM she-NOM dinner-ACC buy-NOML-DR promise-ADN
184
kes-ul
ic-ess-ta-ko
sayngkakha-n-ta.
thing-ACC forget-PST-DC-C think-PRS-DC
i) ‘Minai thinks that Pataj forgot that shej promised heri to buy dinner.’
ii) ‘Minai thinks that Pataj forgot that shei promised herj to buy dinner
The examples in (33) show that the LD reflexive caki and the overt pronoun are capable
of LD control, whereas the null subject is incapable of it. That is, unlike the null subject
in (33a) which cannot refer to the long distance antecedent Mina, the LD reflexive caki
in (33b) and and the overt pronoun in (33c) can refer to either the local antencedent
Pata or the long distance antecedent Mina. This is decisive evidence against the
analysis of controlled caki as an overt form of PRO and clearly shows that null subjects
in OC contexts behave differently from the reflexive caki and normal pronouns. One
reason that the controlled caki and pronoun constructions have the same property as the
control constructions with a null subject might be because caki and a pronoun can
optionally alternate with the null subject in control constructions. However, this does
not mean that caki and a pronoun are overt forms of the null subject in OC constructions,
unless they always show the same properties as the null subject in that position.
4.2.3.3. Sloppy vs. Strict reading and de re vs. de se interpretation
It is generally claimed that PRO only supports a sloppy reading under VP ellipsis,
while lexical pronouns support a strict reading under ellipsis. In other words, PRO
behaves like an anaphor in OC contexts and like a pronoun in NOC contexts (Bouchard
1984). This is the case with Korean OC constructions, as shown in (34a, b).
Interestingly enough, however, when the null subject position of an embedded clause in
185
OC contexts is filled with a pronoun, it also allows only a sloppy reading, as shown in
(34c).
(34) a. Patai-ka Minaj-eykey [eci ttena-keyss-ta]-ko
P.-NOM M.-DAT
leave-VOL-DC-C
yaksokha-yess-ta.
promise-PST-DC
Enju-to kuriha-yess-ta.
E.-also same-PST-DC
i) Pata promised Mina that she would leave and Enju promised Mina that she
(Enju) would leave.
ii) *Pata promised Mina that she would leave and Enju promised Mina that she
(Pata) would leave.’
b. Patai-ka Minaj-eykey [cakii-ka
P.-NOM M.-DAT
ttena-keyss-ta]-ko
yaksokha-yess-ta.
self-NOM leave-VOL-DC-C
promise-PST-DC
Enju-to kuriha-yess-ta.
E.-also same-PST-DC
i) Pata promised Mina that she would leave and Enju promised Mina that she
(Enju) would leave.
ii) *Pata promised Mina that she would leave and Enju promised Mina that she
(Pata) would leave.’
c. Patai-ka Minaj-eykey [kunyei-ka ttena-keyss-ta]-ko
P.-NOM M.-DAT
Enju-to kuriha-yess-ta.
E.-also same-PST-DC
yaksokha-yess-ta.
she-NOM leave-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-DC
186
i) Pata promised Mina that she would leave and Enju promised Mina that
she (Enju) would leave.
ii) *Pata promised Mina that she would leave and Enju promised Mina that she
(Pata) would leave.’
The above examples clearly show the possibility of a sloppy reading, but not a strict
reading with a remote controller, regardless of the type of the embedded subject. That is,
in all three constructins above, what Enju promised is that she (Enju) would leave, a
sloppy reading, but not that Pata would leave, a strict reading. This fact seems to be
directly related to properties of OC. Indeed, a pronoun and a null subject in NOC
constructions are free to get either a sloppy or a strict reading.
(35) a. Minai-ka [eci hakkyo-ey
M.-NOM
ka]-ki-lul
wenha-yess-ta. Pata-to kuriha-
school-LOC go-NOML-ACC want-PST-DC
P.-also same-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
i) Mina wanted to go to school and Pata wanted to go to school.
ii) Mina wanted to go to school and Pata wanted Mina to go to school.’
b. Minai-ka [kunyei-ka hakkyo-ey
ka]-ki-lul
wenha-yess-ta. Pata-to
M.-NOM she-NOM school-LOC go-NOML-ACC want-PST-DC P.-also
kuliha-yess-ta.
same-PST-DC
i) Mina wanted to go to school and Pata wanted to go to school.
187
ii) Mina wanted to go to school and Pata wanted Mina to go to school.
c. Minai-ka [cakii-ka
hakkyo-ey ka]-ki-lul
wenha-yess-ta. Pata-to
M.-NOM self-NOM school-LOC go-NOML-ACC want-PST-DC
P.-also
kuliha-yess-ta.
same-PST-DC
i) Mina wanted to go to school and Pata wanted to go to school.
ii)*Mina wanted to go to school and Pata wanted Mina to go to school
The structure in (35a) is an example of NOC in Korean in that it is possible to insert a
referential DP to appear in the subject position of the embedded clause. While (35a)
with the null subject and (35b) with the overt pronominal subject kunye ‘she’ admit
either a sloppy reading or strict reading, (35c), in which caki is the embedded subject,
can only have the sloppy reading. That is, unlike the reflexive caki which always
exhibits a sloppy reading 81, a null subject and pronoun allow either a sloppy or a strict
reading in NOC contexts. In this respect, a null subject and pronoun behave the same.
Finally, Madigan (2006) argues for the LD reflexive caki as an overt form of PRO
in OC contexts, on the basis of the fact that when the null subject position in OC
contexts is filled with a pronoun, it allows only a de re interpretation, as follows:
(36) “(There is) a war hero who suffers from amnesia and remembers nothing of the
war. Suppose this person (hereafter, “the soldier”) sees a TV program describing his
own exploits, and is impressed with the courage exhibited by that person, who he
81
In some languages, it has been noted that reflexives can only be interpreted as bound
pronouns. (Zec 1987).
188
does not know is himself.”
(37) a. Ku pyengsa-nun [ec/caki-ka
the soldier-TOP
(Madigan, 2006)
sang-ul
patu]-lyeko nolykha-yess-ta
self-NOM prize-ACC receive-C
try-PST-DC
‘That soldier tried to get the medal.’
b. Ku pyengsa-nun
the soldier-TOP
[ku-ka
sang-ul
patu]-lyeko nolykha-yess-ta
he-NOM prize-ACC receive-C
try-PST-DC
‘That soldier tried to get the medal.’
Under the scenario in (36), Madigan claims that (37a) can only be interpreted in a de se
manner and is therefore false. However, this does not provide evidence that caki is PRO
since an overt pronoun in the same context displays the same property. That is, (37b) is
false since the pronoun can only refer to the matrix subject ku pyengsa and thus, can
only be satisfied by de se beliefs. This shows that only a de se interpretation is possible
in Korean OC constructions, regardless of the type of the embedded subject: null,
reflexive, or pronoun. This evidence suggests that we cannot necessarily claim that the
controlled caki is an overt form of PRO. Although some controlled caki constructions
show the same properties as OC constructions, this does not necessarily mean that the
controlled caki is an overt form of the null controllee in OC constructions. Rather,
controlled caki constructions seem to show the same properties as OC constructions
with null subjects just because OC constructions can allow caki to appear in the null
subject position of embedded clauses under appropriate circumstances. That is, it is
simply one thing that can occur in the null subject position and be controlled. This is
also the case for controlled pronouns in OC contexts.
189
Thus far, it has been claimed that the finite OC in Korean can be established with
pro whose Case and formal features are checked in an independent locality domain. In
this respect, pro in finite OC is parallel to lexical subjects. However, a controlled pro
differs from a lexical subject in that it is referentially dependent, although it is
thematically an independent NP. The more thorough investigation of finite OC contexts
in Korean further reveals that null subjects in OC contexts can have different referential
properties from the LD reflexive caki and an overt pronoun and thus, the analysis of the
LD reflexive caki as an overt form of PRO in Korean finite control cannot be
maintained.
4.3. The Status of Serial Verb Constructions As Non-Finite Control
In the literature on control in Korean, some of the sentential complements, such as
-ki nominalization and -leyko and -tolok complements, have been analyzed as non-finite
control. However, as discussed in the previous section, those complements in fact turn
out to be finite in that they can specify dependent Tense, Agreement, and Mood and
allow an overt lexical NP in nominative Case to occur in the subject position. Therefore,
it is assumed that there is no identifiable infinitival embedded clause in Korean.
According to Stiebels (2007), cross-linguistically languages that lack a finite-infinite
distinction on the morphological level typically lack control-inducing structures such as
infinitival complements, but may exhibit verb incorporation or verbal compounding. In
fact, besides clausal complementation, Korean displays serial verb constructions
(SVCs)
82
82
that have been analyzed as control constructions in the literature
The constructions have often been called compound, complex, or auxiliary verb
constructions in the literature (H-M. Sohn 1976, S-H. Choi 1988, and Sells 1998 among
others). In fact, two or more verbs connected with a suffix can occur in SVCs, but this
190
(Gamerschlag 2007). Studies on Korean control generally have focused on a few types
of complements that trigger Obligatory Control and have not given a full account of the
status of SVCs as control constructions. However, some of the SVCs have commonly
been considered control constructions (Sells 1998, Choi 2003) since they contain a
typical control verb, such as ‘try’. Moreover, sentences corresponding to the Korean
SVCs in other languages, such as Japanese, have been analyzed as control structures.
Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine whether the SVCs in Korean involve control or
not. In this section, the structural property of the SVCs in Korean which take the socalled control verb, such as ‘try’ and ‘want’ will be first investigated and then it will be
proposed that the SVCs do not actually involve control, but simply argument sharing.
4.3.1. Monoclausal Status of Serial Verb Constructions
In SVCs, two verbs are combined by attaching a suffix -e/a or -ko 83 to the verb
stem in order to form a compound lexical item. Unlike the complementizers and the
complementizer-like elements, such as a nominalizer and an adnominalizer, in finite
control constructions, the suffixes -e/a and -ko do not carry any inherent Mood/Modal
or Tense/Aspect meaning. They are simply attached to the verb to combine with another
verb, as follows.
(38) a. Kyoswu-nim-kkeyse
[ku nonmwun-ul ilk-(*usi)-(*ess)-e] po-si-
professor-HON-NOM.HON the paper-ACC read-HON-PST-E try-HONthesis concerns only SVCs in which the second verb in a sequence of two verbs is a
typical control verb.
83
It is not clear how best to label these two suffixes. Some researchers call the suffixes
complementizers (Sells 1998) or connectives (H.S. Lee 1991), and some other
researchers (Martin 1992; Sohn 1994 among others) call the suffixes infinitive and
gerundive, respectively.
191
ess-ta.
PST-DC
‘The professor tried to read the paper.’
b. Emeni-nim-kkeyse
[cip-ey
ka-(*si)-(*ss)-ko]
siph-(usi)-ess-ta.
mother-HON-NOM.HON home-LOC go-HON-PST-KO want-HON-PST-DC
‘Mother wanted to go home.’
As shown in the above examples, the SVCs employ a sequence of verbs in which verbal
inflections such a Tense, Agreement, and Mood are marked only on the second verb.
Just looking at the English gloss, the second verbs of the SVCs above seem to be the
same predicates found in finite control constructions. However, the second verbs in (38)
are not attested as independent verbs. That is, pota ‘try’ in (38a) denotes ‘see’ when it is
used as a main verb and siphta ‘want’ in (38b) cannot occur as an independent verb.
The two verbs in the SVCs function as a single predicate denoting a single overall
event. The following examples further illustrate the absence of Tense in the verbal
complements.
(39) a. *Ecey
Con-i
[nayil
ttena-a] po-ass-ta.
yesterday John-NOM tomorrow leave-A try-PST-DC
‘Yesterday, John tried to leave tomorrow.’
b. *Ecey
Nay-ka [nayil
yesterday I-NOM
cip-ey
ka-ko] siph-ess-ta.
tomorrow home-LOC go-KO want-DC
‘Yesterday, I wanted to go home tomorrow.’
192
The examples in (39) show that the embedded clauses cannot take a temporal adverb
different from the matrix event. That is, the verbal complements, unlike sentential
complements, cannot have even dependent Tense. Therefore, it is concluded that the
verbal complements cannot be specified for Tense, Agreement, and Mood. Since they
lack those features they cannot contain any functional head associated with the features.
Hence, there can be no syntactic structure (i.e., Spec, FP) to receive nominative Case.
Indeed, the following examples show that the SVCs at issue have only one overtly
expressed syntactic subject.
(40) a. Coni-i
[*casini-i/*kui-ka
ku chayk-ul
ilk-e] po-ass-ta.
John-NOM self-NOM/he-NOM the book-ACC read-E try-PST-DC
‘John tried to read the book.’
b. Nayi-ka [*casini-i/*nayi-ka
I-NOM
cip-ey
ka-ko] siph-ess-ta.
self-NOM/I-NOM home-LOC go-KO want-DC
‘I wanted to go hom.’
Unlike the sentential complements discussed in chapter 3, the SVCs in (40) do not
allow an overt lexical subject in the complement. Gamerschlag (2007) argues that these
types of constructions are instances of syntactically induced control and that this type of
complement always involves obligatory subject control. Generally, SVCs require
argument sharing between the serialized verbs due to simultaneous or immediately
consecutive events denoted by the verbs of the SVCs. Therefore, although Gamerschlag
193
(2007) does not address this issue, the syntactic control constructions can be analyzed as
mono-clausal in the sense of Wurmbrand (2001), which treats control complements as
VP. In fact, there is some evidence that the complements in the SVCs in Korean are
simply verb phrases, lacking an embedded subject position. Besides the unavailability
of overt NP in the controllee position and lack of any Tense, Agreement, and Mood
morphology, the SVCs differ from finite OC constructions in Korean in a number of
ways. The next three subsections examine several syntactic phenomena, all of which
point to a structural difference between the two constructions.
4.3.1.1. Clausemate Condition on NPIs
One piece of evidence for the monoclausal status of the SVCs can be found by the
clausemate condition on Negative Polarity Items (NPIs). NPIs in Korean, such as
amwuto ‘nobody’, are construed with negation in a same clause, as shown in (41).
(41) a. Amwuto ku salam-ul
nobody
cohaha-*(ci anh)-nun-ta.
the man-ACC like-NEG-PRS-DC
‘Nobody likes the man.’
b. Minki-nun amwuto *(an) manna-ss-ta.
M.-TOP
nobody
not meet-PST-DC
‘Minki met nobody.’
c. Minki-ka [amwuto hakkyo-ey
o-ci anh-ass-ta]-ko
malha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM nobody school-LOC come-NEG-PST-DC-C tell-PST-DC
‘Minki told that nobody came to school.’
194
d. *Minki-ka [amwuto hakkyo-ey wa-ss-ta]-ko
malha-ci anh-ass-ta.
M.-NOM nobody school-LOC come-PST-DC-C tell-NEG-PST-DC
The NPIs amwuto ‘nobody’ in (41a,b) occur in a simple clause and are licensed by the
long form and the short form negation attached to the verbs, respectively. In contrast,
the NPI in (41c) occurs in the embedded clause with the long form negation and thus,
the scope of the negation ranges over only the embedded clause. Notice that when the
NPI is separated from a negative expression by a clause boundary as in (41d), the
sentence is ill-formed. This demonstrates that the NPIs and negative expressions cooccur in the same clause. This clausemate condition on NPIs supports the mono-clausal
status of serial verb constructions and the biclausal status of sentential complements.
The following data show the behavior of NPIs in SVCs.
(42) a. Amwuto ku nonmwun-ul ilk-e
nobody
the paper-ACC
po-ci anh-ass-ta.
read-E try-NEG-PST-DC
‘Nobody tried to read the paper.’
b. Amwuto ku
nobody
nonmwun-ul an ilk-e
the paper-ACC
po-ass-ta.
not read-E try-PST-DC
‘Nobody tried to read the paper.’
c. Na-nun amwu chayk-to ilk-e
I-TOP
any
po-ci anh-ass-ta.
book-too read-E try-NEG-PST-DC
‘I didn’t try to read any book.’
195
(43) a. Amwuto cip-ey
ka-ko
siph-ci anh-ass-ta.
nobody home-LOC go-KO want-NEG-PST-DC
‘Nobody wanted to go home.’
b. Amwuto cip-ey
an ka-ko siph-ess-ta.
nobody home-LOC not go-KO want-PST-DC
‘Nobody wanted to go home.’
c. Na-nun amwuto po-ko
I-TOP
siph-ci anh-ass-ta.
nobody see-KO want-NEG-PST-DC
‘I didn’t want to see anyone.’
The NPIs in the examples above are properly licensed by the long form or the short
form negation, regardless of which verb the negation is attached to. In other words, the
negation can be attached to either the first verb or the second verb and the scope of the
negation is not changed. For instance, in (42a) the second verb po- ‘try’ is negated and
in (42b) the first verb ilk- ‘read’ is negated; regardless, the subject NPI amwuto ‘nobody’
is licensed in each sentence and the sentences are completely synonymous. This
provides evidence that the whole constructions is monoclausal just as the simplex
clauses in (41a, b). In contrast, finite control complements behavior differently in terms
of the scope of negation, as follows.
(44) a. Amwuto [ec ku sang-ul
nobody
pat]-uleyko noleykha-ci anh-ass-ta.
the prize-ACC receive-C
‘Nobody endeavored to receive the prize.’
endeavor-NEG-PST-DC
196
b. *Amwuto [ec ku sang-ul
nobody
pat-ci anh]-uleyko noleykha-yess-ta.
the prize-ACC receive-NEG-C
endeavor-PST-DC
c. Con-i [ec amwuto an manna]-leyko noleykha-yess-ta.
John-NOM nobody not meet-C
endeavor-PST-DC
‘John endeavored not to meet anyone.’
(45) a. Amwuto Mina-eykey [ec hakkyo-ey ka]-tolok seltukha-ci anh-ass-ta.
nobody
M.-DAT
schoo-LOC go-C
persuade-NEG-PST-DC
‘Nobody persuaded Mina to go to school.’
b. *Amwuto Mina-eykey [ec hakkyo-ey
nobody
c. Con-i
M.-DAT
ka-ci anh]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
schoo-LOC go-NEG-C
persuade-PST-DC
Mina-eykey [ec amwuto manna-ci anh]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
John-NOM M.-DAT
nobody meet-NEG-C
persuade-PST-DC
‘John persuaded Mina not to meet anyone.’
The examples in (44) and (45) employ the so-called non-finite control constructions.
The NPIs in (44a) and (45a) functioning as the matrix subjects are construed with the
matrix verbs. As a result, the sentences meet the locality condition on NPIs. On the
other hand, the sentences in (44b) and (45b) violate the locality condition and thus, are
ruled out. Notice that the scope of the negation in (44a) and (45a) encompasses the
matrix sentence, while that in (44c) and (45c) encompasses only the embedded clause.
The same pattern occurs in ko-complement (46) and adnominalized complement (47)
constructions.
197
(46) a. Amwuto Con-eykey [ec cenyek-ul
nobody John-DAT
sa-keyss-ta]-ko
yaksokha-ci anh-ass-ta.
dinner-ACC buy-VOL-DC-C promise-NEG-PST-DC
‘Nobody promised John to buy dinner.’
b. *Amwuto Con-eykey [ec cenyek-ul
nobody John-DAT
c. Con-i
sa-ci anh-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
dinner-ACC buy-NEG-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-DC
Mina-eykey [ec amwuto an manna-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
John-NOM M.-DAT
nobody not meet-VOL-DC-C
promise-PST-DC
‘John promised Mina not to meet anyone.’
(47) a. Amwuto Enjwu-eykey [ec ttena]-l
nobody E.-DAT
kes-ul
yokwuha-ci anh-ass-ta.
leave-ADN thing-ACC ask-NEG-PST-DC
‘Nobody asked Enjwu to leave.’
b. *Amwuto Enjwu-eykey [ec ttena-ci anh]-ul
nobody E.-DAT
kes-ul
yokwuha-yess-ta.
leave-NEG-ADN thing-ACC ask-PST-DC
c. Minki-ka Enjwu-eykey [ec amwuto manna-ci anh]-ul kes-ul
M.-NOM E.-DAT
yokwuha-
nobody meet-NEG-ADN thing-ACC ask-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Minki asked Enjwu not to meet anyone.’
The locality condition on NPIs shows that unlike the SVCs which do not involve any
embedding structures, the finite control constructions are bi-clausal.
198
4.3.1.2. Placement of Sentential Adverbs
The second motivation for assuming that finite control complements are CPs
while the SVCs are mono-clausal comes from placement of sentential adverbs. As
shown in (48), sentential adverbs in Korean, such as cengmallo ‘really’, show free
word-order.
(48) a. Cengmallo Mina-ka ssawum-ul sicakha-yess-ta.
really
M.-NOM fight-ACC start-PST-DC
‘Mina really started a fight.’
b. Mina-ka
cengmallo ssawum-ul sicakha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM really
c. Mina-ka
fight-ACC start-PST-DC
ssawum-ul cengmallo sicakha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM fight-ACC
really
start-PST-DC
Compared to (48a) and (48b), in which the sentential adverb cengmallo ‘really’
precedes the subject and the object, respectively, (48c) shows that the sentential adverb
can occur between the object and the verb, just like VP adverbs that modify only verbs.
However, (48c) does not trigger a difference in meaning and the adverb expresses the
speaker’s certainty as to the truth of the whole sentence, just as it does in (48a) and
(48b). The lack of meaning difference between these examples clearly shows that
sentential adverbs distribute freely within a single clause. The same pattern occurs in
the SVCs, as follows.
199
(49) a. Cengmallo Mina-ka
really
ku maswul-ul
sihemha-ye po-ass-ta.
M.-NOM the magic-ACC test-YE
try-PST-DC
‘Mina really tried to test the magic.’
b. Mina-ka
cengmallo ku maswul-ul
M.-NOM really
c. Mina-ka
sihemha-ye po-ass-ta.
the magic-ACC test-YE
ku maswul-ul
cengmallo sihemha-ye po-ass-ta.
M.-NOM the magic-ACC really
test-YE
(50) a. Cengmallo Minki-ka Sanghwun-ul iki-ko
Really
try-PST-DC
M.-NOM S.-ACC
try-PST-DC
siph-ess-ta.
beat-KO want-PST-DC
‘Minki really wanted to beat Sanghwun.’
b. Minki-ka cengmallo Sanghwun-ul iki-ko
M.-NOM really
S.-ACC
beat-KO want-PST-DC
c. Minki-ka Sanghwun-ul cengmallo iki-ko
M.-NOM S.-ACC
really
siph-ess-ta.
siph-ess-ta.
beat-KO want-PST-DC
The examples in (49) and (50) show free word-order of the sentential adverb without
changing the meaning of the sentence. That is, the sentential adverbs in (49c) and (50c)
have scope over the whole sentence, even though they precede the first verb of the serial
verbs and follow the object. If the SVCs were bi-clausal, it would be expected that the
sentential adverb could only have embedded scope. This indicates that the SVCs are
mono-clausal. Finite control constructions which have been treated as non-finite control
constructions do not show the same behavior in terms of the scope of sentential adverbs,
as follows.
200
(51) a. Cengmallo Mina-ka [ec ku sang-ul
really
M.-NOM
pat]-uleyko noleykha-yess-ta.
the prize-ACC receive-C
endeavor-PST-DC
‘Mina really endeavored to receive the prize.’
b. Mina-ka cengmallo [ec ku sang-ul
M.-NOM really
pat]-uleyko noleykha-yess-ta.
the prize-ACC receive-C
endeavor-PST-DC
‘Mina really endeavored to receive the prize.’
c. Mina-ka [ec ku sang-ul
M.-NOM
cengmallo pat]-uleyko noleykha-yess-ta.
the prize-ACC really
receive-C
endeavor-PST-DC
‘Mina endeavored to really receive the prize.’
(52) a. Cengmallo Minki-ka Sanghwun-eykey [ec ku sihap-eyse
really
M.-NOM S.-ACC
ppaci]-tolok
the match-from drop.out-C
kangyoha-yess-ta.
force-PST-DC
‘Minki really forced Sanghwun to drop out of the match.’
b. Minki-ka cengmallo Sanghwun-eykey [ec ku sihap-eyse
M.-NOM really
S.-DAT
ppaci]-tolok
the match-from drop.out-C
kangyoha-yess-ta.
force-PST-DC
‘Minki really forced Sanghwun to drop out of the match.’
c. Minki-ka Sanghwun-eykey [ec ku sihap-eyse cengmallo ppaci]-tolok
M.-NOM S.-ACC
the match-from really
drop.out-C
201
kangyoha-yess-ta.
force-PST-DC
‘Minki forced Sanghwun to really drop out of the match.’
The sentential adverbs in (51a, b) and (52a, b) occur in the matrix clauses and thus,
scope over the matrix verbs. As opposed to this, the sentential adverbs in (51c) and (52c)
occur in the embedded clauses and scope over only the embedded clauses. These
different scope relations cannot be explained if the constructions are not bi-clausal.
The following examples further show that unlike serial verb constructions, but like
the so-called non-finite constructions in (51) and (52), finite control complements
headed by the complementizer -ko and the adnominalizer -l can take sentential adverbs
having embedded scope.
(53) a. Hwaksilhi Minki-ka Con-eykey [ec ku sihap-eyse
surely
M.-NOM John-DAT
iltung-ul ha-keyss-ta]-
the match-LOC best-ACC do-VOL-DC-
ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
C
promise-PST-DC
‘Minki surely promised John to win first place at the match.’
b. Minki-ka Con-eykey [ec ku sihap-eyse
M.-NOM John-DAT
hwaksilhi iltung-ul
the match-LOC surely
ha-keyss-ta]-
best-ACC do-VOL-DC-
ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
C promise-PST-DC
‘Minki promised John to surely win first place at the match.’
202
(54) a. Elisekkeyto Mina-ka [ec cip-ul
stupidly
M.-NOM
ttena]-l
kes-ul
kyelsimha-
home-ACC leave-ADN thing-ACC determine-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Stupidly, Mina determined to leave home.’
b. Mina-ka [ec elisekkeyto cip-ul
M.-NOM
stupidly
ttena]-l
kes-ul
kyelsimha-
home-ACC leave-ADN thing-ACC determine-
yess-ta. 84
PST-DC
‘Mina determined to leave home stupidly.’
While the sentential adverb hwaksilhi ‘surely’ in (53a) and (54a) scopes over the matrix
predicate, that in (53b) and (54b) scopes over only the embedded clause. This indicates
that the constructions are biclausal.
All the examples above show that the SVCs behave differently from finite OC
constructions in terms of the scope of sentential adverbs. Unlike finite OC constructions,
the sentential adverbs intervening between the embedded object and the embedded
predicate have scope over the matrix verbs. This clearly indicates that the SVCs are
monoclausal.
84
As shown below, the sentential adverb can also occur between the embedded object
and verb, possibly resulting in ambiguity of interpretation of the sentence. That is, the
adverb can modify either the whole embedded clause, or just the embedded verb. In the
latter case, the adverb is considered to have a manner reading and thus, the sentence
would be semantically awkward, leading the sentence to be ungrammatical.
Minai-ka [eci cip-ul elisekkeyto ttena-l] kes-ul kyelsimha-yess-ta.
‘Mina determined to leave home stupidly.’
203
4.3.1.3 Scope of Wh-Adverbs
The third motivation for the claim that unlike finite control complements the
SVCs are mono-clausal is derived from different scope reading of wh-adverbs.
(55) a. Mina-ka
M.-NOM
hakkyo-ey
encey ka-ss-ni?
school-LOC when go-PST-Q
‘When did Mina go to school?’
b. Mina-ka
encey hakkyo-ey
ka-ss-ni?
M.-NOM when school-LOC go-PST-Q
‘When did Mina go to school?’
c. Encey Mina-ka
hakkyo-ey
ka-ss-ni?
when M.-NOM school-LOC go-PST-Q
‘When did Mina go to school?’
(56) a. Mina-ka [ku chayk-ul
encey ilk]-e
po-ass-ni?
M.-NOM the book-ACC when read-E try-PST-Q
‘When did Mina try to read the book?’
b. Encey Mina-ka [ku chayk-ul
ilk]-e po-ass-ni?
when M.-NOM the book-ACC read-E try-PST-Q
‘When did Mina endeavor to go to Paris?’
(57) a. Mina-ka [ppali-ey
encey ka]-ko siph-ess-ni?
M.-NOM Paris-LOC when go-KO want-PST-Q
‘When did Mina want to go to Paris?’
204
b. Encey Mina-ka [ppali-ey
ka]-ko siph-ess-ni?
when M.-NOM Paris-LOC go-KO want-PST-Q
‘When did Mina want to go to Paris?’
As shown in (55), wh-adverbs can freely occur in a single clause with no difference in
meaning. In (55a) encey ‘when’ occurs before the verb, in (55b) before the locative, and
in (55c) clause initially. Similarly, the different placements of wh-adverbs in (56) and
(57) do not change the meaning of the sentence; thus the placement induces no
difference in scope relations. This suggests that the SVCs describe a single event, not a
sequence of separate events. Tense marked only after the second verb has scope over
the whole sentence and thus, the two verbs are interpreted as having the same Tense and
as sharing the same subject. Therefore, wh-adverbs can freely occur in any position, just
as in a single clause. Contrary to this, different placements of wh-adverbs in finite OC
contexts establish different scope relations.
(58) a. Mina-ka [ec encey ppali-ey
M.-NOM
ka]-leyko noleykha-yess-ni?
when Paris-LOC go-C
endeavor-PST-DC
‘Did Mina endeavor when to go to Paris?’
b. Encey Mina-ka [ec ppali-ey
when M.-NOM
ka]-leyko noleykha-yess-ni?
Paris-LOC go-C
endeavor-PST-DC
‘When did Mina endeavor to go to Paris?’
(59) a. Mina-ka Con-eykey [ec encey hakkyo-ey
M.-NOM John-DAT
ka]-tolok kanyoha-yess-ni?
when school-LOC go-C
force-PST-Q
205
‘Did Mina force John when to go to school?’
b. Encey Mina-ka
Con-eykey [ec hakkyo-ey ka]-tolok kanyoha-yess-ni?
when M.-NOM John-DAT
school-LOC go-C
force-PST-Q
‘When did Mina force John to go to school?’
(58) and (59) are examples of the so-called non-finite control contructions. In (58a) and
(59a), encey ‘when’ occurs in the complement clauses, and thus it has the embedded
scope reading. In contrast, in (58b) and (59b), encey ‘when’ occurs before the matrix
subject Mina and thus it has the matrix scope reading. That is, the different placement
of wh-adverbs in the constructions induces differences in scope relations.
The same pattern can be found in finite complements selected by the
complementizer -ko and -l.
(60) a. Mina-ka Con-eykey [ec encey ceneyk-ul sa-keyss-ta]-ko
M.-NOM John-DAT
when dinner
yaksokha-yess-ni?
buy-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-Q
‘Did Mina promise John when she would buy dinner?’
b. Encey Mina-ka Con-eykey [ec ceneyk-ul sa-keyss-ta]-ko
when M.-NOM John-DAT
dinner
yaksokha-yess-ni?
buy-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-Q
‘When did Mina promise John to buy dinner?’
(61) a. Mina-ka Con-eykey [ec encey ttena]-l
M.-NOM John-DAT
kes-ul
yokwuha-yess-ni?
when leave-ADN thing-ACC ask-PST-Q
‘Did Mina ask John when to go to school?’
206
b. Encey Mina-ka Con-eykey [ec ttena]-l
when M.-NOM John-DAT
kes-ul
yokwuha-yess-ni?
leave-ADN thing-ACC ask-PST-Q
‘When did Mina ask John to leave?’
The examples in (60)-(61) show that wh-adverbs in finite OC constructions can only
have either an embedded or a matrix scope reading, depending on their placement. This
clearly demonstrates that those constructions are biclausal.
To sum up, the SVCs at issue do not exhibit any of the syntactic behaviors that are
shown in finite OC constructions. That is, the SVCs do not consist of two different TP
clauses where an OC PRO can be involved, but are monoclausal. However, the size of
the embedding structure of SVCs is not straightforward in terms of whether it is vP or
VP. In fact, there have been competing proposals regarding the structure of OC which is
considered to be monoclausal. According to Wurmbrand (1998, 2001, 2002) and Baltin
(1995), OC infinitives are VP, lacking a small v projection. For Wurmbrand, OC is
compatible with a subjectless, i.e., PRO-less infinitive, while Baltin (1995) argues that
PRO is Caseless DP in Spec VP. On the other hand, Aoshima (2000, 2001) proposes
that OC in Japanese cannot be smaller than vP, convincingly arguing that VP is not a
size appropriate for OC complements. In the next section, I will provide some evidence
that the embedded structure of the SVCs in Korean is VP, and so they can be analyzed
as argument sharing, not as control constructions.
207
4.3.2. VP Analysis of Serial Verb Constructions
Wurmbrand (1998, 2001, 2002, 2004) argues that restructuring infinitives, which
crucially involve OC, do not contain any projection above the VP. That is, restructuring
infinitives do not only lack CP and TP, but also vP in which an embedded subject is
merged. This analysis is based mostly on the lack of clause-boundedness effects on
restructuring infinitives in German, such as long-passive movement. As shown in (62b),
she argues that matrix passivization in restructuring infinitives triggers an embedded
object to undergo long-passive movement, which is unexpected under a clausal view of
the infinitives.
(62) a. weil
Hans den Traktor
since John
zu reparieren versuchte.
the tractor-ACC to repair
tried
‘since John tried to repair the tractor.’
b. dass der Traktor
wurde zu reparieren versucht.
that the tractor-NOM was
to repair
tried
‘that they tried to repair the tractor.’
Wurmbrand argues that “long” object movement would not be possible if there were a
subject position in the infinitives since the presence of a syntactic subject would block
the A-movement operation. Thus, Wurmbrand proposes the syntactic structure for
restructuring infinitives given in (63).
208
(63)
TP
Johni
T'
vP
T
the tractorj
v'
ti
v'
VP
v
VP
tj
V
V
tried
to repair
However, Aoshima (2000, 2001) challenges Wurmbrand’s VP analysis of
restructuring infinitives, arguing that unlike the German example in (62b), a long
passive cannot be formed in Japanese or English, as shown in (64).
(64) *sono zitensya-ga naosi te mi-rare-ta.
the bike-NOM
repair to try-PASS-PST
‘*The bike was tried to repair.’
(Aoshima 2001:41)
According to Aoshima (2001:42), the derivation of the Japanese and English long
passive crashes simply because one argument is given incompatible external and
internal θ- features by one transitive verb. With regard to the thematic relation between
the embedded transitive verb repair and the argument the bike, the NP moved from the
VP complement position to the Spec vP would get both Theme and Agent roles. Thus,
209
the control clause in (64) would derive an inappropriate interpretation such that the bike
repairs itself. Therefore, Aoshima argues that the long passive in try type of control
constructions in Japanese and English can be excluded if the control complement is
assumed to involve vP, not VP. However, unlike the Japanese example in (64), but
similar to the German in (62b), the SVCs in Korean in question allow the long passive,
as shown in (65) and (66).
(65) a. Sensayng-nim-kkeyse Bil-ul
teacher-HON-NOM
mopem-ulo sam-a po-si-ess-ta.
Bill-ACC example-as make-A try-HON-PST-DC
‘The teacher tried to make Bill as an example.’
b. Bil-i
mopem-ulo sam-a
po-a-cyess-ta.
Bill-NOM example-as make-A try-A-PASS.PST-DC
‘Bill was tried to make an example.’
(66) a. Mali-ka
emeni-lul
posalphi-ko
siph-ess-ta.
Mary-NOM mother-ACC take.care-KO want-PST-DC
‘Mary wanted to take care of the mother.’
b. Emeni-kkeyse
(Mali-hanthey) posalphi-ko
mother-HON.NOM Mary-DAT
siph-e-ci-syess-ta.
take.care-KO want-E-PASS-HON.PST-DC
‘The mother was wanted to take care of by Mary.’
(65b) and (66b) show that the embedded objects in (65a) and (66a) are assigned
nominative Case and become the matrix subject via the long-passive movement. The
loss of and the occurrence of the honorific agreement marker -si- on the second
210
predicate further indicates the subject status of the embedded object. Unlike the SVCs,
long-passive movement is not possible in finite control constructions, given in (67) and
(68).
(67) a. Bil-i
[pro Con-ul
Bill-NOM
ttalacap]-uleyko sitoha-yess-ta.
John-ACC catch.up.with-C
try-PST-DC
‘Bill tried to catch up with John.’
b. *Con-i
ttalacap-uleyko sito-toy-ess-ta.
John-NOM catch.up.with-C trial.PASS-PST-DC
‘John was tried to catch up with.’
(68) a. Mali-ka [pro Bil-ul
Mart-NOM
manna]-ki-lul
wenha-yess-ta.
Bill-ACC meet-NOML-ACC want-PST-DC
‘Mary wanted to meet Bill.’
b.*Bil-i
manna-ki-lul
wenhay-cyess-ta.
Bill-NOM meet-NOML-ACC want-PASS.PST-DC
‘Bill was wanted to meet.’
The impossibility of long-passive movement in finite control constructions is
predictable since finite control constructions, unlike the SVCs, involve an embedded
subject. If the ability of long-passive movement explains the absence of an embedded
subject, as Wurmbrand argues, the SVCs in Korean should be analyzed as a VP
structure.
211
Wurmbrand (1998) gives further evidence that restructuring infinitives involving
OC are always syntactically reduced to VP, based on the impossibility of a partial
control reading.
(69) a. *Der Bürgermeister versuchte [PROi+k sich
the mayor
tried
in Schloβ
zu versammeln].
SELF in the castle to gather
‘The mayor tried to gather in the castle.’
b. Eri beschhloβ [PROi+k sich im Schloβ
He decided
zu versammeln].
SELF in the castle to gather
He decided to gather in the castle.’
(Wurmbrand 2002:5-6)
Wurmbrand(1998) claims that a restructuring infinitive cannot take a partial control
reading since it lacks a vP projection. Under her analysis, this explains the difference in
grammaticality between (69a) and (69b). That is, given that partial control involves a
matrix controller as well as anyone else salient from the discourse context, there must
be a syntactic position for an embedded subject. Thus, partial control is not compatible
with a restructuring infinitive which lacks a syntactic subject position. On the other
hand, a non-restructuring infinitive, such as (69b), contains a vP projection, and thus
allows partial control.
Aoshima takes up this argument to claim that Wurmbrand’s VP analysis cannot
account for OC complements in Japanese, based on data such as those in (70).
212
(70) a. *Sichyooi-ga PROi+k siyakusyo-ni atumat te mita.
mayor-NOM
city.hall-at
gather to tried
‘*The mayor tried to gather in the city hall.'
b. Emii-ga PROi+k issyoni
Emi-NOM
ringo-ga
tabe-rare-ru.
together apples-NOM eat-can-PRS
‘Emi can eat apples together.’
(Aoshima 2001:38)
Under Wurmbrand’s (1998) analysis, both (70a) and (70b) take restructuring verbs,
which trigger OC, and thus a partial control reading should not be permitted. However,
Aoshima claims that the nominative object construction (70b), unlike the try type of
verb (70a), takes a partial control reading, 85 and thus OC complements in Japanese
should contain a vP projection which provides a subject position.
If the possibility of a partial control reading can be considered evidence for the vP
analysis of control complement, the following examples show that the SVCs in Korean
at issue do not contain a vP.
(71) a.*Bili-i
PROi+j tosekwan-eyse-(tul) moi-e
Bill-NOM
library-LOC-PL
po-ass-ta.
gather-E try-PST-DC
‘*Bill tried to gather in the library.’
85
In fact, the PC reading of (70b) is not so obvious since the sentence can be interpreted
as follow.
(i) Emii-ga
(Kim-mo) issyoni ringo-ga
tabe-rare-ru.
Emi-NOM K.-and
together apples-NOM eat-can-PRS
‘Emi can eat apples together (with Kim).’
The construction in (i) contains an omitted NP with comitative case, such as Kim-mo
‘with Kim’, and thus takes an exhaustive reading rather than a PC reading.
213
b.*Bili-i
PROi+j tosekwan-eyse-(tul) moi-ko
Bill-NOM
library-LOC-PL
siph-ess-ta.
gather-KO want-PST-DC
‘Bill wanted to gather in the library.’
c. Minai-ka [eci+j tosekwan-eyse
M.-NOM
moi-keyss-ta]-ko
yaksokha-yess-ta.
library-LOC-PL gather-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised to gather in the library.’
Unlike finite OC in Korean, in which partial control can be allowed, as discussed in
4.2.2 and shown in (71c), the SVCs in (71a) and (71b) do not permit partial control. In
this respect, SVCs in Korean pattern together with the German example in (69a) and the
Japanese te construction in (70a), but not with the nominative object construction in
(70b). As a result, the SVCs in Korean cannot be accounted for under the vP analysis,
but can under the VP analysis.
The following examples further show that there is no embedded subject position in
the SVCs.
(72) a. Kyoswu-nim-kkeyse
chayk-ul
ilk-usi-(ess)-na
po-(*si)-ta.
Professor-HON-NOM.HON book-ACC read-HON-PST-NA seem-HON-DC
‘It seems that the professor is reading/read a book.’
b. Kyoswu-nim-kkeyse
chayk-ul
ilk-(*usi)-e
po-si-ess-ta.
Professor-HON-NOM.HON book-ACC read-HON-E try-HON-PST-DC
‘The professor tried to read a book.’
214
c. Kyoswu-nim-kkeyse
chayk-ul
ilk-(*usi)-ko
siph-usi-ess-ta.
Professor-HON-NOM.HON book-ACC read-HON-KO want-HON-PST-DC
‘The professor wanted to read a book
The example in (72a) is equivalent to a Subject-to-Subject Raising construction in
English. Note that the raising verb in (72a) cannot be followed by the subject agreement
marker -si. This is due to the property of a raising predicate that cannot assign a thetarole to its subject. Instead, the agreement marker follows the embedded verb. The
availability of the past Tense marker -ess on the embedded verb in (72a) indicates that
there is a subject position in the clause. On the other hand, as briefly discussed in 4.3.1,
embedded verbs in the SVCs cannot take the subject agreement marker -si. The
examples in (72b) and (72c) show that when the subject is someone honorable, the
agreement marker follows the second verb, not the first verb. This tells us that there is
no subject postion for the embedded verb itself.
Another piece of evidence that the SVCs in Korean should be analyzed as VP is
derived from a function of the suffix between serial verbs. As discussed in 4.3.1, the
suffixes -a/e and -ko do not carry any inherent Mood/Modal, Tense, or aspectual
meaning, and they are simply attached to the stem of a main verb to link to an auxiliary
verb. Moreover, recall that the embedded verb in the SVCs cannot take any Tense,
Agreement, or Mood marker. In these respects, the SVCs in Korean are different from
te and yooni constructions in Japanese which are considered to be bigger than vP in the
literature (Aoshima 2000, 2001; Dubinsky 2007).
215
(73) a. John-ga [sono ronbun-o
J.-NOM that
yomi] sobireta.
paper-ACC read
failed
‘John failed to read that paper.’
b. John-ga [sono ringo-o
J.-NOM that
tabe-te] mita.
apple-ACC eat-to
tried
‘John tried to eat that apple.’
c. John-ga Mary-ni
[ sono ringo-o
tabe-ru]-yooni itta.
J.-NOM Mary-DAT that apple-ACC eat-IMP-to
told
‘John told Mary to eat that apple.’
According to Aoshima (2001), 86 te and yooni constructions as well as the compound
verb constructions above are analyzed as monoclausal, lacking a TP projection and
taking an OC reading. Consequently, this leads her to support Hornstein’s movement
approach to OC constructions. However, Aoshima (2001:42-43) proposes a different
size of structure for each construction, given below:
(74) a. [TP NPi [vP ti [VP [PartP [vP ti [VP … V] v] te] V] v] T]
86
In fact, Aoshima (2000, 2001) divides Japanese control verbs into five types with
respect to their selections of complements, as follows:
(i) V-V compound verbs.
(ii) Verbs followed by a particle te/de.
(iii) Verbs followed by a subjunctive yooni.
(iv) Verbs followed by a complementizer to, which heads a Modal verb.
(v) Verbs followed by a koto complementizer.
According to Aoshima, the cases in (i)-(iii) are OC constructions that invlove a
monoclausal structure.
216
b. [TP NPi [vP ti [VP NPj [VP [PartP [vP tj [VP … V] v] te] V] v] T]
c. [TP NPi [vP ti [VP NPj [MODP [vP tj [VP … V] v] yooni] V] v] T]
According to Aoshima, te constructions trigger subject control (74a) or object control
(74b) and te is analyzed as a gerund form of participle that heads a Participle projection
(PartP) above an embedding vP. On the other hand, yooni in (74c) always triggers
object control and is considered a subjunctive auxiliary verb that heads a MoodP. The
structural difference between te and yooni constructions is based on the fact that unlike
te constructions, yooni constructions can bear an imperfect aspect marker, as shown in
(73c). Aoshima takes this as evidence supporting the claim that the VP analysis cannot
account for the structure of OC constructions in Japanese since VP is too small to
account for the aspect interpretation of the embedded verb in yooni constructions.
However, the monoclausal property of yooni constructions is questionable, given the
following examples from Dubinsky (2007:18-19).
(75) a. Mary1 ni, Taroo zyanakute, kanozyo1-ga sono kaisya-o
NI
yoo-ni
is.not
she-NOM
tyoosa-suru
that company-ACC investigate-do
meizita.
manner-NI ordered
‘I ordered Mary that she, and not Taroo, should investigate that company.’
b. Mary1 ni, kanozyo1 zyanakute, Taroo-ga
NI she
is.not
sono kaisya-o
tyoosa-suru
-NOM that company-ACC investigate-do
217
yoo-ni
meizita.
manner-NI ordered
‘I ordered Mary that Taroo, and not she, should investigate that company.’
The above examples show that under the right contrastive conditions, a resumptive
pronoun can occur in yooni constructions (75a), and the subject of the constructions can
be other than the matrix object (75b). Given this, yooni constructions can be analyzed as
biclausal, not monoclausal. Furthermore, Dubinsky (2007) argues that -te is a “tenselike” affix, and thus -te heads an event-denoting TP or Event projection (EvP), which
blocks movement of the subject into the matrix subject position. 87 Consider the
following examples.
87
Dubinsky provides two types of evidence for the analysis, examining locative/manner
adverbial clause headed by ni and ni-site.
(i) a. Mari-wa [tue-o
yoko ni] tatiagatta.
TOP cane-ACC side at stood.up
‘Mari stood up, with the cane at [her] side.’
b. Mari1-wa neko-o (*kanozyo1-no) aite
ni syokozi-o siteiru.
TOP cat-ACC she-GEN
companion at meal-ACC is.doing
‘Mari is eating a meal with a cat as her companion.’
(ii) a. Mari-wa [tue-o
yoko ni site] tatiagatta.
TOP cane-ACC side at do.TE stood.up
‘Mari stood up, with the cane at [her] side.’ Or
‘Mari stood up, having laid the cane flat [i.e. on its side].’
b. Mari1-wa neko-o (kanozyo1-no) aite
ni site syokozi-o siteiru.
TOP cat-ACC she-GEN
companion at do.TE meal-ACC is.doing
‘Mari is eating a meal with a cat as her companion.’ (Dubinsky 2007:23-25)
According to Dubinsky, contrary to bare ni adjuncts in (i), ni-site adjuncts in (ii) show
that the ni-marked NP can be co-referential with other than the matrix argument and the
possessor of the ni-marked NP can be overt.
218
(76) a. Tabete miru
b. Tabete miseru
eat.TE see
eat.TE
‘eat and see’/ ‘try eating’
‘eat and show’/‘demonstrate eating’
c. Iki-masyoo
or
go-TENTATIVE
show
Ik-oo
go-TENTATIVE
‘Let’s go.’
(77) a. Tabe-tai.
b. Tabete hosii.
eat-want
eat.TE want
‘I want to eat’
‘I want him to eat.’ (Dubinsky 2007:21-22)
According to Dubinsky, unlike bare verb phrases such as (76c), which are interpreted as
part of the event/state denotation of the main clause, V-te phrases often denote
‘temporal sequence’ rather than any (in)dependent event/state, as shown in (76a) and
(76b). Also, note that while the subject of tabe ‘eat’ in (77a) is syntactically controlled
by the subject of tai ‘want’, the subject of the te phrase in (77b) is different from the
subject of hosii ‘want’. This suggests that te constructions can be analyzed as biclausal
with te heading a TP projection.
Now, consider the following Korean examples in which two verbs are linked by
the suffix -a/e and -ko, just as two verbs in Japanese te constructions are linked by -te.
(78) a. Con-i
koki-lul
kwu-e/*ese po-ass-ta.
John-NOM meat-ACC broil-E/ESE try-PST-DC
‘John tried to broil the meat.’
219
b. Con-i
koki-lul
kwu-e/*ese tay-ess-ta.
John-NOM meat-ACC broil-E/ESE supply-PST-DC
‘John kept broiling the meat.’
c. Con-i
koki-lul
kwu-e-/ese
mek-ess-ta.
John-NOM meat-ACC broil-E/ESE eat-PST-DC
‘John broiled the meat and then ate it.’
(79) a. Con-i
thayksi-lul tha-ko/*ese
John-NOM taxi-ACC
siph-ess-ta.
take-KO/ESE want-PST-DC
‘John wanted to take a taxi.’
b. Con-i
thayksi-lul tha-ko/*ese
John-NOM taxi-ACC
iss-ess-ta.
take-KO/ESE exist-PST-DC
‘John was taking/getting in a taxi’
c. Con-i
thayksi-lul tha-ko/se
ka-ss-ta.
John-NOM taxi-ACC take-KO/SE go-PST-DC
‘John went by taxi/took a taxi and then went.’
The verbal complements in (78) bear the same suffix -e, but they express different
eventualities. The event of the verbal complements in (78a) and (78b) cannot be
separated from the event denoted by the second verb, and thus the constructions are
perceived as denoting a single event. Contrary to this, (78c) denotes a sequence of
events. In other words, the event of the verbal complement in (78c) denotes a completed
event followed by an immediate action denoted by the second verb. In this respect, the
former is equivalent to the compound verb construction in Japanese, while the latter is
220
equivalent to Japanese te constructions. This difference is validated by the
(un)availability of the suffix -(e)se ‘and then’ which is attached to a subordinate
clause. 88 Similarly, (79a) and (79b) denote a single event and thus, cannot take the
subordinating suffix, whereas (79c) denotes two separate events and thus, the
subordinating suffix is available. 89 If the suffixes -a/e and -ko 90 carry any inherent
Tense or aspectual meaning, the difference in event property between the examples
above cannot be explained. In fact, it is assumed that the suffixes are simply
connectives which link two verbs and that the difference in event property of SVCs is
derived from a distinct structure formed by the serial verbs. Note that the examples in
(78c) and (79c) are composed of fully autonomous verbs, while the examples in (78a, b)
88
This is illustrated in the following example:
(i) Con-i
cip-ey
ka-se
swukcey-lul
ha-yess-ta.
John-NOM home-LOC go-and.then homework-ACC do-PST-DC
‘John went home and then did the homework.’
89
The following examples further demonstrate that the constructions in (78c) and (79c)
can denote two separate events.
(i) a. Con-i
koki-lul
kwu-e manul-kwa hamkkey mek-ess-ta.
John-NOM meat-ACC broil-E galic-and together eat-PST-DC
‘John broiled the meat and then ate it with a galic.’
b. Con-i
thayksi-lul tha-ko
cip-ulo
ka-ss-ta.
John-NOM taxi-ACC take-KO home-DR go-PST-DC
‘John went home by taxi.’
In addition, the serial verbs in the constructions can be freely separated by many
elements, such as the emphatic particles -man/nun ‘only’ and a variety of the
subordinating markers: -(u)myense ‘while’, -kose ‘after’, and -camaca ‘as soon as’,
while the serial verbs in (78a, b) and (79a, b) can be separated only by the emphatic
particles.
90
Sells (1998:2) points out that the suffix in complex predicates in Korean is specific to
the particular complex predicate. Following Sells, I assume that the second verb in
SVCs selects the suffix in the lexicon. That is, po- ‘try’ always selects -a/e and siph‘want’ always selects -ko.
221
and (79a, b) are composed of a main verb and an auxiliary verb. That is, unlike the
second verb in the former examples which functions as an independent predicate, the
second verb in the latter examples functions as an auxiliary, modifing the meaning of
the first verb with a meaning such as ‘try’ and aspectual meaning. In fact, SVCs in
Korean, which are seemingly identical to each other in terms of the form of [V1-e/ko
V2], can be divided into three types, depending on the syntactic and semantic functions
of the second verb. The first type of SVC consists of two independent lexical verbs, as
in (78c) and (79c). In this case, the phrases with the suffixes usually denote a completed
event or a means for achieving an event denoted by the second verb. That is, this type of
SVC is perceived of as comprising separate actions. Thus, each verb selects its own
internal argument structure, although it involves an external argument sharing.
Simplified structures for (78c) and (79c) are given in (80).
(80) a.
vP
tSubj
b.
v'
VP
vP
tSubj
v
v'
VP
VP
VP
VP
obj V1
pro V2
obj V1
v
VP
V2
The second type of SVC consists of a main verb and an aspectual verb, as in (78b)
and (79b). The second verb in this type of SVC is unable to function as a predicate, but
adds an aspectual meaning to the first verb. 91 That is, the second verb does not bear a
91
The second verbs in this type of SVC can be used as main verbs as in (i):
222
theta-role and simply heads an Aspect Phrase (AspP) above vP. 92 As a result, the first
verb in this type of SVC functions as a predicate, and thus determines the argument
structure of the serial verbs. The third type of SVC consists of a main verb and an
auxiliary verb, as in (78a) and (79a). Unlike the aspectual verbs in the second type of
SVC, the auxiliary verb in this type establishes a thematic relation with an external
argument. 93 Thus, it can select its own external argument that is shared with the first
verb. Simplified structures for these two types of SVCs are represented in (81).
(i) a. Mina-ka ku chayk-ul
peli-ess-ta.
M.-NOM the book-ACC throw.away-PST-DC
‘Mina threw away the book.’
b. Ku-ka ku kakey-ey mulken-ul tay-n-ta.
he-NOM the store-LOC stuff-ACC supply-PRS-DC
‘He supplies stuff to the store.’
c. Minswu-nun cip-ey
iss-ta.
M.-TOP
house-LOC exist-DC
‘Minswu is at home.’
92
A functional head analysis for aspectual verbs has been proposed in the literature. See
Wurmbrand (2001) for German, Cinque (2003) for Romance languages, and Fukuda
(2006) for Japanese.
93
Unlike raising verbs and aspectual verbs of SVCs, the auxiliary verbs impose
selectional restrictions on their subjects, as shown below:
(i) a. Pi-ka
wa-ss-na
po-ta.
rain-NOM come-PST-NA seem-DC
‘It seems raining.’
b. Pi-ka
nayli-e peli-ess-ta.
rain-NOM come-E throw.away-PST-DC
‘It rained/has rained.’
(ii) a. Mina/*pi-ka wa-a
po-ass-ta.
M./rain-NOM come-A try-PST-DC
‘Mina/*rain tried to come.’
b. Mina/*pi-ka o-ko
siph-ess-ta.
M./rain-NOM come-KO want-PST-DC
‘Mina/*rain wanted to come.’
223
(81) a. AspP
b.
Asp'
vP
tSubj
tSubj
Asp
v'
VP
vP
v'
VP
v
V2
V'
v
VP
V1
V2
V'
NP
V1
Note that the aspectual verb in (81a) heads vP, while the second verbs in (81b) heads
VP. This structural difference explains the impossibility of long-passive movement in
the former construction, as shown below.
(82) a. Koyangi-ka cwui-lul
cat-NOM
cap-a
peli-ess-ta.
mouse-ACC catch-A throw.away-PST-DC
‘The cat has caught/caught the mouse.’
b. *Cwui-ka
koyangi-eykey cap-a
mouse-NOM cat-DAT
peli-e ci-ess-ta.
catch-A throw.away-PASS-PST-DC
‘The mouse was caught by the cat.’
c. Cwui-ka
koyangi-eykey cap-hi-e
mouse-NOM cat-DAT
peli-ess-ta.
catch-PASS-E throw.away-PST-DC
‘The mouse was caught by the cat.’
224
Unlike the SVCs in which the second verb is the so-called control verb, long-passive
movement is blocked in the SVCs in which the second verbs are aspectual verbs, as
shown in (82b). Passivization of an embedded object is possible only when the passive
morpheme occurs on the first verb, as in (82c).
So far, it has been argued that the Korean SVCs at issue differ from the Japanese
OC constructions which have been considered to be monoclausal, but behave the same
as the restructuring OC infinitives in German in terms of the availability of long-passive
movement and the unavailability of a PC reading. Therefore, the Korean SVCs are
analyzed as having a VP structure. However, they are not considered control
constructions. According to Wumbrand (2001, 2002), at least some instances of OC
involve structure sharing, resulting in subjectless infinitives. Under the Wumbrand
(2001, 2002)’s analysis, the Korean SVCs should be analyzed as OC. However, note
that the SVCs in Korean and the restructuring infinitives in German do not display a
‘control’ relation between a controller and a controllee since the verbal complements
lack a subject position. In those constructions, the subjects are simply the same
arguments of two different predicates. Therefore, given the very definition of control –
the coreferent relation between the missing subject of the embedded structure and a
matrix argument, there is no motivation for the control analysis of the SVCs. In other
words, the control analysis of the SVCs in Korean and the restructuring infinitives in
German are not theoretically consistent with control constructions since the external
argument sharing in the constructions is not mediated by an empty category.
In this chapter, it has been claimed that OC with a pro subject in a finite context
can be attested in Korean and that serial verb constructions do not exhibit any of the
225
syntactic behaviors that are shown in finite OC constructions and thus, are analyzed as
monoclausal. Given the control facts, the standard theory of control establishing only a
PRO controllee needs to be refined. One implication of the pro analysis of finite control
in Korean is that control cannot be adequately accounted for based purely on syntax,
which is assumed to be the case in many languages which in general depend on
finiteness of control complements: i.e., a PRO occurs in a nonfinite context, but not in a
finite context. Furthermore, if it is the case that OC PRO can appear in a finite context,
as claimed by Landau (2000, 2004) for Hebrew and Balkan languages, Case and
finiteness cannot distinguish the distribution of a PRO and a pro/lexical DP. This can
also be invoked as evidence for the absence of syntactic control. In the next chapter, I
will address the issue of what determines controllers and argue for the role of semantics
and pragmatics in determining the controller in Korean OC constructions.
226
CHAPTER 5
CONTROLLER CHOICE IN OBLIGATORY CONTROL IN KOREAN
One of most important issues in accounting for control phenomena is identifying
the controller and explaining its relation to the controllee. Regarding this issue, there
have been purely syntactic approaches to control (Hornstein 1999; Boeckx & Hornstein
2003) and purely semantic approaches (Culicover & Jackendoff 2001, 2006). Still other
researchers have proposed both syntactically and semantically based accounts of control.
For example, Landau (2000) argues that the Obligatory vs. Non-Obligatory Control
distinction is syntactic rather than semantic: i.e., VP-internal infinitives trigger OC and
VP-external infinitives allow NOC, while the exhaustive vs. partial control distinction is
based on semantic differences. In a similar vein, Wurmbrand (2002) argues that NOC
constructions are clauses syntactically and propositions semantically, while OC
constructions are VP, and are thus determined semantically. However, in the case of
Korean, the OC vs. NOC distinction as well as exhaustive vs. Obligatory Control
distinction is more attributable to a semantic rather than a syntactic distinction in that
OC constructions in Korean are analyzed as CP constructions just as NOC constructions
are, as already discussed in the previous chapters.
In this chapter, I will discuss some issues regarding OC constructions in Korean
which can be problematic for the purely syntactic based analyses of control in the
literature and argue for the key role of semantics in determining the controller in OC
constructions in Korean. However, unlike the previous studies (Chierchia 1983, 1984;
Farkas 1988; Pollard & Sag 1991; Culicover & Jackendoff 2001, 2006, among others)
proposing that OC is determined by the lexical semantics of the matrix predicates
227
involved, I argue that OC in Korean cannot be completely explained by the lexical
properties of a selecting predicate alone. Rather, it is derived through a more
complicated array of factors. In the literature on Greek control, there has been a
proposal that control may be linked not only to the lexical properties of the selecting
predicates, but also to some other factors, such as the combination of the lexical or
inflectional properties of the selecting predicate along with a complement clause (i.e.,
Roussou 2007). Similarly, OC in Korean can be enforced by the lexical properties of the
selecting predicates/complementizers, the combination of a matrix predicate and
complement type, or syntactic/semantic properties of complement clauses.
5.1. Problems for Syntactic Analyses of Obligatory Control
In this section, I will examine some syntactic issues concerning OC constructions
in Korean that raise problems for syntactic analyses of control in the literature and argue
that syntactic properties are not sufficient to determine controller choice in Korean.
5.1.1. Locality and C-Command
Syntactic analyses of control attempt to explain control relations based on
properties of structural configurations. That is, traditional syntactic approaches to
control within GB frameworks, such as Williams (1980), argue that an empty subject in
OC complements must be controlled by the closest c-commanding matrix argument,
using the Minimal Distance Principle (MDP) proposed by Rosenbaum (1967). This
strictly local configuration between a controller and a controllee has also been
accounted for in the movement analyses of control by the Minimal Link Condition
(MLC), which prohibits an element from moving across another element with a similar
feature specification. In short, these syntactic constraints are taken to be the crucial
228
factor determining controller choice in the syntactic approaches to control. In most
cases, this is true of OC in Korean, as shown in (1).
(1) a. Minai-ka [proi/*j ttena]-leyko noleykha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM
leave-C
try-PST-DC
‘Mina tried to leave.’
b. [Minai-uy emma]j-ka [pro*i/j kunyecasin*i/j-ul salangha]-leyko noleykha-yess-ta.
M.-GEN mom-NOM
herself-ACC
love-INT-C
try-PST-DC
‘Mina’s mom tried to love herself.’
c. Minai-ka Pataj-lul [pro*i/j ttena]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM P.-ACC
leave-C
persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Pata to leave.’
d. [Mina-uy emma]i-ka [Pataj-uy emma]k-eykey [pro*i/*j/k cakicasini/*j/k-ul
M.-GEN mom-NOM P.-GEN mom-DAT
self-ACC
chingchanha-la]-ko malha-yess-ta
praise-IMP-C
tell-PST-DC
‘Mina’s mom told Pata’s mom to praise herself.’
The matrix subject DP in (1a, b) and the matrix object DP in (1c, d) are the closest ccommanding matrix arguments, so they control the controllees. However, Landau
(1999, 2000) points out a serious shortcoming of the MDP and the MLC, based on wellknown empirical evidence, as found in (2).
229
(2) a. Johni promised Maryj [PROi to leave].
b. Johni asked Maryj [PROi to be allowed to leave].
In the examples, John and Mary both c-command the empty category, but the controller
is the matrix subject John, not the matrix object Mary which is the closest ccommanding argument. Landau (2000:31) even claims that c-command is not a
necessary condition for OC, providing the following examples in (3).
(3) a. Yesterday, it spoiled Mary’si mood [PROi/*arb to listen to the news].
b. [PROi/*Bill’s/hisi/*j making that comment] was very rude of Johni.
Similarly, OC constructions in Korean show that controllers do not always need to be in
c-command relationships with the controllees. Consider the following examples.
(4) a. Minai-ka Pataj-wa [proi+j/*??i/*j twu-si-ey
M.-NOM P.-with
Wujin-ul manna]-l
kes-ul
two-time-at W.-ACC meet-ADN thing-ACC
yaksokha-yess-ta.
promise-PST-DC
‘Minai promised to Pataj that shei would meet Wujin at two with herj.’
b. Minai-ka [proi/i+j twu-si-ey
M.-NOM
yess-ta.
PST-DC
Wujin-ul manna]-ki-lo
Pataj-wa yaksokha-
two-time-at W.-ACC meet-NOML-DR P.-with
promise-
230
i) ‘Mina promised to Pata to meet Wujin at two.’
ii) ‘Minai promised to Pataj that shei would meet Wujin at two with herj.’
c. Minai-ka [proj hakkyo-ey
M.-NOM
ka]-tolok Pataj-eykey seltukha-yess-ta.
school-LOC go-C
P.-DAT
persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Pata to go to school.’
(4a) shows split control in which two matrix arguments, the subject Mina and the
oblique Pata, jointly control the controllee. Neither the oblique DP nor the matrix
subject can exclusively control the controllee. 94 Compared to (4a), (4b) can take subject
control as well as split control. The possibility of subject control in (4b) seems to be
explained simply by the c-command and precedence requirement. 95 However, in the
case of split control in the examples, the controllee includes the matrix subject as well
as the oblique DP which is not in a c-commanding position. Similarly, the embedded
null subject in (4c) must refer to the matrix object, Pata, which fails to c-command the
embedded clause. A simplified structure for (4a) and (4c) are represented in (5).
94
In fact, (4a) is ambiguous in that the oblique DP can be either in the matrix clause or
in the embedded clause. However, (4b) gives evidence supporting the oblique DP as an
element of the matrix clause. When the oblique DP belongs to the embedded clause, the
sentence means ‘Mina promised (someone) to meet Wujin at two with Pata’.
95
As discussed in 1.2.1.1, Williams (1980) proposes that the antecedent precedes the
controlled PRO.
231
(5) a.
vP
b.
NP
vP
NP
Minai-ka VP
v
Minai-ka
VP
V'
PP
NP
P
V'
V'
NP
Pataj -wa CP
v
CP
V
N
yaksokha-
proi+j ... mannal kes-ul
V'
proj ... ka-tolok
NP
Pataj
PP
V
P
seltukha-
eykey
The structural representations in (5) clearly show that OC in Korean does not obey strict
c-command. Specifically, the oblique argument Pata in (5a) does not c-command the
null subject of the complement clause. Thus, it is obvious that a solely syntactic account
of control based on the strict locality conditions cannot account for the Korean data.
Hashemipour (1989) proposes that the antecedent of the controlled NP must be in the
superordinate clause immediately dominating the controlled clause in Persian; thus,
long-distance control is not possible. This also applies to OC in Korean. In determining
the controller in OC, syntax simply plays the role of delimiting a potential domain for
control; namely, the domain of an immediately higher clause of a controlled clause.
However, within that domain, the licensing mechanism for controllees is not syntactic.
Rather, the choice between subject and object control is sensitive to semantic or
pragmatic factors, as it will be discussed in 5.2.
232
In addition, recall that movement analyses of control necessitate a non-CP (i.e.,
TP/IP) status of control complements since the phasal status of CP blocks A-movement
of a DP out of the phase. Therefore, any syntactic analysis based on movement cannot
account for the CP status of the embedded clause in finite OC in Korean. 96
5.1.2. Tense, and Agreement
Although Landau (2000) argues that the exhaustive vs. partial control distinction
is based on semantic differences, he proposes a syntactic analysis of control (i.e.,
Agree-based analysis), employing two crucial syntactic features, Tense and Agreement.
Under his analysis, infinitives combining with implicative, aspectual and Modal
predicates yield EC, whereas infinitives with, for instance, desiderative and
interrogative predicates allow PC. However, he proposes that Tense is the crucial factor
distinguishing PC from EC: PC complements involve their own semantic Tense,
whereas EC complements contain no such independent Tense, as shown in (6).
(6) a. *Yesterday, Johni began to PROi solve the problem, tomorrow. (EC)
b. Yesterday, Johni wondered how to PROi+ solve the problem, tomorrow. (PC)
Unlike (6a), (6b) shows the possibility of conflicting temporal adverbs between the
matrix clause and the infinitive clause. Landau reflects on this contrast in the derivation
of EC and PC to explain their interpretational differences, as illustrated in (7).
96
Madigan (2008) also points out some shortcomings of the movement theory of
control (Hornstein 1999 and subsequent) in explaining partial and split control in
Korean.
233
(7) a.
FP
F'
F
VP
DP
Agree2
V'
V
CP
C
TP
CT PRO
T-Agr
Agree3
T
tT-Agr
VP
Move
tPRO
V'
Agree1
b.
FP
F'
F
VP
DP
Agree2
V'
V
CP
C
TP
PRO
Agree3
T
T-Agr
VP
tPRO
V'
Agree1
For the derivation, Landau (2000:66) stipulates that DP and PRO are inherently [+SP]
‘Semantically plural’ or [-SP], F(unctional) head and Agr are initially unspecified for
234
semantic plurality, [ØSP], and acquire an SP value under agreement with DP, though
not with PRO. Following Pesetsky & Torrego (2000), Landau also assumes that C
contains an uninterpretable T(ense)-feature in a tensed clause, which triggers an overt
T-to-C movement. This is the crucial factor distinguishing PC from EC. That is, the
derivations explain how PRO can have a different semantic number than its controller
in a PC context, but not in an EC context. In the case of PC in (6b) shown in (7a), first,
the [+SP] PRO agrees with [ØSP] T-Agr. Next, the T-Agr which still remains
unspecified for [SP] since PRO cannot value it moves to C to check off uninterpretable
Tense feature on C. Then, the [ØSP] F agrees with the [-SP] DP and acquires [-SP].
Finally, the [-SP] F agrees with the [ØSP] T-Agr under the assumption that [-SP] and
[ØSP] are non-distinct on functional heads. Therefore, this derivation allows a [+SP]
controllee to have a [-SP] controller. Contrary to the PC derivation, the derivation of EC
in (7b) does not include a T-to-C movement since EC complements are not tensed. Thus,
PRO and F directly fall in an Agree relation. If PRO matches with F in SP, then the
derivation will converge, but if PRO and F are mismatched in SP, then the derivation
will crash.
However, there are good reasons to claim that the Agree-based analysis cannot
account for OC in Korean. First and foremost, Tense cannot distinguish EC from PC in
Korean since they both occur in [+Tense] contexts in the sense of Landau (2000).
(8) a. Ecey
Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [proi/*j nayil
yesterday M.-NOM P.-DAT
cenyek-ul
sa-keyss-ta]-
tomorrow dinner-ACC buy-VOL-DC-
235
ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
C
promise-PST-DC
‘Yesterday, Mina promised Pata to buy dinner tomorrow.’
b. Ecey
Minai-ka Pataj-lul [pro*i/j nayil
yesterday M.-NOM P.-ACC
ttena]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
tomorrow leave-C
persuade-PST-DC
‘Yesterday, Mina persuaded Pata to leave tomorrow.’
(9) a. Ecey
Minai-ka [nayil
proi+ tosekwan-eyse moi-keyss-ta]-ko
yesterday M.-NOM tomorrow
library-LOC
gather-VOL-DC-C
yaksokha-yess-ta.
promise-PST-DC
‘Yesterday, Mina promised that ec i+ would gather at the library tomorrow.’
b. Ecey
Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [proj+ nayil
yesterday M.-NOM P.-DAT
tosekwan-eyse-tul moi]-
tomorrow library-LOC-PL
gather-
tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
C
persuade-PST-DC
‘Yesteday, Mina persuaded Pata to gather at the library tomorrow.’
The examples in (8) and (9) are instances of EC and PC, respectively. According to
Landau’s (2000) analysis, only the examples in (9) should be tensed since they are PC,
not EC. However, contrary to English, EC in Korean does not differ from PC from the
standpoint that its complements have dependent Tense just as PC complements do.
Another piece of evidence supporting the claim that the Agree-based analysis
cannot account for OC in Korean derives from the fact that the null subjects of the
236
embedded clauses in Korean OC contexts do not need to match the controllers in Agree
features, as already discussed in 4.2.2. The relevant examples are repeated below.
(10) a. Minai-ka [proi+ tosekwan-eyse-(tul) moi]-ki-lo
M.-NOM
library-LOC-PL
yaksokha-yess-ta.
gather-NOML-DR promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised to gather in the library.’
b. Minai-ka [caki-*(tul)i+-i
tosekwan-eyse-(tul) moi-keyss-ta]-ko
M.-NOM self-(PL)-NOM library-LOC-PL
yaksokha-
gather-VOL-DC-C promise-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Minai promised that theyi+ , themselves, would gather in the library.’
According to Landau (2000, 2004), PRO in OC structures is ‘active’ for Agree due to
its anaphoric nature, and thus PRO in tensed complements inherits all phi-features from
the controller, although not necessarily semantic singularity. However, the examples in
(10) show that a controllee in the Korean PC context does not inherit the syntactic
singularity of its controller. That is, the null subject in (10a) cannot be exhaustively
controlled by the matrix singular subject Mary since the predicate moi- ‘gather’, which
is a semantically plural predicate, requires a semantically or syntactically plural subject.
The availability of a plural marker -tul on the postpositional phrase tosekwan-eyse
shows the plural properties of the null subject. The ungrammaticality of the omission of
the plural marker in (10b) clearly demonstrates that the controllee in this context must
be plural. Consequently, this evidence indicates that null subjects in Korean PC contexts
237
do not need to match the syntactic plurality of the controllers, contrary to what Landau
(2004) suggests for English PC.
The examples in (11) further indicate that even in EC contexts, the null subject
does not need to inherit the [+honorific] feature from the controller.
(11) a. Apecii-kkeyse
halapenimj-kkey
[proi/*j cip-ey
ka-(*si)-keyss-
father-NOM.HON grandfather.HON-DAT.HON home-LOC go-HON-VOLta]-ko yaksokha-si-ess-ta.
DC-C propmise-HON-PST-DC
‘Father promised the grandfather to go home.’
b. Halapecii-kkeyse
apecij-kkey [pro*i/j ku il-ul
grandfather-NOM.HON father-DAT.HON
kumantwu-(si)-la]-
the job-ACC quit-HON-IMP-
ko seltukha-si-ess-ta.
C persuade-HON-PST-DC
‘Grandfather persuaded father to quit the job.’
The controllers of the embedded subjects in the above examples are individuals of
honorific status relative to the speaker. However, the honorific marking on the
embedded verb in (11a) actually leads the sentence to be ungrammatical and that in
(11b) is not obligatory. These empirical data are also problematic for Madigan (2008)’s
analysis in which controller choice is determined by a syntactic agreement relationship
between PRO and the Speaker/Addressee head that carries the presuppositional features
speaker and addressee. Madigan argues that the Modal and Mood markers -keyss and -
238
la, which have reference to a speech act, trigger an OC reading and posits that there is a
functional category Speaker/Addressee whose head checks syntactic features Speaker
and Addressee that can be further divided into specific Mood-type features, such as
[±volitional] and [±required]. Under his mechanism, the derivation for a subject control
that involves -keyss as in (11a) is represented below.
(12)
Addressee/SpeakerP
MP
Addressee/Speaker [+speaker]
IP
M [+volitional]
Spell out as -keyss
PRO [+speaker]
Agree
Following Kratzer (2006) in which a bound variable or a minimal pronoun comes into a
derivation with minimal feature specifications and acquires its features via local chains
of agreement with its antecedent, Madigan assumes that PRO is a minimal pronoun and
thus inherits its features from its controller. This assumption is apparently verified by
the following data which show subject-honorific agreement.
(13) a. Sensayng-nimi-i
haksayng-tul-eykey [PROi yeset-si-ey ttena-si-keyss-
teacher-HON-NOM student-PL-DAT
ta]-ko yaksokha-si-yess-ta.
DC-C promise-HON-PST-DC
six-time-at leave-HON-VOL-
239
‘The teacher promised the students to leave at 6.’
b. Kim sensayng-nimi-i
K.
Pak sensayng-nimj-eykey [PROi+j
teacher-HON-NOM P.
tungsan-ul
teacher-HON-DAT
ha-si-ca]-ko
ceyanha-si-ess-ta.
mountain.climbing- ACC do-HON-EXH-C propose-HON-PST-DC
‘Teacher Kim proposed teacher Pak to go to mountain climbing.’
c. Hwuni-i
Inhoj-eykey [PROi+j kongpwu-ha-ca]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
H.-NOM I.-DAT
study-do-EXH-C
promise-PST-DC
‘(lit.) Hwun promised Inho to study together.’
The data from Madigan (2008) above show that the honorific marker -si occurs on the
verb when the subject is a person who deserves the speaker’s deference. That is, the
honorific marking on the matrix verbs in (13a, b) agrees with the matrix honorific
subject. Thus, it is reasonable to think that the honorific marking on the embedded verbs
in (13a, b) must agree with the PRO subjects. This leads Madigan to conclude that the
honorific marker -si in Korean must be marked on a verb whose subject is a person of
honorific status relative to the speaker and that PRO inherits its honorific feature from
its controller. However, his analysis cannot account for the data in (11). If his analysis
were correct, the occurrence of the honorific marker -si in (11) should be obligatory
since the speaker in (11a) and the addressee in (11b) are the embedded subjects who are
individuals of honorific status relative to the speaker. However, the honorific marking
240
on the embedded verb in (11a) actually leads the sentence to be ungrammatical and that
in (11b) is not obligatory. 97 The following data raise a further problem for his analysis.
(14) a. Minai-ka Kim sensayng-nimj-kkey [proi+j cip-ey
M.-NOM K.
teacher-HON-DAT.HON
ka-*(si)-ca]-ko
home-LOC go-HON-EXH-C
ceyanha-yess-ta.
propose-PST-DC
‘Mina proposed teacher Kim to go home.’
97
As a matter of fact, the occurrence of the honorific marker in (13a) and (13b) is not
obligatory as Madigan argues. Subject-honorific agreement in Korean is very intriguing
regarding the proper usage of the honorific marker in relation to its trigger. In general,
there are two main dimensions of honorifics: referent honorifics (speaker-referent
perspective) and addressee honorifics (speaker-addressee perspective). The former
concerns the speaker’s regard for a referent denoted by a nominal appearing overtly or
covertly in a sentence, whereas the latter is associated with the speaker’s regard for the
addressee in a speech situation.
In an actual speech situation, the addressee honorifics are more important and thus
more finely segmented than referent honorifics in view of the subtlety of interpersonal
feelings and ‘face’ involved in face-to-face interactions (Sohn 1999:414). The referent
honorifics relevant to the examples above are widely understood to occur when the
subject denotes an individual who deserves the speaker’s deference. However, the
referent honorifics are more finely segmented than the general view of the honorifics.
For instance, the referent honorifics are also triggered by the relationship between the
referents: the subject ‘the speaker’ and the indirect object ‘the addressee’ in the
sentence. (11a) is one of the typical examples. That is, the matrix subject apeci ‘father’
is inferior to the matrix indirect object halapenim ‘grandfather’ and thus the honorific
marking on the verb is not allowed, although the matrix subject is a person of honorific
status relative to the speaker. Also, there is one important restriction on referent
honorifics. When a speaker describes his/her own action, the honorific marking on the
verb must be dropped, although the speaker is a person of honorific status relative to the
addressee. For example, in (13a) the subject sensayngnim ‘teacher’ is superior to
haksayngtul ‘students’ and the speaker in status, but since the embedded subject is the
speaker of the embedded sentence, the honorific marking on the embedded verb is
ungrammatical (unless the speaker intends to honorify himself/herself). However,
Korean people commonly misuse or overuse the honorific marker in this case due to the
honorific status of the subject relative to the speaker/writer of the whole sentence.
241
b. Kim sensayng-nimi-i
K.
Pataj-eykey [proi+j cip-ey
teacher-HON-NOM P.-DAT
ka-(*si)-ca]-ko
hom-LOC go-HON-EXH-C
ceyanha-si-ess-ta.
propose-HON-PST-DC
‘Teacher Kim proposed Pata to go home.’
c. Halapecii-kkeyse
apecij-kkey [pro*i/j yehayng ka-(*si)-ca]-ko
grandfatehr-NOM.HON father-DAT.HON
travel
go-HON-EXH-C
yaksokha-si-ess-ta.
promise-HON-PST-DC
‘Grandfather promised father to go travel together.’
All of the examples in (13b, c) and (14) show split control involving the exhortative
marker -ca, but they show differences in the occurrence of the honorific marker.
Compared to the examples in (13b, c) in which the matrix subject and indirect object are
equal in honorific status, the examples in (14) include the subject and indirect object
referents that differ in terms of honorific status. Contrary to (14a), in which the matrix
subject is inferior to the matrix indirect object in honorific status, the matrix subjects in
(14b, c) are superior to the matrix indirect objects. Note, however, that the matrix
subject and indirect object in (14c) are individuals of honorific status relative to the
speaker. Madigan (2008) employs Kratzer’s (2006) [sum] feature as one of pronominal
features in (15) in order to account for plurality in split control.
(15) a. [[ [sum] ]] = _x._y. x+y
242
b. Each of the cats chased each of the dogs before they curled up with each other.
(Kratzer 2006)
Based on (15), it can be easily explained why (13b), but not (13c), takes the honorific
marker on the embedded verb. That is, PRO in (13b), unlike that in (13c), bears
[+honorific] feature inherited from the split controllers, the matrix subject and indirect
object (the Speaker and the Addressee in Madigan’s terms), which in turn triggers the
honorific marking on the embedded verb. However, Madigan (2008) does not address
how the [honorific] feature on PRO accounts for the differences in the honorific
marking on the embedded verbs in (14). As Madigan proposes, if the exhortative
marker -ca on the Speaker/Addressee head triggers split control under the Agree
relation between PRO and the Speaker/Addressee head and the [sum] feature on PRO is
simply a set of atomic individuals and not a collective group, it is not clear what
determines the honorific marking on the embedded verbs in (14). Given his definition of
the [sum] feature on PRO, it is assumed that PRO in (14a, b) also bears a [+honorific]
feature inherited from one of their controllers– the matrix indirect object in (14a) and
the matrix subject in (14b) and PRO in (14c) from its split controllers. However, the
honorific marking on the embedded verb is obligatory in only (14a), and in the other
examples it renders the sentences ungrammatical. In fact, the examples in (13b, c) and
(14) show that the honorific marking on the embedded verb is permitted only when the
matrix indirect object is superior to the matrix subject in status. This is different from
the honorific marking on the matrix verb that is triggered by the relationship between
the matrix subject ‘referent’ and the speaker of the whole sentence. In conclusion,
243
Madigan’s Agree-based analysis also falls short in explaining the occurrence of the
honorific marking on the control complements. As a matter of fact, the examples above
suggest that the empty subjects of control complements do not inherit their features
from their controllers, but bear their own features. This also supports the claim that the
null subject in finite control cannot be PRO but must be pro, which is independently
licensed in the complement clause.
Finally, it is worthwhile to note that OC and NOC complements in Korean have a
uniform structure. The mainstream literature on control considers the OC vs. NOC
distinction a syntactic distinction rather than a semantic distinction (cf. Hornestin 1999;
Landau 2000). However, syntactic properties, such as structural configuration and
Tense, are not crucial for the OC vs. NOC distinction in Korean. Recall that finiteness
cannot distinguish OC from NOC in Korean, since Korean OC occurs in finite contexts,
as discussed in chapter 3.
(16) a. Minai-ka Wujinj-eykey [proi/*j/*k hakkyo-ey
M.-NOM W.-DAT
ka-keyss-ta]-ko malha-yess-ta.
school-LOC go-VOL-DC-C say-PST-DC
‘Minai told Wujin that shei would go to school.’
b. Minai-ka [proi/*j ilccik ttena]-l
M.-NOM
kes-ul
kyelsimha-yess-ta.
early leave-ADN thing-ACC resolve-PST-DC
‘Mina resolved to leave early.’
c. Minai-ka [proi/*j cip-ey
M.-NOM
ka]-ki-lul
kepwuha-yess-ta.
home-LOC go-NOML-ACC refuse-PST-DC
‘Mina refused to go home.’
244
(17) a. Minai-ka Wujinj-eykey [pro*i/*j/k hakkyo-ey ka-keyss-ta]-ko malha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM W.-DAT
school-LOC go-CONJ-DC-C tell-PST-DC
‘Minai told Wujin that someone might go to school.’
b. Minai-ka [proi/j ilccik ttena]-l
M.-NOM
kes-ul
wenha-yess-ta.
early leave-ADN thing-ACC want-PST-DC
‘Mina wanted to leave early.’
c. Minai-ka [proi/j cip-ey
M.-NOM
ka]-ki-lul
wenha-yess-ta.
home-LOC go-NOML-ACC want-PST-DC
‘Mina wanted to go home.’
As shown in above examples, the matrix verbs in OC (16) select the same types of
complements that the matrix verbs in NOC (17) select. The only difference between the
constructions lies in the Modal marker -keyss and the matrix verbs. This clearly shows
that the basic OC vs. NOC distinction in Korean is not determined by a syntactic
structure, but is triggered by lexical semantic or pragmatic factors. Similarly, lexical
semantics plays an important role in controller choice in OC contexts. This issue will be
discussed in the following sections.
5.2. Roles of Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics in Controller Choice
It has been claimed that different classes of complementizers or Mood markers
can make differences in controller choice, regardless of the lexical properties of the
matrix predicates (Madigan 2006, 2008; Gamerschlag 2007) and control in Korean is
the result of the combination of a complementizer/Mood marker and a matrix predicate
capable of control (Yang 1984; Kim 1995). By these analyses, some of the previous
245
studies suggest that OC in Korean cannot be explained in terms of pure syntax, but may
be semantically determined in part. However, they do not make a comprehensive
investigation of the various data that may be related to control constructions, resulting
in a failure to capture the fact that OC in Korean is a largely semantically based
phenomenon derived by an intricate set of factors. Also, although they address the
control effect of Mood or Modal markers in -ko complement clauses, they fail to point
out the effect of semantic properties of complement clauses on controller choice. A farranging investigation of sentential complementation in Korean reveals that control in
Korean is the result of certain semantic or pragmatic implicature imposed by the
semantics of a matrix predicate, complementizer, the combination of a matrix predicate
and complement type, or the content of a complement clause. In short, controller choice
in Korean cannot be completely explained by a simple semantic mechanism, such as a
semantic approach based on the semantics of matrix predicates.
5.2.1. Roles of Matrix Predicates and Complementizers
The semantic properties of individual predicates have been considered to be the
main factor in establishing Obligatory Control in the literature that argues for the
semantic dimension of control (c.f. Chierchia 1983, 1984; Pollard & Sag 1991;
Jackendoff & Culicover 2001, 2003; Gamerschlag 2007). Generally speaking, this is
true in OC constructions in Korean. That is, in general, aspectual and implicative
predicates trigger subject control, directive/manipulative predicates object control, and
other types of predicates trigger Non-Obligatory Control or no control at all. 98 Also, in
98
Most of Desiderative and Factive predicates tend to trigger NOC, and when the null
subject is locally controlled, the controller is usually the matrix subject. On the other
hand, Utterance, Propositional, Perception, and Interrogative predicates almost always
show no control. These types will be called control-neutral verbs.
246
the sense that complement clauses are subject to the lexical properties of matrix
predicates, control cannot be seen independently of the semantics of the predicate.
However, OC in Korean cannot be explained by a single factor, but by multifaceted
factors that include the lexical properties of a complementizer, the combination of a
matrix predicate and a particular type of a complement clause, and so on. In what
follows, I will address the role of the matrix predicates and the effect of the combination
of a matrix predicate and a complement type in determining OC in Korean.
5.2.1.1. Predicates and Complementizers Inducing Inherent Control
As briefly discussed in section 3.3, there are some predicates and complementizers
which always induce Inherent control. As to predicates, it has been proposed that a
delimited number of verbs, such as aspectual verbs (begin/start, continue), allow only
OC in all languages. This suggests that at least some properties of control should be
related to the lexical characteristics of the predicates involved. This is true of some OC
constructions in Korean. There are limited numbers of predicates which always trigger
OC regardless of the complementation type: i.e., ‘Inherent control’. Those predicates
are classified into three types: 1) aspectual predicates, 2) implicative predicates
silphayha- ‘fail’, kyeuliha/soholha- ‘neglect’, and samka- ‘refrain’, and 3) the
desiderative predicate keylsimha- ‘resolve/determine’. Cross-linguistically, aspectual
verbs select a sentential complement whose external argument has to be coreferential
with the matrix subject DP. Unsuprisingly then, Korean aspectual verbs, such as
sicakha- ‘begin’,
kyeysokha- ‘continue’,
characteristics, as illustrated in (18) and (19).
and
cungtanha- ‘stop’,
show OC
247
(18) a. Minswui-ka [proi kongpwuha]-ki-(lul) sicakha/kyesokha-yess-ta
M.-NOM
study-NOML-ACC
begin/continue-PST-DC
‘Minswu began/continued to study.’
b. Minswui-ka [proi kongpwuha]-nun/*l kes-ul
M.-NOM
study-ADN
sicakha/kyeysokha-yess-ta
thing-ACC begin/continue-PST-DC
‘Minswu began/continued studying.’
(19) a. Minswui-ka
M.-NOM
[proi kongpwuha]-ki-lul
cungtanha-yess-ta
study-NOML-ACC stop-PST-DC
‘Minswu stopped to study.’
b. Minswui-ka [proi kongpwuha]-nun/*l kes-ul
M.-NOM
study-ADN
cungtanha-yess-ta
thing-ACC stop-PST-DC
‘Minswu stopped to study.’
c. Minswui-ka [proi kongpwuha-te]-n
M.-NOM
kes-ul
cungtanha-yess-ta
study-RET-ADN thing-ACC stop-PST-DC
‘*Minswu stopped that he was studying.’
As shown in the above instances, aspectual predicates usually select -ki
nominalizations, or -nun adnominalizations. Due to their intrinsic meanings, these
predicates are not compatible with the -l adnominalization, which implies prospective
Modality or future Tense. The verb cungtanha- ‘stop’ can also take an embedded clause
which involves a retrospective Modal, as shown in (19c). Since the retrospective Modal
denotes the speaker’s perception of the time of the embedded events that has already
taken place, the Modal marker -te- can be considered to mark Past Progressive Tense.
248
Therefore, it is compatible with the inherent meanings of the predicate cungtanhata
‘stop’, putting an end to what one is doing. Conversely, the -l adnominalization in
(19b), which denotes that the event has not taken place, is not. This shows that the
inherent meaning of the predicates impose restrictions on the Tense or aspectual
specification of the embedded clause. Furthermore, these verbs impose selectional
restrictions on their arguments in the situation denoted by the clause. That is, they
cannot select an animate internal argument in a simplex sentence and in the case of a
complex sentence, they select two arguments, an external argument and a complement
whose subject is necessarily linked to the external argument due to the lexical meaning
of the predicates. 99 Therefore, no other controller, except the matrix subject, is possible.
Other predicates that trigger Inherent control also impose the same restrictions on
theTense/Aspect of their complements and on what type of arguments can occur with
them.
(20) a. Eunmii-nun [proi kongpwuha]-ki-lul/nun/*n kes-ul
E.-TOP
keyuliha-yess-ta.
study-NOML-ACC/ADN thing-ACC neglect-PST-DC
‘Eunmi neglected to study.’
b. Kithayi-nun [proi pam-ey kansik mek]-ki-lul/nun/*n
K.-TOP
kes-ul
samka-
night-at snack eat-NOML-ACC/ADN thing-ACC refrain-
ss-ta.
PST-DC
99
Farkas (1992:97) consider these types of complements dependent Subject
complements and argues that languages frequently use a special complement form, such
as infinitives, to indicate Subject dependency. In the case of Korean, however, there is
no special complement form indicating such a Subject dependency.
249
‘Kithay refrained from having a snack at night.’
c. Kui-nun [proi ku-uy
he-TOP
kes-ey
atul-ul
wang-ulo onglipha]-m-ey/nun/*l
he-GEN son-ACC king-as
enthrone-NOML-LOC/ADN
silphayha-yess-ta.
thing-LOC fail-PST-DC
‘He failed to enthrone his son as the King.’
As shown in (20), the implicative predicates silphayha- ‘fail’, kyeuliha/sohol(hi)ha‘neglect’, and samka- ‘refrain’ show restrictions on their complementation types. The
predicates kyeuliha- ‘neglect’ and samka- ‘refrain’ in (20a, b) select only -ki
nominalization and -nun adnominalization. Other complementation types are not
compatible with these predicates. For instance, the adnominalizer -n, which encodes
indicative Modality or past Tense, cannot be compatible with these predicates since the
lexical meanings of the predicates imply that the events of the complements have not
been realized. In contrast, the predicate silphayha- ‘fail’ in (20c) selects -m
nominalization and -nun adnominalization, but it cannot select the adnominalizer -l
encoding an unrealized future event, which is not compatible with the lexical meaning
of the matrix verb. Also, none of these predicates can select an animate internal
argument, and thus the null subject necessarily refers to the matrix external argument,
resulting in obligatory subject control.
A similar pattern is found in the desiderative predicate keylsimhata
‘resolve/determine’, as in (21).
250
(21) a. Kui-nun [proi Hankwuk-ulo tolaka]-ki-lo/*m-ul
he-TOP
ul
Korea-DR
/l
kes-
go.back-NOML-DR/NOML-ACC/ADN thing-
keylsimha-yess-ta.
ACC determine-PST-DC
‘He determined to go back to Korea.’
b. Kui-nun [proi cito-lul
he-TOP
mantul-keyss-ta]-ko keylsimha-yess-ta.
map-ACC make-VOL-DC-C
determine-PST-DC
‘He determined to make a map.’
c. Nai-nun [proi nay salm-uy yangsik-ul
I-TOP
pakkwu]-leyko keylsimha-yess-ta.
my life-GEN style-ACC change-C
determine-PST-DC
‘I determined to change my lifestyle.’
d. Hyengkii-nun [proi kunye-ka kyelhonha-nun namca-lul cikcep
H.-TOP
she-NOM marry-ADN
po]-
man-ACC in.person see-
kosa keylsimha-yess-ta.
C
determine-PST-DC
‘Hyengki determined to see the man who she is going to marry.’
Compared to the implicative predicates, the desiderative predicate keylsimha‘resolve/determine’ can select not only -ki nominalization and -l adnominalization (21a),
but also quotative (21b) and intentive complements (21c, d). However, all the
complement clauses denote unrealized events, which are compatible with the lexical
meaning of the predicate, and the nominallizer -m, which encodes indicative Modality
or past Tense cannot be selected, as shown in (21a). Similar to the aspectual and the
251
implicative predicates discussed above, this predicate imposes a restriction on its
arguments, which always triggers subject control regardless of the complement types.
Therefore, these predicates are analyzed as predicates inducing Inherent control.
In addition, there are some complementizers which induce Inherent control. Recall
that Intentive complementizers -leyko and -koca always trigger OC irrespective of verb
type, as discussed in section 3.3.5. Further empirical data in (22) and (23) show that
control-neutral predicates with intentive complements induce Obligatory Control.
(22) a. Hananimi-kkeyse-nun [wuli-ka
coy-lul
cis]-tolok uytoha-ci anh-usi-
God-NOM.HON-TOP we-NOM sin-ACC commit-C intend-NEG-HONess-ta.
PST-DC
‘God didn’t intend us to commit sin.’
b. Hananimi-kkeyse-nun [salam-tul-i
ku pwun-uy
yengwonhan
God-NOM.HON-TOP man-PL-NOM the person.HON-GEN eternal
sayngmeyng-ul patatuli]-ki-lul
life-ACC
uytoha-si-ess-ta.
accept-NOML-ACC intend-HON-PST-DC
‘God intended that people would accept his eternal life.’
c. Pothong yensway salinpemi-un [proi/*j casin-uy pemhayng-ul tulenay]common serial
killer-TOP
self-GEN crime-ACC
leyko/koca uytoha-n-ta.
C
intend-IND-DC
‘A common serial killer intends to reveal his/her crime.’
reveal-
252
As shown in (22a) and (22b), when the predicate uytoha- ‘intend’ selects a -tolok
complement and a -ki nominalized complement, no control can occur. This indicates
that the predicate uytoha- ‘intend’ is control-neutral. However, when the predicate
selects an intentive complement, it always triggers OC, as shown in (22c). The
examples in (23) show the same pattern.
(23) a. Nai-nun [kunye-ka na-man-ul
I-TOP
salangha]-ki-lul/l
kes-ul
wenha
she-NOM I-only-ACC love-NOML-ACC/ADN thing-ACC want-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘I wanted her to love only me.’
b. Salam-tuli-un [cheycwung-i cek-key
naka]-nun
kes-ul
wenha-n-ta.
man-PL-TOP weight-NOM small-ADV weigh-ADN thing-ACC want-IND-DC
‘People want their weight to weigh less.’
c. Kui-nun [proi/*j chengmallo kunye-wa salang-ul nanwu]-koca wenha-yess-ta.
he-TOP
really
she-with love-ACC share-C
want-PST-DC
‘He really wanted to fall in love with her.’
The desiderative predicate wenha- ‘want’ has been considered a NOC predicate in the
literature. Indeed, the examples in (23a) and (23b), with nominalized and adnominalized
complements, show no control. However, when it selects a -kosa complement, it always
triggers obligatory subject control, as shown in (23c). This also applies to other
253
desiderative predicates, which are generally considered NOC predicates, such as
cwunpiha- ‘prepare’, kyeyhoykha- ‘plan’, para- ‘want’, hyimangha- ‘hope’ and
kalmangha/kalkwuha- ‘desire’. Therefore, we can conclude that the intentive
complementizers are the key factor triggering Obligatory Control.
5.2.1.2. Control-neutral Predicates
In addition to the predicates that induce Inherent control above, there are many
predicates that have been treated as obligatory subject control in the literature. Some of
them are given in (24).
(24) Subject Control verbs
sidoha- ‘try’, noleykha/ayssu- ‘endeavor’, yaksokha- ‘promise’, kyeyhoykha- ‘plan’,
cwunpiha- ‘prepare’, kecelha- ‘refuse’, kepwuha- ‘decline’, hwuhoyha- ‘regret’
Similar to the verbs inducing Inherent control, these verbs cannot take an animate
internal direct argument and denote that the event denoted by the embedded verb is
brought about by the referent of the matrix subject, resulting in subject control. In fact,
the majority of the data involving the verbs above in the corpora show subject control.
Consider the following examples involving some of the predicates.
(25) a. Minai-ka [proi/*j ttena]-lyeko/koca sitoha/noleykha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM
leave-C
‘Mina tried to leave.’
try/endeavor-PST-DC
254
b. Nai-nun [proi/*j ku ceyan-ul
I-TOP
patatuli]-ki-lul/nun
kes-ul
the proposal-ACC accept-NOML-ACC/ADN thing-ACC
kecelha-yess-ta.
refuse-PST-DC
‘I refused to accept the proposal.’
c. Kui-nun [proi/*j nayil
he-TOP
achim-ey
ttena]-leyko cwunpiha-yess-ta.
tomorrow morning-at leave-C
prepare-PST-DC
‘He prepared for leaving at tomorrow morning.’
d. Wulii-nun [proi/*j nayneyn-ey khun aphathu-lo
we-TOP
ul
next.year-at big
isaka]-l
kes-
apartment-DR move.in-ADN thing-
kyeyhoykha-yess-ta.
ACC plan-PST-DC
‘We planned to move into a big apartment next year.’
The examples above show that the null subject is coreferent with the matrix subject and
it cannot be coindexed with any other referent.
However, there are some data involving the same verbs in which there is no
control, although the numbers of the examples are very small, compared to the
examples with the same verbs showing subject control. 100 Consider the following
100
This is also true for other predicates which are often treated as control verbs in the
literature. Moreover, most instances of non-control involving the predicates take an
inanimate subject which may have some close relationship with the matrix argument, as
in (26a) and (28c). When the complement clause takes an animate subject, the clause is
often interpreted as a passive sentence, as in (26b). A further example appears below:
(i) Pwucang-un [Mikwuk-ey kwanhan kisa-ka
sil-li-l
ke-la]-ko
chief-TOP
USA-about
news-NOM print-PASS-ADN thing-DC-C
255
examples involving ‘try’-type verbs that have been commonly treated as an example of
typical OC in the literature.
(26) a. Ku-nun [kunpwu-ka
khwutheytha-lul
ilukhi]-tolok sitoha-yess-ta.
he-TOP the military-NOM coup d’état-ACC carry.out-C
try-PST-DC
‘(lit.) He tried for the military to carry out a coup d’état.’
b. Na-nun [ku-salam-i
I-TOP
sekpang-toy-l swu iss]-tolok noleyha-keyss-ta.
the man-NOM release-become-can-C
endeavor-VOL-DC
‘(lit.) I will make an effort so that the man can be released from jail.’
Unlike the common view of ‘try’-type verbs as obligatory subject control verbs, the
examples in (26) show that an overt NP different from the matrix argument can occur in
the null subject position of the complements. A semantic approach to control considers
that the verb ‘try’ necessarily entails that the matrix subject is identical to the null
subject of the complement clause, which Chierchia (1983) treats as a meaning postulate.
Given this, the example in (26a) is predicted to be ungrammatical, contrary to fact,
since the subject of the complement clause differs from that of the matrix clause.
However, the ‘try’ type verbs in (26a) and (26b) are different from those in (25a) in that
the former is reminiscent of a causative construction. Recall that the resultative
complementizer -tolok can often denote a causative meaning, as discussed in section
3.3.6. Also, it is worthwhile to note that the verb ‘try’ in Greek can select a na
yasokha-yess-ta.
promise-PST-DC
‘The chief promised that a piece of news about USA would be printed.’
256
subjunctive complement with an overt lexical NP, which is more accurately translated
as ‘try to make it so that’ (Terzi 1997:340), as shown in (27b).
(27) a. I Mariai prospathise eci na
Mary
tried-3SG
diavasi.
PRT read-3SG
‘Mary tried to read.’
b. I Maria prospathise na
Mary
tried-3SG
diavasoun (ta
PRT read-3PL
pedia).
the children
‘Mary tried for the children to read.’
Compared to the Greek examples, in which the matrix verbs select the same na
subjunctive complement, the ‘try’ type verbs in Korean select different types of
complement clauses: the resultative complement in (26) and the intentive complement
in (25a). This suggests two important aspects of OC in Korean. First, the ‘try’ type
verbs in Korean are not the strict OC predicates, as is commonly accepted in the
literature. Second, matrix predicates are not the sole factor in establishing OC in Korean.
In fact, there are many verbs that are classified as control-neutral verbs but which
trigger OC in combination with a particular complementizer; these will be discussed in
detail in the next section.
Consider the following desiderative predicates, which have been treated as subject
control verbs in the literature, but show no control at all.
257
(28) a. Ku yeca-ka
pwulsonhan thayto-lo
the woman-NOM impolite
ey
tuleka]-nun kes-ul
[wuli ilhayng-i
ku pang-
attitude-DR we company-NOM the roomkecelha-yess-ta.
LOC enter-ADN thing-ACC refuse-PST-DC
‘(lit.) The woman refused us entering the room with an impolite attitude.’
b. Tangsin-un
[nay-ka Yi hoycang-kwa ochan-ul
hamkkey ha-l swu iss]-
you.-TOP.HON I-NOM Y. president-with lunch-ACC together do-cantolok cwunpiha-si-o.
C
prepare-HON-IMP
‘(lit.) You prepare that I can have a lunch with president Yi.’
c. Haksayng-tul-un [cenkwuk-uy
student-PL-TOP
i-la-nun
kak tayhak-i
Minchenghakleyn
whole.country-GEN each univserty-NOM M.
ilum-ha-ey
taykyumo siwi-lul
peli]-
COP-DC-ADN name-under-LOC large.scale demonstrateion-ACC spread.outl
kes-ul
kyeyhoykha-yess-ta.
ADN thing-ACC plan-PST-DC
‘(lit.) The students planned that each university in the whole country hold a
demonstration on a large scale under the name of Minchenghakleyn.’
Compared to the examples in (25b-d) which show subject control, the examples in (28),
which employ the same predicates, show no control. This clearly indicates that contrary
to common presumption, these verbs are not obligatory subject control verbs.
The same conclusion applies to the verb yaksokhata ‘promise’.
258
(29) a. Minai-ka Minswuj-eykey [proi/*j ttena-keyss-ta]-ko yaksokha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM M.-DAT
leave-VOL-DC-C promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised Minswu that she would leave.’
b. Kim taypyenini-un [proi/*j taypyenin-ulose chwungsilhi yekhwal-ul ha-ye
K.
spokesman-TOP
naka-l
kes-i]-m-ul
spokesman-as
sincerely
role-ACC
do-YE
yaksokha-yess-ta.
go.forth-ADN thing-COP-NOML-ACC promise-PST-DC
‘Spokesman Kim promised that he sincerely play his role as a spokesman.’
c. Minai-ka Minswuj-eykey [proi/*j ku chayk-ul
M.-NOM M.-DAT
cwu]-ki-lo
yaksokha-
the book-ACC give-NOML-DR promise-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Mina promised Minswu to give the book.’
As can be seen in the examples above, the verb yaksokha- ‘promise’ can select all types
of complementation, except Intentive complements. This verb has almost universally
been considered an obligatory subject control verb in the literature, since the verb
requires that the referent of the matrix subject intentionally executes the action referred
to by the embedded verb. This is true in most cases of ‘promise’ constructions in
Korean, as can be seen in (29).
However, the examples in (30) show that the verb does not always trigger OC.
That is, the lexical properties of the verb yaksokha- ‘promise’ do not guarantee OC.
259
(30) a. Minai-ka Minswuj-eykey [proi/i+j ttena]-ki-lo
M.-NOM M.-DAT
yaksokha-yess-ta.
leave-NOML-DR promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised Minswu to leave/that they (Mina and Minswu) would leave.’
b. Kim sensayng-nimi-kkeyse
K.
Im sensayng-nimj-kkey
teacher-HON-NOM.HON I.
pan haksayng-tul-i
[tangsin
teacher-HON-DAT.HON self.HON
tosekwan-ul chengsoha]-ki-lo
yaksokha-yess-ta.
class student-PL-NOM library-ACC clean-NOML-DR promise-PST-DC
‘Teacher Kim promised teacher Im that his students would clean the library.’
c. Hananimi-kkeyse [milay-ey hananim-uy nala-ka
God-NOM.HON future-at god-GEN
l
kes-ul
i
ttang-ey imha]-
nation-NOM this land-LOC arrive-
yaksokha-si-ess-ta.
ADN thing-ACC promise-HON-PST-DC
‘God promised that his kingdom will come to the world in future.’
d. Nay-ka [kulen il-i
I-NOM such
eps]-tolok
yaksokha-li-ta.
incident-NOM do.not.exist-C promise-VOL-DC
‘I promise that such an instance won’t happen.’
(30a) is ambiguous in that it can have an EC or split control reading. 101 Although the
EC reading is preferred, the sentence does not exclude the possibility of split control.
That is, the agent of the action described in the embedded clause need not be
exclusively Mina. It is indeterminate whether Mina promised that only she herself will
101
The ambiguity discussed here should not be construed as structural ambiguity, so
multiple syntactic structures are not being suggested. Rather the ambiguity is one of
ambiguity of reference.
260
leave, or that she and Minswu will leave together, and thus it is not semantically clear
who the controller is. In other words, Mina and Minswu can both be potential
controllers who are the agents of leaving. In this case, the control relation between the
matrix arguments and embedded subject seems to depend on pragmatic factors. That is,
the ambiguity between an EC and split control reading will be resolved by the discourse
situation in which the sentence is uttered. This suggests that the semantics of the matrix
verb alone cannot determine the actual control relation for the complement clause. The
examples in (30b)-(30d) show further that an overt NP subject different from the matrix
subject can occur in the null subject position of the complement, resulting in no control.
Even though a quite limited number of the examples involving the matrix verbs
discussed so far show no control in the corpora, it is very suggestive evidence of finite
control in Korean in two respects. First, the lexical meaning of matrix predicates cannot
be the sole factor determining OC; some other factors may play a role in determining
control. Second, the possibility of an overt embedded subject distinct from the matrix
subject indicates that the complement clause selected by the matrix verb is finite. Lastly,
the possibility of an overt embedded subject identical to the matrix subject cannot be
considered just an emphatic pronoun.
Similar phenomena are observed in the directive/manipulative predicates, which
have also been treated as obligatory object control in the literature. Consider the
following examples, which often show object control in the corpora.
(31) a. Minai-ka Minswuj-lul/eykey [pro*i/j ttena]-tolok seltukha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM M.-ACC/DAT
leave-C
persuade-PST-DC
261
‘Mina persuaded Minswu to leave’
b. Aii-nun
emmaj-eykey [pro*i/j calmos-ul yongseha-ye cwu-si]-tolok
child-TOP mom-DAT
fault-ACC forgive-YE
give-HON-C
kanchengha-yess-ta.
beg-PST-DC
‘The child begged mom to forgive his/her fault.’
The majority of directive/manipulative verbs in the corpora select a -tolok complement
clause, and in that case, the construction always takes object control, just as in the
English analogue of the Korean structure. Recall that the complementizer -tolok cannot
trigger Inherent control, as discussed in section 3.3.6. This suggests that OC in (31) may
be triggered by the lexical meaning of the matrix verbs. In fact, the
directive/manipulative verbs appear to denote manipulation of the object referent to
make him/her bring about the event denoted by the embedded verb, resulting in object
control. However, when the directive verbs select different types of complements,
object control is not guaranteed, as can be seen in the following examples.
(32) a. Samchoni-un [proi/*j na-lul math-ase
uncle-TOP
khiwu-keyss-ta]-ko apecilj-lul
I-ACC take-ASE raise-VOL-DC-C
father-ACC
seltukha-si-ess-ta.
persuade-HON-PST-DC
‘The uncle persuaded father that he would take over and take care of me.’
262
b. Minai-ka Minswuj-eykey [proj/i+j ttena]-l
M.-NOM M.-DAT
kes-ul
seltukha-yess-ta.
leave-ADN thing-ACC persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Minswu to leave/that (she and Minswu) leave.’
(33) a. Kui-nun imkum-kkey [proi/*j nomo-lul
he-TOP king-DAT.HON
mosi-keyss-ta]-ko
old.mother-ACC serve-VOL-DC-C
kanchengha-yess-ta.
beg-PST-DC
‘He begged the king that he would serve his old mother.’
b. Akhan yeng-tuli-un [proi/*j twayci ttey-ey
evil
spirit-PL-TOP
pig
tuleka]-ki-lul
kanchengha-
herd-LOC enter-NOML-ACC beg-
yess-sup-ni-ta.
PST-AH-IND-DC
‘The evil spirits begged to dwell in the body of the pigs.’
As shown in the examples above, some directive predicates, such as seltukha- ‘persuade’
in (32), can additionally take -ko complements and -l adnominalized complements, and
others such as kanchengha- ‘beg’ in (33), can also select ko complements and -ki
nominalized complements. 102 The example (32a) shows that the agent of the action
described in the embedded clause is the matrix subject, not the matrix direct object,
102
The directive predicates heyongha/helakha- ‘allow’, myengleyngha- ‘command’,
cwumwunha- ‘order’, and hyeppakha/wihyepha- ‘threaten’, belong to the former group,
while the directive predicates kangyouha- ‘force’, pwutakha/tangpwuha- ‘ask’, colu‘coax’, yochengha- ‘request’, and kanchengha- ‘beg’, belong to the latter group. In
addition, some directive predicates, such as heyongha/helakha- ‘allow’ and ceyanha‘propose/suggest’ can further take -nun adnominalized complements, yet others, such as
mantul- ‘make’, sikhi- ‘let’, ceykongha- ‘offer’, and pangciha/mak- ‘prevent/stop’,
impose more restrictions on their complementation types.
263
resulting in subject control. Moreover, (32b) shows that the verb cannot guarantee the
sentence will be OC. That is, the null subject in (32b), similar to (30a), does not exclude
split control, although the object control reading is preferred. Similarly, the verb
kanchengha- ‘beg’ does not always trigger object control. The examples in (33) show
subject control. This indicates that the directive/manipulative predicates are not
obligatory object control verbs and that the lexical meaning of matrix predicates cannot
be the sole factor determining the controller choice.
The following examples show further evidence that the control relation cannot be
predicted solely based on the semantics of the matrix verbs, but may be determined by
some other factors, such as the lexical meaning of the complementizer.
(34) a. Minai-ka [proi ttena]-lyeko ha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM
leave-C
do-PST-DC
‘Mina tried to leave.’
b. Minai-ka
Minswuj-eykey [proi cenyek-ul
M.-NOM M.-DAT
sa]-ki-lo
ha-yess-ta.
dinner-ACC buy-NOML-DR do-PST-DC
‘Mina promised Minswu to buy dinner.’
c. Minai-ka Minswuj-lul [pro*i/j ttena]-tolok ha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM M.-ACC
leave-C
do-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Minswu to leave’
The constructions in (34) take the same matrix predicate ha- ‘do’ which does not have
an inherent meaning other than “do”. However, the constructions display different types
264
of OC just as the English analogue of the Korean constructions shown in the English
translations above. Determining the OC status of a given complement solely on the
basis of the semantics of the selecting predicate will not explain how the same predicate
contrasts in its control properties. In the above examples, the complementizer or the
complementizer-like element appears to be key in determining the control relation.
Recall that the intentive complementizers, -lyeko and -koca, always trigger obligatory
subject control irrespective of verb type. However, other complementizers do not
always trigger Inherent control. Thus, at least in the case of (34b) and (34c), we cannot
say that the complementizer is the sole factor inducing Obligatory Control. Considering
that the matrix verb ‘do’ along with the complementizer creates the same control effect
as the corresponding English verbs do, it is reasonable to assume that the combination
of a complement type and a matrix predicate play a role in determining control relation.
This issue is discussed in the next section.
5.2.1.3. Combination of a Predicate and a complementizer
There are two types of structures illustrating that control effects are the result of
the combination of a particular type of a complement and a matrix predicate. One is -ki
complements selected by some implicative and desiderative predicates. This type
obligatorily triggers subject control, and the implicative verb sitoha- ‘try’ and some
desiderative predicates, such as tonguyha- ‘agree’, kyelcengha- ‘decide’, senthayha‘choose’, and sayangha- ‘decline’ belong to this type. The other type is -tolok
complements selected by all directive/manipulative predicates, which trigger obligatory
object control.
First, consider some examples of the first type.
265
(35) a. Salam-tuli-i [proi/*j ku kos-eye
people-PL-NOM
tuleka]-ki-lul
sitoha-yess-ta.
the place-LOC enter-NOML-ACC try-PST-DC
‘People tried to enter the place.’
b. Kihoi-ka [proi/*j Swuni-wa thonghwaha]-ki-lul
K.-NOM
S.-with
sitoha-yess-ta.
talk.over.the.phone-NOML-ACC try-PST-DC
‘Kiho tried to talk to Swuni over the phone.’
(36) a. Kui-nun tanhohi [proi/*j ton-ul
he-TOP firmly
pat]-ki-lul
kecelha-yess-ta.
money-ACC accept-NOML-ACC refuse-PST-DC
‘He firmly refused to accept the money.’
b. Noini-un
[proi/*j atul-ul
old.man-TOP
manna]-ki-lul
kecelha-yess-ta.
son-ACC meet-NOML-ACC refuse-PST-DC
‘The old man refused to meet his son.’
As discussed in 5.2.1.2, the implicative verb sitoha- ‘try’ and the desiderative verb
kecelha- ‘refuse’ are analyzed as control-neutral verbs. However, when these verbs
select -ki complements, subject control is always triggered, as shown in (35) and (36).
The following examples further show that -ki complements with some
desiderative predicates always trigger subject control, although the predicates are not
Innherent control predicates.
(37) a. Yecai-nun
namcaj-eykey [pro*i/j kulehan youngto-lo ton-ul
woman-TOP man-DAT
such
use-DR
ssu]-
money-ACC spend-
266
tolok tonguyha-yess-ta.
C
agree-PST-DC
‘The woman agreed the man to spend the money on such things.’
b. Cengpwui-nun
[Cwungkwuk kyengchal-i
government-TOP Chinese
ku-lul
teyli-e-ka]-tolok
policeman-NOM he-ACC take-E-go-C
tonguyha-yess-ta.
agree-PST-DC
‘The government agreed that the Chinese policeman would take him.’
c. Na-nun [ku-tul-i
I-TOP
itan-i-la]-nun
kes-ey
tonguyha-n-ta.
he-PL-NOM heretic-COP-DC-ADN thing-LOC agree-PRS-DC
‘I agree that they are heretics.’
(38) a. Wuli-tuli-un [proi/*j nayil-kkaci
we-PL-TOP
memwul]-ki-lo
tonguyha-yess-ta.
tomorrow-until stay-NOML-DR agree-PST-DC
‘We agreed to stay until tomorrow.’
b. Kui-nun [proi/*j ku coken-ul
he-TOP
patatuli]-ki-lo
tonguyha-yess-ta.
the condition-ACC accept-NOML-DR agree-PST-DC
‘He agreed to accept the condition.’
As can be seen in the above examples, the predicate tonguyha- ‘agree’ can select -tolok
complements and -nun adnominalized and ki nominalized complements. Unlike (37a),
which shows object control, (37b) and (37c) show no control. This indicates that
tonguyha- ‘agree’ is a control-neutral predicate. However, when it selects a -ki
nominalized complement, it always triggers obligatory subject control, as in (38).
267
Next, consider some examples of the second type.
(39) a. Ku namcai-ka
naj-eykey ton-ul
he man-NOM I-DAT
modeyl-ul
yokwuha-mye [proi/*j sacin
money-ACC ask-and
se-keyss-ta]-ko
picture
kangyoha-yess-ta.
model-ACC stand-VOL-DC-C force-PST-DC
‘The man forced me to make him a model of my picture, asking me for
some money.’
b. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [proi+j swul-ul
M.-NOM P.-DAT
masi-ca]-ko
kangyoha-yess-ta.
liquor-ACC drink-PROP-C force-PST-DC
‘Mina forced Pata to have a drink together.’
c. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [pro*i/j/i+j ttena]-l
M.-NOM P.-DAT
kes-ul/ki-lul
leave-ADN thing-ACC/NOML-ACC
kangyouha-yess-ta.
force-PST-DC
‘Mina forced Pata to leave.’
As shown in (39), the predicate kangyoha- ‘force’ can select different types of
complements. When it selects -ko, -l and -ki complements, it can have control relations
other than object control. That is, (39a) shows subject control, (39b) split control, and
(39c) shows variable control, i.e. either object control or split control. However, when it
selects -tolok complements, object control always arises, as shown in (40).
268
(40) a. Sinpwui-nun kutulj-eykey [pro*i/j/*k casin-ul
priest-TOP
they-DAT
ttalu]-tolok kangyoha-yess-ta.
self-ACC follow-C
force-PST-DC
‘The priest forced them to follow him.’
b. Minai-ka naj-eykey [pro*i/j/*k kecis-ul malha]-tolok kangyoha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM I-DAT
lie-ACC tell-C
force-PST-DC
‘Mina forced me to tell a lie.’
The same pattern is observed in the following examples, which take the predicate
yokwuha- ‘ask’.
(41) a. Nai-nun kisaj-eykey [pro*i/j cha-lul
I-TOP
driver-DAT
seywu]-l
kes-ul
/ki-lul
car-ACC stop-ADN thing-ACC/NOML-ACC
yokwuha-yess-ta.
ask-PST-DC
‘I asked the driver to stop the car.’
b. Wuli tangi-un
taythongleyngj -eykey [proi+j myentamha]-l
we part -TOP president-DAT
/ki-lul
kes-ul
meet.and.talk-ADN thing-ACC
youkwuha-yess-ta.
NOML-ACC ask-PST-DC
‘Our part asked the President to meet and talk.’
c. Yecai-nun
namcaj-eykey [pro*i/j ttena-la]-ko
woman-TOP man-DAT
yokwuha-yess-ta.
leave-IMP-C ask-PST-DC
‘The woman asked the man to leave.’
269
d. Yecai-nun
namcaj-eykey [proi+j ttena-ca]-ko
woman-TOP man-DAT
yokwuha-yess-ta.
leave-EXH-C ask-PST-DC
‘The woman asked the man to leave together.’
e. Namphyeni-un anayj-eykey [pro*i/j casin-eykey pokcongha]-tolok yokwuhahusband-TOP wife-DAT
self-DAT
obey-C
ask-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘The husband asked his wife to obey him.’
As can be seen in (41), the predicate yokwuhata ‘ask’ can take different types of
complements. The examples in (41a) and (41b) show that the predicate can select -l and
-ki complements and triggers object control and split control, respectively. When the
predicate selects -ko complements, the result is object control or split control, as shown
in (41c) and (41d). In contrast, when it selects a -tolok complement, it obligatorily
triggers object control, as shown in (41e).
So far, it has been argued that there are some predicates and complementizers
which always trigger Inherent control. Also, it has been shown that the semantics of the
main verb cannot be the sole determining factor in controller licensing in many cases.
Rather, the choice of a complementizer or a particular type of a complement clause
along with a matrix predicate plays an important role in determining what the controller
will be. The table in (42) displays a list of the predicates or complementizers that
always trigger Inherent control and of the predicates that always trigger OC in
association with a particular complement type.
270
(42) OC triggered by the Matrix Predicate, Complementizer, or Their Combination
Control Type
Key Factors
Matrix
Predicates
Complementizer
-ki complements
selected by
-tolok complements
selected by
Inherent Control
Subj C
OC induced by Comp + Pred.
Subj C
Obj C
Aspectual verbs,
Implicative verbs:
samka-‘refrain’,
keyulliha-/soholhiha‘neglect’, silphayha‘fail’
Desiderative verbs:
kyelsimha-‘resolve/
determine’
Intentive -leyko, -koca
Desiderative verbs:
kecelha-‘refuse’,
tonguyha-‘agree’,
senthaykha-‘choose’,
kyelcengha-‘decide’
Implicatives verbs:
sidoha-‘try’
Directive
verbs 103
103
There has been a proposal that the directive predicate seltukha- ‘persuade’ can have
disjoint subject referents (Monahan 2003; Cormack & Smith 2004; Gamershlag 2007),
as shown in (ib).
(i) a. Chelswu-nun pwumo-eykey [kakkak-uy ai-ka
swukcey-lul ha-tolok
C.TOP
parents-DAT each-GEN child-NOM home-ACC do-C
seltukha-yess-ta.
persuade-PST-DC
‘Chelswu persuaded the parents to make each child do the homework.’
b. Chelswu-nun Yenghuy-lul/eykey [Swuyeng-i kakey-ey ka-yaha-n-ta]-ko
C.TOP
Y.-ACC/DAT
S.-NOM store-DAT go-should-PRS-C
seltukha-yess-ta.
persuade-PST-DC
‘Chelswu persuaded Yenghi that Swuyeng should go to the store’
(Cormack & Smith 2004:68)
Cormack & Smith (2004) assume that (ia) is an instance of causative coercion, i.e., it is
interpreted by implicitly causativizing the embedded verb. The unexpressed causer, then,
is understood to be coreferential with the matrix object, which renders the example as a
special case of object control. If we considers (ia) grammatical, then the combination of
271
5.2.2. Control Effects of Mood and Modal Markers in -Ko complements
It has been noted in the literature that there is a suggestive correlation between the
Mood of inflected infinitives and Obligatory Control. For example, it is well known that
some subjunctive clauses in Balkan languages display OC (cf. Terzi (1997), and
Krapova & Petkov (1999), among others). Despite this, Landau (2004:849) argues that
Mood is not directly involved in control. However, in Korean, Mood and Modality
definitely play a crucial role in determining control. That is, the determination of the
controller can vary based on the selection of Mood and Modal markers in embedded
clauses, as already noted by some researchers. This is illustrated in the following
examples.
(43) a. Minai-ka
Pataj-eykey [Wujin-i
M.-NOM P.-DAT
cip-ey
ka-n-ta]-ko
malha-yess-ta.
W.-NOM home-LOC go-IND-DC-C tell-PST-DC
‘Mina told Pata that Wujin is going home.’
b. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [proi/*j cip-ey
M.-NOM P.-DAT
ka-keyss-ta]-ko malha-yess-ta.
home-LOC go-VOL-DC-C
tell-PST-DC
‘Mina told Pata that she would go home.’
c. Emenii-kkeyse
Pataj-eykey [proi/*j cip-ey
mother-NOM.HON P.-DAT
ka-ma]-ko
malssumha-si-
home-LOC go-PROM-C tell-HON-
a -tolok complement and the predicate seltukha- ‘persuade’ does not cause object
control in this case, and thus the prediate should be excluded from the table.
However, the grammaticality or acceptability of (ia) is inconsistent among Korean
native speakers, compared to (ib), which was accepted as a grammatical sentence by the
majority of the Korean native speakers whom I consulted. Moreover, there was no
token showing the same phenomenon in the copora that I investigated. Therefore, this
predicate is classified with the other directive predicates which trigger obligatory object
control in combination with the complementizer -tolok.
272
ess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Mother told Pata that she would go home.’
d. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [pro*i/j cip-ey
M.-NOM P.-DAT
ka-la]-ko
malha-yess-ta.
home-LOC go-IMP-C tell-PST-DC
‘Mina told Pata to go home.’
e. Minai-ka
Pataj-eykey [proi+j cip-ey
M.-NOM P.-DAT
ka-ca]-ko
malha-yess-ta.
home-LOC go-EXH-C tell-PST-DC
‘Mina said to Pata that they should go home.’
The examples above take the same matrix predicate and the same complement clause
headed by the -ko complementizer. In general, the verb malhata ‘tell’ is not considered
an OC predicate since an R-expression can alternate with a controllee, as shown in
(43a). However, if we compare (43b) with (43a), the presence of the volitional Modal
marker -keyss- in the same context creates obligatory subject control. Similarly, the
examples in (43c)-(43e) show that the Mood marker in an embedded clause determines
whether the null subject is co-referential with the subject, the object, or both. That is,
the promissive marker -ma in (43c) requires subject control, just as the volitional
marker in (43b) does. In the same vein, the imperative marker -la in (43d) requires
object control and the exhortative marker -ca in (43e) split control. These data clearly
demonstrate that control effects can be enforced by Mood or Modal markers even for
predicates which are generally considered to be NOC predicates. This is also the case
for the predicates which are commonly treated as OC predicates in the literature.
273
(44) a. Emmai-ka
Minaj-eykey [proj ttena-la]-ko seltukha-yess-ta.
mom-NOM M.-DAT
leave-IMP-C persuade-PST-DC
‘Mom persuaded Mina to leave.’
b. Emmai-ka
Minaj-eykey [proi ttena-keyss-ta]-ko seltukha-yess-ta.
mom-NOM M.-DAT
leave-VOL-DC-C persuade-PST-DC
‘Mom persuaded Mina that she would leave.’
c. Emmai-ka
Minaj-eykey [proi+j ttena-ca]-ko
mom-NOM M.-DAT
seltukha-yess-ta.
leave-EXH-C persuade-PST-DC
‘Mom persuaded Mina that they (mom and Mina) should leave’
As discussed in section 5.2.1.2, the verb seltukhata ‘persuade’ in Korean is controlneutral, but it triggers obligatory object control when it selects the complementizer tolok. However, when the complement clauses headed by the -ko complementizer
contain some Mood or Modal markers, the sentence can create a different type of OC.
That is, the examples in (44) differ soley in terms of a Mood or Modal marker, yet the
control relations are different in each. Unlike (44a), which involves object control
induced by the imperative -la, the volitional -keyss- in (44b) and the exhortative Mood
marker -ca in (44c) force subject and split control, respectively. Thus, the Mood and
Modal markers determine the control relations here, and not simply the matrix verb. In
other words, these examples show that the matrix verb cannot induce local control by
itself. Rather, the Mood and Modal markers are the key to determining a controller in
(44).
274
Importantly, however, not all Mood markers display OC.
(45) a. Emmai-ka
Pataj-eykey [proi/*j/k ttena-n-ta]-ko
mom-NOM P.-DAT
malha-yess-ta.
leave-IND-DC-C tell-PST-DC
‘Momi told Pataj that shei/k would leave.’
b. Emmai-ka
Minaj-eykey [pro??i/*j ttena-n-ta]-ko
mom-NOM M.-DAT
seltukha-yess-ta.
leave-IND-DC-C persuade-PST-DC
‘Mom persuaded Mina that she would leave’
Compared to the other Mood markers in (43) and (44), the indicative Modal marker -nin (45) cannot induce OC. Considering that the event time of embedded clauses in
control constructions is usually unrealized or future with respect to that of the matrix,
indicative Modality, which denotes assertion and involves present Tense, is not likely to
create control relations.
However, the examples in (46) show that while indicative Modality itself does not
cue OC, it can play some role when accompanied by an appropriate control predicate.
(46) a. Emmai-ka Pataj-eykey [proi/*j ttena-n-ta]-ko
mom-NOM P.-DAT
yaksokha-yess-ta.
leave-IND-DC-C promise-PST-DC
‘Mom promised Pata to leave.’
b. Emmai-ka
Pataj-eykey [proi/i+j ttena]-l
mom-NOM P.-DAT
kes-ul
yaksokha-yess-ta.
leave-ADN thing-ACC promise-PST-DC
‘Mom promised Pata to leave/ that she (mom) and Pata would leave.’
275
As already discussed in the previous section, in some cases ‘promise’ constructions
show different referential interpretations of controllees induced by different
complementizers. In contrast to (46b), which can show either subject control or split
control, (46a) shows obligatory subject control, even though both exa mples contain the
same constituents, other than the complement type and the presence vs. absence of the
Mood marker. Considering that ‘indicatives’ refer to an actual world, while ‘nonindicatives’ refer to possible worlds (Roussou, 1999:171), the matrix subject, Mina, in
(44a) is making the promise of leaving with certainty that the event of leaving will
really happen as an actual event. In essence, the matrix subject can be sure about the
occurrence of the leaving because she will be the agent of the event. On the other hand,
the predicate ‘persuade’ involves causative meaning and usually its matrix object
(undergoer) will be the agent of the event described in the complement clauses. Thus,
the indicative Modality, which denotes ‘assertion’: the event described in the embedded
clause is conceived of as a fact, is not compatible with the verb. Consequently, this
causes the sentence (45b) to be ungrammatical. This suggests that predicates show some
restrictions on the Mood or Modal marker occurring in their complement clauses,
depending on their intrinsic meaning. However, the selection of a Mood or Modal
marker is important for determining controllers. The following table displays a list of
the Obligatory Control triggered by the intrinsic meaning of the Mood and Modal
markers in Korean.
276
(47) OC triggered by Mood or Modal markers in -ko Complement Clauses
Mood/Modal markers
keyss
ma
la
ca
Meaning
Volitional
Promissive
Imperative
Exhortative
Control type (Inherent Control)
Subject Control
Subject Control
Object Control
Split Control
5.2.3. Control Effects of Syntactic and Semantic Properties of Embedded
Clauses and Pragmatics
As discussed in the previous sections, OC in Korean cannot be simply explained
by the semantic properties of a matrix predicate. In many cases, OC is determined by
the complex interplay of a matrix predicate and complementation type, and a Mood or
Modal marker in a -ko complement clause can induce control effects. This makes it
extremely difficult to establish the exact formulation of OC in Korean. The following
data showing that control depends on syntactic or semantic properties of embedded
clauses in association with the matrix predicate make it even more challenging.
(48) a. Minai-ka Minswuj-eykey [proi cenyek-ul
M.-NOM M.-DAT
sa]-ki-lo
/-l
kes-ul
dinner-ACC buy-NOML-DR/ADN thing-ACC
yaksokha-yess-ta.
promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised Minswu to buy dinner.’
b. Minai-ka Minswuj-eykey [proi/i+j ttena]-ki-lo
M.-NOM M.-DAT
/-l
kes-ul
leave-NOML-DR/ADN thing-ACC
277
yaksokha-yess-ta.
promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised Minswu to leave/that they (Mina and Minswu) would leave.’
The examples above demonstrate that the semantic characterization of a matrix
predicate cannot guarantee invariable control, as discussed in section 5.2.1. Compared
to (48a), in which subject control is the only possible interpretation, (48b) can take
either subject or split control. That is, while the inherent meaning of the verb yaksokha‘promise’ appears to prevent the null subject from being exclusively controlled by the
matrix indirect object, it cannot restrict the possibility of split control.
Similarly, the inherent meaning of the verb seltukha- ‘persuade’ excludes subject
control, but it cannot restrict the null subject to be exclusively controlled by the matrix
object. This is shown in (49b).
(49) a. Minai-ka Minswuj-eykey [proj casin-ul
M.-NOM M.-DAT
ttena]-l
kes-ul
seltukha-
self-ACC leave-ADN thing-ACC persuade-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Minswu to leave herself.’
b. Minai-ka Minswuj-eykey [proj/i+j ttena]-l
M.-NOM M.-DAT
kes-ul
seltukha-yess-ta.
leave-ADN thing-ACC persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Minswu to leave/that (she and Minswu) should leave.’
278
c. Minai-ka Minswuj-eykey [proi+j hamkkey ttena]-l
M.-NOM M.-DAT
kes-ul
seltukha-
together leave-ADN thing-ACC persuade-
yess-ta.
PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Minswu to leave together.’
In contrast to (49a), which only permits object control, either object control or split
control is possible in (49b). The null subject in (49b) can be appropriately interpreted as
having split antecedents, depending on the discourse context in which the sentence is
uttered. The example in (49c), in which the adverb hamkkey ‘together’ is inserted in the
embedded clause, clearly shows the possibility of split control. Note that the only
difference among the examples is the embedded clauses. In particular, the examples in
(49) show that different argument structures of the embedded predicates can cause
different control effects. These data clearly show that control can be determined by the
syntactic or semantic properties of embedded clauses.
The following examples show a similar pattern.
(50) a. Nai-nun sensayng-nimj-kkey [pro*i/j halapenim-ul
I-TOP
ki-ul
teacher-HON-DAT.HON
mannapoy-p]-
grandfater.HON-ACC meet.HUM-HUM-
yochengha-yess-ta.
NOML-ACC request-PST-DC
‘I requested the teacher to meet the grandfather.’
279
b. Nai-nun sensayng-nimj-kkey [proi/*j mannapoy-p]-ki-lul
I-TOP
teacher-HON-DAT.HON
meet.HUM-HUM-NOML-ACC
yochengha-yess-ta.
request-PST-DC
‘I requested the teacher that I (could) meet him.’
c. Sinsai-nun
yeinj-eykey [proi+j/j chwum-ul
gentleman-TOP woman-DAT
chwu]-ki-lul
dance-ACC dance-NOML-ACC
yochengha-yess-ta.
request-PST-DC
‘The gentleman requested the woman to dance (together).’
The examples in (50) show various control for the complement clauses selected by the
matrix predicates yochenghata ‘request’. Although this predicate is control-neutral just
as other directive predicates are, the majority of the data involving the predicate in the
corpora show that the null subject in the embedded clause is controlled by the matrix
object, as shown in (50a). However, the example in (50b) shows that the complement
clause selected by the same matrix verb can create subject control. The contrast between
(50a) and (50b) is caused by the different argument structures of the embedded verbs.
Moreover, the null subject in (50c) can be controlled either by the split antecedents or
by only the matrix object antecedent. Compared to the examples in (50a) and (50b), the
referential ambiguity of the construction in (50c), which can be resolved by discourse
context, appears to be caused by the semantics of the embedded clauses.
280
The same pattern can be observed in (51), which involves the predicate
kanchenghata ‘beg’.
(51) a. Akhan yeng-tuli-un [proi/*j twayci ttey-ey
evil
ul
spirit-PL-TOP
pig
tuleka]-ki-lul
/-l
kes-
herd-LOC enter-NOML-ACC/ADN thing-
kanchengha-yess-sup-ni-ta.
ACC beg-PST-AH-IND-DC
‘The evil spirits begged to dwell in the body of the pigs.’
b. Kui-nun anayj-eykey [pro*i/j cip-ulo
cwu]-ki-lul
/-l
home-DR come.back give-NOML-ACC/ADN
he-TOP wife-DAT
kes-ul
tolawa
kanchengha-yess-ta.
thing-ACC beg-PST-DC
‘He begged his wife to come back home’
c. Ku-tuli-un
sin-kkey
[caki-tul-eykey kwuwen-i
ilwu-e ci]-
he-PL-TOP God-DAT.HON self-PL-DAT salvation-NOM achieve-PASSki-lul
/l
kes-ul
kanchengha-yess-ta.
NOML-ACC/ADN thing-ACC beg-PST-DC
‘They begged God that their salvation would be achieved.’
(52) a. Minai-ka
sensayng-nim j-kkey [pro*i/j mence ka-si]-l
M.-NOM teacher-HON-DAT.HON
kanchengha-yess-ta.
beg-PST-DC
‘Mina begged the teacher to go first.’
first
kes-ul
go-HON-ADN thing-ACC
281
b. Minai-ka sensayng-nim j-kkey [proi/*j mence ka]-l
M.-NOM teacher-HON-DAT.HON
first
kes-ul
go-ADN thing-ACC
kanchengha-yess-ta.
beg-PST-DC
‘(lit.) Mina begged the teacher so, she could go first.’
c. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [proi/j mence ka]-l
M.-NOM P.-DAT
first
kes-ul
kanchengha-yess-ta.
go-ADN thing-ACC beg-PST-DC
‘(lit.) Mina begged Pata to go first/begged Pata so, she could go first.’
The same matrix verb kanchenghata ‘beg’ creates different control types. The examples
in (51a) and (51b) take subject and object control, respectively, and the example in (51c)
shows that the matrix verb can even show non-control. The examples in (52) are
particularly interesting, since the presence vs. absence of the subject honorific marker si can establish a different controller choice. In (52a) the presence of the honorific
marker determines object control, while its absence can cause either subject control
(52b) or variable control (52c). The controller differences between (52b) and (52c) are
caused by solely pragmatic factors. That is, since the matrix indirect object,
sensayngnim ‘teacher’, in (52b) is a person who should be honored by the speaker, the
absence of the honorific marker indicates that the null subject is not coreferential with
the matrix indirect object but with the matrix subject, Mina. In contrast, the matrix
indirect object Pata in (52c) is not someone who should be honored and thus is equal to
Mina in social status. Therefore, it is ambiguous who the agent of ‘going’ is. 104 These
104
Also, the predicate yochengha- ‘ask’ can show shifting between object control and
subject control, based on the discourse context.
282
data clearly demonstrate that in some cases, not only are the lexical properties of the
matrix subject insufficient to determine control type, but also the matrix predicate and
the particular type of the complementation in combination do not always trigger the
same type of control. Although the control effect of a Mood or Modal marker in -ko
complement clauses has been addressed in the literature (Yang 1984; Madigan 2006,
2008; Gamerschlag 2007), the relevance of other syntactic/semantic properties of the
embedded clauses and pragmatic factors for the determination of control in Korean has
not been addressed. However, as discussed so far, control can depend on the
syntactic/semantic properties of embedded clauses and even on pragmatic conditions.
Therefore, it is argued that syntactic/semantic properties of embedded clauses and
pragmatic factors should be taken into account as well for an adequate analysis of
control relations in Korean.
5.2.4. Control Shift
The phenomenon of control shift, which involves matrix passivization, has
focused on English, and control shift in Korean has been rarely discussed in the
literature. In this section, I will examine control shift in Korean, comparing it with
English, and argue that control shift in Korean OC constructions is well accounted for
in semantic terms, as the literature on control shift in English has commonly explained
control shift in semantic terms (Bresnan 1982; Melvold 1985; Sag & Pollard 1991; and
Petter 1998, among others). This analysis may be in accordance with the semantic based
approach to control in that thematic relations rather than argument structures better
explain the phenomenon of control shift.
283
In English, there is a restriction on passivization of matrix clauses with subject
controlled complements: Visser’s generalization states that matrix clauses with subject
controlled complements cannot be passivized. For example, when a ‘promise’
construction is passivized, it seems to require be allowed to complements, as shown in
(53b) below.
(53) a. Johni promised Annj [eci to come].
b. Anni was promised [eci to be allowed to come].
c.*Anni was promised [eci to come].
d. Johni promised Annj [ecj to be allowed to come].
(54) a. Johni persuaded Annj [ecj to leave].
b. Anni was persuaded by Johnj [eci to leave].
When the null subject in an embedded clause is an agent, the ‘promise’ construction
cannot be passivized, as shown in (53c). In ‘promise’ constructions, a matrix object can
be the controller of the null subject in an embedded clause, only if the embedded clause
takes a be allowed to infinitive. Therefore, in ‘promise’ constructions, control shift
involves insertion of be allowed to in an embedded clause or passivization of a matrix
verb along with the insertion of be allowed to. Notice that in the case of passivization of
matrix verbs (53b), the controller Ann is the subject as well as the agent in the active
construction and that in a passivized construction (53d), the controller John remains a
subject, but is semantically a non-agent. However, as shown in (54), when an object
284
controlled construction, such as a ‘persuade’ construction, is passivized, the semantic
role of the controller remains the same.
Korean differes from English in this regard. Passivization of ‘promise’ involves
not only a shift in the controller, but also a limitation of a potential controller.
(55) a. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [proi/i+j ttena]-ki-lo
M.-NOM P.-DAT
yaksokha-yess-ta.
leave-NOML-DR promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised Pata to leave/that they (Mina and Pata) would leave.’
b. Patai-ka Minaj-lopwuthe [proj/*??i+j ttena]-ki-lo
P.-NOM M.-from
yaksokpat-ass-ta.
leave-NOML-DR got.promise-PST-DC
‘Pata got a promise from Mina to leave.’
(56) a. Minai-ka
Pataj-eykey [proi/i+j ttena]-l
M.-NOM P.-DAT
kes-ul
yaksokha-yess-ta.
leave-ADN thing-ACC promise-PST-DC
‘Mina promised Pata to leave.’
b. Patai-ka Minaj-lopwuthe [proj/*??i+j ttena]-l
P.-NOM M.-from
kes-ul
yaksokpat-ass-ta.
leave-ADN thing-ACC got.promise-PST-DC
‘Mina got a promise from Pata to leave.’
As shown in (55a) and (56a), some structures involving control predicates allow the
constructions to have more than one controller choice. However, if the constructions are
passivized, the option is not allowed, as shown in (55b) and (56b). Since the matrix
subject is a non-agent undergoer, it is excluded from being a potential controller of the
agent of the embedded clause. Notice that contrary to English ‘promise’ constructions
285
(53b), Korean yaksokhata ‘promise’ constructions can be passivized without involving
the passivization of the complement clause. This indicates that Visser’s generalization is
completely irrelevant to Korean. Moreover, note that when the yaksokhata ‘promise’
construction is passivized, it no longer involves subject control, but it does retain agent
control. That is, Mina is the agent of ‘promise’ as well as that of ‘leave’. Therefore, the
semantic role of the controller in ‘promise’ constructions in Korean is rather consistent.
In this respect, the passivization of ‘persuade’ constructions in Korean shows a
parallel with that of ‘promise’ constructions, as follows:
(57) a. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [proj ttena]-tolok seltukkha-yess-ta.
M.-NOM P.-DAT
leave-C
persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Pata to leave.’
b. Patai-ka
Minaj-lopwuthe [proi ttena]-tolok seltukkpat-ass-ta.
P.-NOM M.-from
leave-C
got.persuade-PST-DC
‘Pata got persuaded by Mina to leave.’
The example in (57) shows that null subject in the active construction is the matrix
object Pata, who is the agent of the embedded predicate. When the matrix verb is
passivized, the null subject refers to the matrix subject Pata, who is still the agent of the
embedded predicate. The apparent control shift from object to subject does not actually
involve control shift in semantic terms. That is, the embedded clauses in (57) remain
semantically the same as non-agent control in both constructions.
286
Similar patterns occur in the following examples, in which a possibility of split
control is excluded.
(58) a. Minai-ka Pataj-eykey [proj/i+j ttena]-l
M.-NOM P.-DAT
kes-ul
seltukkha-yess-ta.
leave-ADN thing-ACC persuade-PST-DC
‘Mina persuaded Pata to leave.’
b. Patai-ka Minaj-lopwuthe [proi/*i+j ttena]-l
P.-NOM M.-from
kes-ul
seltukkpat-ass-ta.
leave-ADN thing-ACC got.persuade-PST-DC
‘Pata got persuaded by Mina to leave.’
As is clearly shown in (58), while either object control or split control is possible in the
active construction (58a), in the passivized construction, split control is not allowed and
only the undergoer, which is the matrix subject, can control the null subject (58b).
Therefore, the passivized construction becomes subject control, but semantically
remains non-agent control. Therefore, ‘persuade’ constructions in Korean basically
show the same pattern as those in English, whereas ‘promise’ constructions in Korean
differ from those in English. While English remains subject control and the semantic
role of the controller changes to non-agent, Korean involves a change to ‘non-subject
control’, and the agent remains the controller. 105 This is summarized in (59).
105
In fact, this phenomenon was noted by Kim (1995). In his analysis, the passivization
of ‘promise’ constructions in Korean involves a shift from subject control to object
control.
(i) Johni-i Maryj-eykey [ecj ku il-ul
ha]-ki-lo
yaksokpat-ass-ta.
J.-NOM M.-DAT
the work-ACC do-NOML-DR got.promise-PST-DC
‘John received a promise from Mary to do the work.’
287
(59) Control Shift in Enlgish and Korean
Voice
Active
Predicates
Language
Promise
English
Persuade
Grammatical
Role
Subj C
Passive
Semantic
Role
Agent
Grammatical
Role
Subj C
Semantic
Role
Non-agent
Korean
Subj C
Agent
Non-Subj C
Agent
English
Obj C
Non-agent
Subj C
Non-agent
Korean
Obj C
Non-agent
Subj C
Non-agent
The table in (59) shows that in Korean, the semantic rather than grammatical roles of
the controllers are most important for determining the controller. In other words, control
shift in Korean yields a semantically coherent interpretation. This also supports the
analysis that OC in Korean is better explained in semantic terms.
In addition, passivized OC constructions in Korean show a different aspect from
active OC constructions with respect to replacement of reflexive caki. Specifically, caki
is no longer an option for the embedded subject.
(60) a. Patai-ka
Minaj-lopwuthe [kunye*i/j/*caki-ka
P.-NOM M.-from
she
ttena]-ki-lo
yaksokpat-
/self-NOM leave-NOML-DR got.promise-
ass-ta.
PST-DC
However, the Korean speakers I consulted with considered the above sentence
ungrammatical or unnatural because of the dative case on ‘Mary’. Instead, they
preferred using postposition particles -eykeyse/lopwuthe ‘from’.
288
‘Pata got a promise from Mina to leave.’
b. Patai-ka Minaj-lopwuthe [kunye*i/j/*caki-ka
P.-NOM M.-from
she
ttena]-l
kes-ul
/self-NOM leave-ADN thing-ACC
yaksokpat-ass-ta.
got.promise-PST-DC
‘Pata got a promise from Mina to leave.’
c. Patai-ka Minaj-lopwuthe [kunyei/*j/*caki-ka
P.-NOM M.-from
she
ttena]-tolok seltukkpat-ass-
/self-NOM leave-C
got.persuade-PST-
ta.
DC
‘Pata got persuaded by Mina to leave.’
d. Patai-ka Minaj-lopwuthe [kunyei/*j/*caki-ka
P.-NOM M.-from
she
ttena]-l
kes-ul
/self-NOM leave-ADN thing-ACC
seltukpat-ass-ta.
got-persuade-PST-DC
‘Pata got persuaded by Mina to leave.’
As shown in the above examples, compared to the pronoun kunye, caki cannot replace
the null subject. Given the fact that caki is subject-oriented, the impossibility of caki
replacement in (60a, b) is natural because the controller Mina is not a subject of the
matrix clause. On the other hand, in (60c, d), although the controller Pata is the subject
of the matrix clause, caki cannot replace the null subject, either. In these constructions,
289
the controllers are non-agent, which does not match with the agent semantic role of caki.
This is displayed in the following table.
(61) Contrast between a Null Subject and Caki in Active and Passive Sentences
Predicates
Promise
Persuade
Voice
Active
Passive
Active
Passive
Subject
Agent
Non-agent
Agent
Non-Agent
Non-subject
Non-agent
Agent
Non-agent
Agent
Null subj
√ Agent
√ Agent
√ Agent
√ Agent
Caki subj
√ Agent
* Agent
* Agent
* Agent
In the table above, the underlined elements represent the controllers. Both caki and the
null subject are the agent of the embedded clauses, but unlike null subjects, caki can
occur only in the active ‘promise’ construction. As shown the table in (61), the
controller of the null subject in ‘promise’ constructions is agent, while that in ‘persuade’
constructions is non-agent. However, caki can occur only when the controller is a
subject and agent. This leads us to conclude that there is no subject control or object
control in Korean in the sense of English, or other languages with the typical type of
infinitival complement. In other words, an analysis of controller choice based on
semantics is more consistent and faithful to the facts than an analysis of controller
choice based on syntax.
In this chapter, it has been amply illustrated that OC in Korean cannot be
explained by a purely syntax-based analysis. Also, it has been argued that OC in Korean
cannot be simply determined by the lexical properties of matrix predicates alone,
although there are some correlations with the general classification of control and the
inherent meaning of matrix predicates and in some cases, such as aspectual verbs, the
290
lexical properties of the predicates are the crucial factor determining Obligatory Control.
In many cases, it is also influenced by the semantics of complementizers, the complex
interplay of a matrix predicate and a particular type of a complement clause, or the
syntactic/semantic properties of embedded clause. Also, as touched on briefly in some
cases, pragmatic considerations play a role in determining what the controller will be.
Therefore, it is argued that controller choice in Korean is determined primarily by
multiple semantic factors and syntactic or pragmatic factors to a lesser extent.
291
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
This thesis attempted to achieve two main goals. The first was to provide an
empirical and theoretical analysis of finite control, which contains a pro subject in
Korean, through exploring the concept of finiteness and the finite properties of control
complements. The second was to provide an analysis of how controller choice is
determined in Korean. One implication of the pro analysis of finite control in Korean is
that control cannot be adequately accounted for based purely on syntax, which is
assumed to be the case in many standard syntactic approaches to non-finite control. This
thesis explores the Korean data displaying that Obligatory Control cannot be explained
by a purely syntax-based or semantically based theory, but is derived by more
complicated factors.
In chapter 1, I extensively reviewed the previous studies of control, pointing out
major problems that are directly related to the main issues of this study. The mainstream
literature on control studies has consistently argued that referential dependence between
an overt matrix argument and an embedded null subject is a characteristic of non-finite
clauses which contain a PRO subject. Moreover, even though some evidence for finite
control in structures involving pro in several languages has been presented, many
researchers have proposed a PRO analysis of finite control complements. This thesis,
however, argued that the currently established approach to OC, which is confined to
PRO, cannot account for OC in Korean and proposed a pro analysis of finite control.
In chapter 2, I briefly reviewed the formal approaches to finiteness. In the formal
approaches, finiteness has been defined as the feature licensing nominative Case on
292
subjects of clauses, and Tense and Agreement features are widely accepted as the
elements responsible for the assignment of nominative Case. In spite of this, crosslinguistic data in the literature reveal that languages may vary in how finiteness is
determined and the features determining finiteness may not be restricted to just Tense
and Agreement. Finiteness may be associated with a variety of factors, such as
Mood/Modality and Aspect, which the functionalist approaches to finiteness commonly
take into account as syntactic and semantic categories defining finiteness. Based on
these facts, this thesis pointed out the problems of Tense and Agreement as licensing
features of a nominative subject in Korean and explored the relevance of Mood and
Modality as the manifestation of finiteness in Korean. This analysis basically held the
conventional notion that nominative Case is correlated with finiteness. However, unlike
most formal approaches, in this analysis finiteness was assumed to be closely associated
with Mood or Modality as reflected in morpho-syntactic expressions.
In chapter 3, this thesis provided some evidence for finiteness of control
complement clauses in Korean and discussed the existence of OC in finite clauses.
There have been some previous studies arguing that Korean exhibits finite control.
However, the previous studies failed to consider the full range of sentential complement
types displaying Obligatory Control. Moreover, non-finite control, which has been
taken for granted in the previous studies, exhibited similarities to finite control in terms
of syntactic properties of finiteness. The far-ranging investigation of complementation
types with respect to their relation to OC vs. NOC provided a clear account for the
syntactic and semantic properties of OC constructions in Korean, and revealed that
there are some semantic factors, such as the lexical meaning of aspectual predicates and
293
intentive complementizers, which always trigger Inherent Control, and that there is an
interaction between the meaning of matrix predicates and the complement type in
determining control.
In chapter 4, this thesis provided empirical evidence for the CP status of OC
complements in Korean and for a pro analysis of the null subject in the constructions.
That is, it was argued that the null subject in finite control complements in Korean is
pro, whose case and formal features are checked in an independent locality domain, i.e.
CP, which is fully specified for Tense, Agreement and Mood/Modality. This thesis
further argued that pro in OC complements is different from the long distance reflexive
caki and from a pronoun, providing some evidence supporting the argument.
In addition, this thesis argues that some serial verb constructions in Korean, which
have previously been considered non-finite control constructions since they contain a
typical control predicate, are best analyzed as having a VP structure, providing
empirical data showing that serial verb constructions do not exhibit any of the syntactic
behaviors that are shown in finite OC constructions. However, the serial verb
constructions are not grouped with OC constructions, but simply involve argument
sharing since the external argument sharing in the constructions is not mediated by an
empty category.
In chapter 5, some evidence against purely syntax-based analyses of OC in Korean
was provided and the key role of semantics in determining a controller in OC
construction in Korean was argued. However, unlike the previous studies maintaining
that OC is determined by the lexical semantics of the matrix predicates involved, it was
argued that OC in Korean cannot be completely explained by the lexical properties of a
294
selecting predicate alone. Rather, control effects are derived from more complicated
factors. That is, although there are some correlations with the general classification of
control and the inherent meaning of matrix predicates and, in some cases, the lexical
properties of certain predicates are the crucial factor determining Obligatory Control, in
many cases, OC is derived by the semantics of complementizers, Mood and Modal
markers, the complex interplay of a matrix predicate and a particular type of a
complement clause, or the syntactic/semantic properties of embedded clause. Also, it
was briefly mentioned that in some cases, pragmatic considerations play a role in
determining what the controller will be.
The major contributions of this study lie in the further extension of control theory
to finite control which contains a pro subject. Considering the peculiar property of finite
OC in Korean, i.e. the ability to control an overt NP in the null subject position, one
might argue that there is truly no control in Korean, as found in other languages such as
English. This argument assumes the concept of control to indicate the relation of coreference between the null subject of non-finite complements and one of the matrix
arguments. That is, the main criterion for OC is unavailability of an overt subject in the
embedded clause and where a lexical subject is possible, control is optional. With
respect to the syntactic property of OC, Davison (2008) introduces a Case restriction
which distinguishes OC constructions from other constructions such as raising and
NOC constructions: the covert subject in an OC constructions in Hindi-Urdu cannot
have dative Case, while the covert subject in a raising or NOC construction may. From
the point of this analysis as well as the standard theory of Control restricting OC to only
non-finite clauses and PRO, finite control in Korean may not be OC, but optional
295
control which happens to have the same co-referent relation between the null subject of
finite complements and one of the matrix arguments.
However, there are other important criteria for OC, which is commonly employed
for non-finite OC in English and other languages, such as the unavailability of strict and
de re reading of the null subject. In addition to the impossibility of an overt disjoint
embedded subject, given the isomorphism of finite OC in Korean with non-finite OC in
English and other languages in terms of the criteria above, it is argued that OC in a
finite context is attested in Korean. This may provide further insight to the nature of
language, showing that not all languages make use of the same syntactic structure to
display the same linguistic phenomenon. That is, languages may vary in how a
controlled subject is represented. Compared to finite control, non-finite control, by
definition, may show more restrictions on the null subject. In this respect, Davison
(2008)’s Case restriction which is found only in non-finite clauses where a lexical
subject is not possible is very suggestive. Also, it is worthwhile to mention that Davison
(2008) proposes that languages with both forward and backward control systematically
lack the Case restriction. This seems to hold for Korean, which has been claimed to be a
language with forward and backward control.
In addition, this thesis provides a more concrete classification of control
complements and predicates than has previously been discussed in the literature.
However, this thesis does not address whether OC triggered by semantic factors can be
explained by a uniform semantic theory and a discussion of backward control. These
issues remain to be investigated in future work.
296
REFERENCES
Adger, D. 2007. Three domains of finiteness: a Minimalist perspective. Finiteness:
theoretical and empirical foundations, Oxford University press. ed. Nikolaeva, I.
Ahn, H.-D. & Yoon, H.-J. 1989. Functional categories in Korean. In Harvard studies in
Korean Linguistics 3:79-88. Department of Linguistics, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Mass.
Alboiu, G. 2004 Shared arguments in control. Toronoto working papers in linguistics
22.
Aoshima, S. 2000. Mono-clausal control constructions in Japanese. In Yang, Youngjun
and Jeong-Seok Kim (eds.): Proceedings of the 2000 International Workshop on
Generative Grammar Seoul, Korean: Hanshin 33-48.
Aoshima, S. 2001. Obligatory control constructions in Japanese. Report of the LACEW
Project: Special Research Project of the Typological Investigation into
Language & Cultures of the East & West. University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba,
Japan.
Asudeh, A. 2005. Control and Semantic Resource Sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics,
Cambridge University Press.
Aygen, N. G. 2002. Finiteness, Case and Clausal Architecture. Ph.D dissertation,
Harvard University.
Bhatt, R. & Yoon, J. 1991. On the composition of COMP and parameters of V2. The
Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. ed.
Dawn Bates. The Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Bisang, W. 2007. Categories that make finiteness: discreteness from a functional
perspective and some of its repercussions. Finiteness: theoretical and empirical
foundations, Oxford University press. ed. Nikolaeva, I.
Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. 2003. Reply to ‘Control is not movement’. Linguistic
Inquiry 34/2:269-280.
Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. 2007. On (non-)obligatory control. In Davies, William D.
Davies and Stanley Dubinsky (eds.): 2007, New horizons in the analysis of
control and raising. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 71)
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer 251-262.
Borer, H. 1989. Anaphoric AGR. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth J. Safir (eds.): The
null subject parameter. (Studies in natural language and linguistic Theory 15)
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 69-109.
297
Bošković, Ž. 1995. On certain violations of the Superiority Condition, AgrO and the
economy of derivation. Ms.,University of Connecticut.
Bošković, Ž. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Bouchard, D. 1984. On the content of empty categories. (Studies in generative grammar
14) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
Bresnan, J.W. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Bresnan, J. W. 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic inquiry 13/3:343-434.
Bresnan, J. W. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cecchetto, C. & Oniga, R. 2004. A challenge to Null Case theory. Linguistic inquiry
35/1:141-149.
Chierchia, G. 1983. 'Outline of a semantic theory of (obligatory) control'. In Barlow,
Michael, Daniel P. Flickinger, and Michael T. Wescoat (eds.): 1983, Proceedings
of the West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford
Linguistics Association (Center for the Study of Language and Information,
Stanford University) 19-31.
Chierchia, G. 1984. Anaphoric properties of infinitives and gerunds. In Cobler, Mark,
Susannah Mackaye, and Michael Westcoat (eds.), Proceedings of the third West
Coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, CA., Standford Linguistics
Association.
Cho, E. 1998. Why, Contrastive Topic, and LF Movement, in Silva, David (ed.)
Japanese and Korean Linguistics 8, Stanford:CSLI Publications, 403-415.
Choe, H.-S. 2006. On (backward) object control in Korean. Harvard studies in Korean
linguistics. Kyunggi, South Korea: Hanshin Publishers 373-386.
Choi, S.-S. 2003. Serial verbs and the empty category. Proceedings of the workshop on
Mult-Verb constructions. Trondheim Summer School.
Chomsky, N. 1980. On Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11:1-46.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
Foris Publications.
298
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist program for linguistic theory. In the view from
building 20: Essays in Linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Kenneth
Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1-52. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. In MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 5.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In: R. Martin, D. Michaels, J.
Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of
Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press, 89-155.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phrase. In: M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: Life in
Language. Cambridge. Mass: MIT Press, 1-52.
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Joachim
Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann (eds.),
Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin, PP. 506-569.
Cinque, G. 2003. The interaction of passive, causative, and “restructuring” in
Romance. In C. Tortora (ed.), The Syntax of Italian Dialects. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cormack, A. and Neil, S. 2004. Backward control in Korean and
Japanese.UCLWorking papers in linguistics 16:67-83.
Cowper, E. 2002. Finiteness. Ms., University of Toronto.
Cristofaro, S. 2007. Deconstructing categories: finiteness in a functional-typological
perspective. In Finiteness:theoretical and empirical foundations, Oxford
University press. ed. Nikolaeva, I.
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. 2001. Control is not movement. Linguistic inquiry
32/3:493-512.
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. 2006. Turn over control to the semantics. Syntax
9/2:131-152.
Culicover, P. W. & Wilkins, W. 1986. Control, PRO, and the projection principle.
Language 62:120-153.
299
Dalrymple, M. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. (Syntax and Semantics 34)
[Chapter 12] San Diego, Ca: Academic Press.
Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. 2004. The grammar of raising and control. Blackwell
Publishers.
Davison, A. 2008. A Case restriction on control: Implications for Movement. Journal
of South Asian Linguistics. Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Dik, S. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian: Comparative Studies in Romance.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dowty, D. R. 1985. On recent analyses of the semantics of control. Linguistics and
Philosopy 8/3:291-331
Dubinsky, S. 2007. Mediating the syntax and semantics of control. Ms. submitted to
Language.
Farkas, D. 1988. On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy 11:27-58.
Farkas, D. F. 1992. On obviation. In I. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (eds.) Lexical Matters.
Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Farrell, P. 1995. 'Backward control in Brazilian Portuguese'. In Fuller, Janet M., Ho
Han, and David Parkinson (eds.): ESCOL '94 (Proceedings of the eleventh
Eastern States conference on linguistics), 116-127
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1995. A functional theory of complementizers. In Bybee, Joan
and Feischman, Suzanne (eds): Modality in grammar and discourse. Jonh
Benjamins publishing company.
Fuji, T. 2006. Some theoretical issues in Japanese control. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Maryland, College Park.
Fukuda, S. 2007. On the control/raising ambiguity with aspectual verbs: a structural
account. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 47:159-195.
Gamerschlag. T. 2007. Semantic and structural aspects of complement control in
Korean. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 47: 81-123.
George, L. & Kornfilt, J. 1981. Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In Binding and
Filtering, ed. Frank Heny, 105-128. London: Croomhellm Ltd.
300
Ghomeshi, J. 2001. Control and thematic agreement. Canadian Journal of Linguistics
8/1:149-160.
Givón, T. 1990. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. 1-2. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Grover, C. 1995. Rethinking some empty categories: Missing object and parasitic gaps
in HPSG. Doctoral dissertation. University of Essex.
Haegeman, L. 1985. INFL, COMP and nominative Case assignment in Flemish
infinitivals. Features and Projections. Foris publications, Dordrecht–Holland/
Riverton– U.S.A.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Han, H.-S. 1989. Nominative Case Assignment in Korean: Against the asymmetrical
Case marking hypothesis. Language Research 25/3:611:644.
Hashemipour, M. M. 1989, Pronominalization and control in Modern Persian.
Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of California, San Diego.
Hoji, H. 1985. Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese,
Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.
Holmberg, A., Nikanne, U., Oraviita, I., Reime, H., & Trosterud, T. 1993. The
structure of INFL and the finite clause in Finnish. In A. Holmberg & U.
Nikanne (eds.), Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Hong, K.-S. 1994. Subjecthood tests in Korean. Languge Research 30/1:99-136.
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic inquiry 30:69-96.
Hornstein, N. 2003. Reply to ‘Control is not movement’. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 269280.
Hwang, K.-H.1997. Nominative and default case checking in Minimalist syntax.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington.
Iatridou, S. 1993. On nominative Case assignment and a few related things. MIT
Woring papers in linguistics. 19: 175-196.
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Press.
301
Jackendoff, R. & Culicover. P. W. 2003. The semantic basis of Control in English.
Language 79:517-556.
Kang, E.-K. 2001. The -key constructions in Korean: Predicate Head or
Complementizer. Paper presented at the 9th international symposium on Korean
Linguistics, Harvard University.
Kapetangianni, K. & Seely. T. D. 2007. Control in Greek: It's another good move. In
Davies, William D., and Stanley Dubinsky (eds.): 2007, New horizons in the
analysis of control and raising. (Studies in natural language and linguistic
theory 71) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer 133-157
Kaplan, R. M. & Bresnan, J. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for
grammatical representation. In Bresnan (ed.) 1982. The mental representation
of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Kim, K-A. 1995. Causativity in Korean: Syntactic causative, control and purpose.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Kim, N.-K. 1984. The grammar of Korean Complementation. University of Hawaii
Center for Korean Studies Monograph 11.
Kiss, T. 2005. On the empirical viability of the movement theory of control. Ms.,
University of Bochum.
Klein, W. 1998. Assertion and finiteness. In N. Dittmar & Z. Penner (eds.), Issues in
the theory of language acqisiton: Essays in honor of Jürgen Weissenborn. Bern:
Lang.
Kornfilt, J. 1984. Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. Ph. D.
dissertation. Harvard University.
Kornfilt, J. 2007. Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. In Finiteness:
theoretical and empirical foundations, Oxford University press. ed. Nikolaeva,
I.
Kotzoglou, G. & Papangeli, D. 2007. Not really ECM, not exactly control: The 'QuasiECM' construction in Greek. In Davies, William D., and Stanley Dubinsky
(eds.): 2007, New horizons in the analysis of control and raising. (Studies in
natural language and linguistic theory 71) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer
111-131.
302
Krapova, I. 2001. Subjunctives in Bulgarian and Modern Greek. In M. L. Rivero & A.
Ralli (eds.), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 105-26.
Krapova, I. & Petkov, V. 1999. Subjunctive complements, null subjects and Case
checking in Bulgarian. In Dziwirek Katarzyna, Herbert Coats, and Cynthia M.
Vakareliyska (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of Formal Approaches to
Slavic Linguistics, Michigan Slavic Publications, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Kratzer, A. 2006. Minimal pronouns: fake indexicals as windows into the properties of
bound variable pronouns. ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kuroda, K. 1978. The distribution and ecology of Noctiluca scintillans. Osaka Bay.
Bull. Jpn. Soc. Fish. Oceanogr., 32, 56–67 (in Japanese).
Kwon, N-Y. & Polinsky, M. 2006. Object control in Korean: structure and processing.
Japanese/Korean Linguistics 15.
Landau, I. 1999. Control theory and the identification of PRO.
Landau, I. 2000. Elements of control. Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions.
(Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 51) Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Landau, I. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34/:471-498.
Landau, I. 2004. The Scale of Finitess and the Calculus of Control, NLLT 22.
Landau, I. 2005. Severing the Distribution of PRO from Case. Handout of the 79th LSA
annual meeting, Jan.7: Panel on Rasing and Control.
Landau, I. 2007. 'Movement-resistant aspects of control'. In Davies, William D., and
Stanley Dubinsky (eds.): 2007, New horizons in the analysis of control and
raising. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 71) Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer 293-325.
Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundation of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive
application. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press.
Lee, H.-S. 1991. Tense, Aspect, and Modality: a Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of
Verbal Affixes in Korean from a Typological Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California at LA.
Lee, I.-S. & Ramsey. R. 2000. The Korean Language. State University of New York
Press.
303
Lee, K.-Y. 2007. Control in Korean. Unpublished ms., University of Iowa.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. 2 vol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Madigan, S. 2006. Exhaustive and partial control in Korean: Controlled caki as an
overt from of PRO. In the proceedings of Harvard Studies in Korean
Linguistics 11.
Madigan, S. 2008. Control Constructions in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation.
Manzini, M. R. 1983. On control and control theory. Linguistic inquiry 14/3:421-446.
Manzini, M. R. & Roussou, A. 2000. A minimalist theory of a-movement and control.
Lingua 110:409-447.
Martin, R. A. 1996. A minimalist theory of PRO and control. Doctoral dissertation,
Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs, Con.
Martin, R. A. 2001. Null Case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic inquiry
32/1:141166.
Martin, S. 1992. A Reference Grammar of Korean. Rutland, Vermont, Charles E.
Tuttle.
Melvold, J. 1985. Getting PRO under Control. Ms., MIT.
Modesto, M. 2007. Null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese and Finnish: They are not
derived by movement. In Davies, William D., and Stanley Dubinsky (eds.):
2007, New horizons in the analysis of control and raising. (Studies in natural
language and linguistic theory 71) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer 231248.
Mohanan, K.P. 1983. Functional and anaphoric control. Linguistic inquiry 14/4:641674.
Moulton, K. 2005. Strong reflexivity and attitudes de se: Evidence from English ECM.
Presented at ConSOLVE XIV, Univ. of the Basque Country, December 20.
Monahan, P. J. 2003. Backward object control in Korean. In Garding, Gina and Mimu
Tsujimura (eds.): 2003, Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast conference on
formallinguistics . Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press 356-369.
Motapanyane, V. 1995. Theoretical implications of complementation in Romanian.
Padova: Unipress.
304
Nikolaeva, I. 2007. Finiteness:theoretical and empirical foundations, Oxford
University press. ed. Nikolaeva, I.
Nishigauchi, T. 1984. Control and the thematic domain. Language 60. 215-250.
O’Neil, J. 1995. Out of Control. Proceedings of NELS 25. GLSA, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Pesetsky, D. 1992. Zero syntax II: an essay on infinitives. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. 2004. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of
features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic derivation and
interpretation. 2007. John Benjamins.
Petter, M. 1998. Getting PRO under Control. LOT International Series 8, HIL, Holland
Academic Graphics- The Hague.
Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1987. The theory of empty categories and the pro-drop
parameter in Modern Greek, Journal of Linguistics 23:289-318.
Philippaki-Warburton, I. 2004. Peremfatikotita ke ipotaktiki: anazitondas to xameno
aparemfato se dhomes elegxou. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
of Greek Linguistics. University of Crete, CD-Rom edition.
Philippaki-Warburton, I. & Catsimali, G. 1999. On control in Greek, Studies in Greek
syntax, edited by Artemis Alexiadou, Geoffrey Horrocks and Melita Stavrou,
153-168.
Platzack, C. & Holmberg, A. 1989. The role of AGR and finiteness in Germanic VO
languages. Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43:51-76.
Polinsky, M. 2007. Object control in Korean: Obligatory vs. non-obligatory control.
ZAS Papers in Linguistics 47, 81-123.
Polinsky, M, P. J. Monahan, and N.-Y. Kwon. 2007. Object control in Korean: How
many constructions? Language research 43/1, 1-31.
Polinsky, M. and Eric Potsdam. 2002a. Backward control: evidence from Malagasy. In
Rakowski, Andrea and Norvin Richards (eds.): 2002, Proceedings of the eighth
meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association. MIT Woring
papers in linguistics. 44: 257-272.
Polinsky, M. and Eric Potsdam. 2002b. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33/2:245282.
Polinsky, M. and Eric Potsdam. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising.
Syntax 9/2, 171-192.
305
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1987. Information-based Syntax and Semantics. Volume 1:
Fundamentals. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A 1991. An Integrated Theory of Complement Control. Language.
67(1), 63–113.
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago &
Stanford, CA: The University of Chicago Press & CSLI Publications.
Postal, P. M. 1970. On coreferential complement subject deletion. Linguistic inquiry 1:
439-500.
Potsdam, E. 2006. Backward object control. Against an empty category analysis. Paper
read at The 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 25),
Seattle, WA April 28-30, 2006.
Raposo, E. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: the inflected infinitive in European
Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18:85-109.
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. 1993. Reflexivity. Lingistic Inquiry 24:657-720.
Reuland, E. & Reinhar, T. 1995. Rronouns, Anaphors and Case. In Hubert Haider,
Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 241-268.
Rivero, M. L. 1994. Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans.
Natural Langue and Linguistic Theory 12:63-120.
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of Grammar:
Handbook of Generative Syntax. ed. By Liliane Haegeman,, 281-337.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roberts, I. G. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and
French. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Roussou, A. 2000. On the left periphery: Modal particles and complementisers. Journal
of Greek Linguistics 1:65-94.
Rosenbaum, P. S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Roussou, A. 1999. Modals and the Subjunctive. Studies in Greek syntax, edited by
Artemis Alexiadou, Geoffrey Horrocks and Melita Stavrou, 169-184.
306
Ryu, D.-S. 1994. Agreement in Korean. Studies in Generative grammar 4:211-247.
Sag, I. A. & Pollard, C. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language
67/1:63-113.
Schütze, C. T.1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, Case and licensing.
Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Sells, P. 1998. Optimality and economy of expression in Japanese and Korean.
Japanese Korean Linguistics. ed. N. Akatsuka, H. Hoji, S. Iwasaki, S. Sohn, & S.
Strauss, 499-514. United States: CSLI Publications.
Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay
in comparative semitic syntax. Oxford university Press, New York.
Sigurðsson, H. A. 1991. Icelandic Case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical
argument. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 9:327-63.
Singh. J. 1994. Case and Agreement in Hindi: a GB approach. Ph. D. dissertation,
University of York.
Sohn, H.-M. 1976. Semantics of Compound Verbs in Korean. Linguistic Journal of
Korean 1/1:142- 150.
Sohn, H.-M. 1994. Korean: Descriptive Grammars. London: Routledge.
Sohn, H.-M. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge University Press.
Sohn, S-O. 1995. Tense and Aspect in Korean. Center for Korean Studies: Monograph
18, Univ. of Hawai’i.
Sohn, Y.-S., Hong, Y.-Y., & Hong, K.-S. 1996. The functional category IP in Korean
reconsidered. Studies in Generative grammar 6/2:351-384.
Spyropoulos, V. 2007. Finiteness and control in Greek. In Davies, William D. Davies
and Stanley Dubinsky (eds.): 2007, New horizons in the analysis of control and
raising. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 71) Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer. 159-183.
Spyropoulos, V. & Philippaki-Warburton, I. 2001. Ipotaktiki, taftoprosopia ke I
ipotheoria tou elegxous Subjunctive, coreference, and the module of control in
Greek. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Greek Linguistics.
Paris. 13-15 September 2001.
Stiebels, B. 2007. Towards a typology of complement control. ZAS Papers in
Linguistics 47, 1-80.
307
Stowell, T. 1982. The tense of Infinitives. Linguistic inquiry 13:561-570.
Suh, C.-S. 1977. Remarks on subject honorification. In C.-W. Kim (ed.) Papers in
Korean Linguistics. 297:304.
Suñer, M. 1984. Controlled pro. Linguistic Symposium on Romance Lnaguages 12:253273.
Terzi, A. 1992. PRO in finite clauses. A study of the inflectional heads of the Balkan
languages. Doctoral dissertation, New York University, City University of New
York.
Terzi, A. 1997. PRO and Null Case in finite clauses. Linguistic review 14/4:335-360.
Uchibori. A. 2000. The syntax of subjunctive complements: The evidence from
Japanese. University of Connecticut dissertation.
Vincent, N. 1998. On the grammar of inflected nonfinite forms (with special reference
to old Neapolitan). In I. Korzen & M. Herslund (eds.), Clause combining and
text structure. Copenhagen: Samfunds literature.
Watanabe, A. 1993. The notion of finite clauses in AGR-based Case Theory. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 18:281-296.
Wechsler, S. 1997. Resultative predicates and control. In Texas Linguistic Forum 38:
The Syntax and Semantics of Predication, edited by R. Blight and M. Moosally,
307-321.
Williams, E. 1980. Predication. Linguistic inquiry 11:203-238.
Wurmbrand, S. 2001. Infinitives. Restructuring and Clause Structure. Studies in
generative grammar 55. Berlin (Germany): Mouton de Gruyter.
Wurmbrand, S. 2002. Syntactic versus semantic control. In Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter and
Werner Abraham (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax Proceedings
form the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins 93-127.
Yang, D-W. 1982. Control and binding in Korean. Ono. Linguistic journal of Korea 7/2.
Yang. D-W. 1984. Extended Control Theory, Language Research. Vol 20:1.
Yang, D-W. 1985. On the integrity of control theory'. In Berman, S., J.-W. Choe, and J.
McDonough (eds.): Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst,
Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts 15/389-408.
308
Yang. D-W. 1996. The Korean Case structure in the Minimalist Program. Korean
Journal of Linguistics, 21:139-189.
Yim, Y.-J. 19985. Multiple subject constructions. Harvard studies in Korean
Linguistics, ed. By S. Kuno. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
Yoon, J.-M. 1989. ECM and multiple subject constructions in Korean. Harvard studies
in Korean Linguistics 3. ed. By S. Kuno. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
Zec, D. 1987. On Obligatory Control in Clausal Complements.Working papers in
grammatical theory and discourse structure: interactions of morphology,
syntax,and discourse. Standford, Ca.: Center for Study of Language and
Information 139-168.