Double Nominative Constructions Research Articles

한국수어화자의 한국어 주격 조사 ‘이/가’ 습득 – 어순 및 주격중출 유형에 따른 주격 조사를 중심으로

한국수어화자의 한국어 주격 조사 ‘이/가’ 습득 – 어순 및 주격중출 유형에 따른 주격 조사를 중심으로

Dependency formation interacts with case: Evidence from Korean double nominative constructions

The subject-object asymmetry in relative clauses, where structures containing subject dependencies are typically easier to process than those with object dependencies, has been previously attributed to both grammatical function (subject > object) as well as morphological case (e.g., nom > acc). We investigate processing of Double Nominative Constructions (“DNCs”) in Korean, where the object exceptionally has nominative case like the subject (i.e., nom-nom). This enables isolation of grammatical function and case as possible factors driving the so-called “subject advantage.” We find that dependency formation is more costly in DNCs as compared with nom-acc structures, especially for object relative clauses. We tie this effect to distinctness in morphological case of the subject and object, suggesting that the less morphosyntactically distinct the subject and object are, the more difficult it is to process DNCs in dependencies.

Acquisition of Double-Nominative Constructions by Italian L1 Learners of Chinese

This paper presents new results of an ongoing cross-sectional corpus study investigating the acquisition of Chinese word order by Italian L1 learners. Specifically, it focuses on the acquisition of ‘double-nominative constructions’, as well as the correct sequential organisation of topical and focal information in the Chinese sentence. The analysis is conducted on three learner corpora, created by the Author on the basis of a test submitted to three groups of university (BA and MA)-level Italian L1 learners of Chinese, for a total of 132 learners. Quantitative and qualitative analysis conducted on the collected data show that, while the double-subject construction may appear as a simple and straightforward pattern, it is in fact a rather difficult construction to acquire and spontaneously produce for Italian L1 learners. Rather, students tend to use patterns they are used to in their L1 (or other L2s, such as English). These include the [NP1 have NP2], [NP1 的 NP2], or [NP1adjectival predicate] patterns, among other types, thus confirming the inhibitive L1 transfer hypotheses of this study.

Semantic Structure of Double Nominative Constructions

Semantic Structure of Double Nominative Constructions

Effect of Topic-prominent Features of Mandarin Chinese on English Writing

Mandarin Chinese features a subject-verb-object word order and lacks grammatical agreement of any sort. It is basically a head-last language with the modifiers preceding the head word. Other prominent grammatical features include serial verb construction, resultative complement and the double nominative constructions. My paper focuses on the role of topic and subject in Mandarin, drawing on three views on Chinese syntactic structures, namely, SVO approach, topic-comment approach, and topic-prominence approach. A comparison is made among the different views and a conclusion is drawn that topic-prominent approach may better capture the complexities of Chinese syntax, which definitely contributes to English writing.

Categorization of Double Nominative Constructions in Korean: Based on the Properties of -i/-ka

Categorization of Double Nominative Constructions in Korean: Based on the Properties of -i/-ka

Another Subject: Korean Double Nominative Constructions

Another Subject: Korean Double Nominative Constructions

Japanese Double Nominative Constructions Revisited

Japanese Double Nominative Constructions Revisited

An Empirical Study of Korean Adjectival Predicates that License Double Nominative Constructions

Despite the numerous studies proposed to explain double nominative constructions (DNCs) in Korean, empirical approaches to the predicate types that license their essential complements for conversion into nominatives have attracted little attention from scholars. However, given that, from syntactic and semantic viewpoints, the DNCs result from diverse and complex linguistic realities, a rigorous examination of the predicate types is required before attempting to elaborate theoretical assumptions further. Based on a large database of 6,600 Korean adjectives, this study distinguishes two types of DNCs: Predicate-Dependent DNCs (PD-DNCs), where the two nominatives are essential arguments of the adjectival predicates; and Discourse-Dependent DNCs (DD-DNCs), where one of the two nominatives is not related to the argument structures, but either is generated by the split of one argument or is newly introduced at the discourse level. About 30% of the 6,600 adjectives license PD-DNCs. On this basis, the current study provides two findings on PD-DNCs. First, adjectives licensing PD-DNCs are classified into five syntactic and semantic sub-types, the predominant complement type that is convertible into a nominative being that in -EY. Second, the adjectives licensing their complements for conversion into nominatives mostly show certain peculiar syntactic properties: most of them permit two syntactic constructions in a subject-complement crossing (SCC) relation like 'N1-NOM N2-POS ADJ-DEC=N2-NOM N1-POS ADJ-DEC'. With regard to DD-DNCs, in this study the DNCs are divided into four sub-types, which exhibit various semantic and syntactic properties that are distinct from those of PD-DNCs.

Revisiting the two double-nominative constructions in Japanese

Abstract In Kuno and Johnson (2004), it was proposed that the double subject construction in Japanese (e.g., John-ga otoosan-ga sinde simatta ‘John - his father has died’) has a complex sentence structure of the type of [S1 NP1-ga [S2 NP2-ga Verbal]]. This structure was intended to account for the unacceptability of Yamada-sensei-ga inu-ga o-nakunari-ni natte simatta ‘Professor Yamada - his dog has died’ (Shibatani 1976): Subject Honorific Marking is clause-bound, and therefore, it cannot apply to the embedded clause verbal with the main-clause subject NP1-ga as target of deference. It turns out that this analysis produces an apparent paradox with respect to the licensing of negative polarity items (NPIs), which is also a clause-bound rule: an NPI can show up in the main-clause subject position with a negative verbal in the embedded clause, as in Taroo-sika otoosan-ga hukeikai-ni syussekisi-nakatta ‘Taro was the only one whose father attended the teacher-parent meeting.’ That is, it appears that while Subject Honorific Marking calls for a complex-sentence structure for the double-subject construction, NPI Licensing calls for a simplex-sentence structure. This paper is intended to resolve this paradox on the basis of (i) the dual role the verbal in the [S1 ... [S2... Verbal]] construction plays, and (ii) the properties of NPI Licensing, including the notion of “clause-boundedness” as it applies to the rule, that are very different from those of Subject Honorific Marking.

The early acquisition of affect lexicon in Korean and the observed saliency of double-nominative constructions

The early acquisition of affect lexicon in Korean and the observed saliency of double-nominative constructions

Two Types of Double Nominative Constructions in Korean: A Case of GEN/NOM Alternation.

Two Types of Double Nominative Constructions in Korean: A Case of GEN/NOM Alternation.

On the non-canonical double nominative construction in Japanese

Japanese has two types of double nominative constructions — the first exemplified by sentences such as Taroo ga otoosan ga sinda “Taro — (his) father has died,” and the second by sentences such as Taroo ga eigo ga yoku dekiru “Taro can (speak) English well.” Kuno (1973a, b) claimed that the first is a double-subject construction, while the second is a subject–object construction. This analysis has recently been challenged by Shibatani (2001a, b, c), who claims that these double-nominative constructions are both double-subject constructions. This paper presents arguments against Shibatani’s double-subject analysis, and in support of the “Ga for Object Marking” analysis for the second construction.

Are There “Double Relative Clauses” in Korean?

It has been claimed that Korean allows the relativization of another relative clause, deriving the double relative clause. The presence of double relative clauses has led some researchers to argue that Korean relative clauses do not involve any operator movement, but instead involve a mechanism such as unselective binding (Sohn 1980, Y.-S. Kang 1986), where an operator binds variables in situ. In this squib, we argue that there is no true double relative clause, thus no real threat to the operator movement analysis for relative clauses in Korean. More specifically, we propose that double relative clauses are derived from double nominative constructions, through relativizing the first nominative NP that originates from an IP-adjoined position. Given our analysis, double relative clauses are not instances of island violations, and the operator movement analysis for relative clause formation in Korean can thus be maintained

Korean tough constructions and double nominative constructions

In (1), the subject NP is coindexed with the missing object of the embedded predicate. This connectivity is unbounded because there is in principle no bound on the depth of embedding of the missing object. In Korean, a group of adjectives that is semantically similar to English tough predicates shows the same dependency. This group includes himtulta ‘tough’, ’swipta ‘easy’, elyepta ‘hard’, pulkanunghata ‘impossible’, etc., and examples are given in (/refexa).

An Optimality-Theoretic Account of the Japanese Case System

This paper provides an Optimality-Theoretic account of the Japanese case system within the framework of Role and Reference Grammar [RRG] (Van Valin 1993; Van Valin and LaPolla 1997). It is shown that a particular ranking of universal constraints may accommodate not only the regular case marking patterns of Japanese, but the irregular ones displayed by inversion, causative, and a variety of double-nominative constructions. Finally, it is suggested that characterizing case systems in terms of the way universal constrainst are ranked opens up a way to a principled typology of case systems.

Hong Gang Jin

Previous investigations of the role of syntactic typology in L2 acquisition have led to two controversial, contradictory findings. One set of studies has claimed that the process of L2 acquisition is characterized by an early universal topic‐comment stage, the other set has found that L2 learners transfer topic‐prominent (TP) features from an L1 to an L2 at an early stage. The present study investigated whether TP is a universal developmental stage or a transferable typology by analyzing the behavior of adult native speakers of a subject‐prominent (SP) language learning a TP language. A total of 46 native speakers of English learning Chinese as a second language participated in the study. Three production tasks were used to measure learners' overall performance on Chinese topic structures such as null elements, specificity marking, and double nominative constructions. This study resulted in three important findings. First, the study did not find a universal TP stage. Rather, English L2 learners displayed a process of systematically transferring English SP features to Chinese before their proficiency reached a level at which concept of topic emerged. Second, learners' TP/SP typological interaction and realization of Chinese as a TP language revealed a process of typological transfer. Third, the study also established that not only TP but also SP are transferable typologies.