Data

Before entering into a full discussion of non-typical exhortatives, all the types of jussive data will be provided: typical jussives, indirect orders²⁰, and non- typical exhortatives.

In unmarked contexts, a jussive subject fully accords with a person feature of a (sub-)type of jussive construction: an imperative subject is the hearer (15), an exhortative one is the speaker and hearer (16), and a promissive one is the speaker.

(15)Somebody strike a light, will you? ((15)-(16) from Aikhenvald 2010: 68) (16)Let’s go.

(17)a. Siedi-ti! b. Andiamo. [Italian]

Sit.imp-refl.2sg go.1p.pl.

‘Sit!’ (Portner 2004: 246) ‘Let’s go!’

Since the subject in (15) is read as the hearer in the imperative construction,

19 The subject of a clause might be in a specifier of vP in Korean. Miyagawa (2005) argues that in a language which exhibits poor morphology regarding φ-Agreement, such as Japanese and Korean, SpecTP is occupied by a focused DP via C to T inheritance of a focus feature. Under this analysis, a subject is not necessarily on SpecTP in Korean. However, I will put the subject in TP for convenience, in this thesis.

20 A third person command is referred to as indirect order in this study since such sentences intend a hearer to deliver the command to a third person.

the subject of the tag has to be the second person pronoun rather than the morphologically matched third person one. Next, exhortatives utilize an analytic form, let-construction in English, but it seems to have been grammaticalized as the exhortative let’s-construction which has not been further analyzed (Krug 2004). Canonically, their subject is anchored to both a speaker and hearer as in (16), hence shall we will be used as the tag phrase.

Italian imperatives and exhortatives are given in (17), too. Although promissives are unattested in English and Italian, this construction has proven to be available in other languages such as Korean. These are typical jussives that much literature has been interested in.

Also, a third person can be a subject of imperatives. In such sentences, the third party is a performer, and the second person hearer is a messenger²¹. That is, the third person command is understood as an indirect order (indirect order, henceforth). However, not all languages can constitute it, and there are cross-linguistic variations (Aikhenvald 2010). Italian freely allows it, employing a subjunctive form as in (18). In English, it is relatively uncommon compared to Italian, but possible, as shown in (19).

(18)Indirect order in Italian: (Zanuttini et al. 2012, adapted) a. Signor Rossi, che nessuno si sieda in prima fila!

Mr. R. that no.one self sit in first row Lit. ‘Mr. Rossi, (see to it that) nobody sit in the first row.’

b. [^JP Signor Rossi Jussive [^TP nessuno Tsubjunctive

[^VP si sieda in prima fila]]]

(19)Counselors, everyone be packed up and ready to go in half an hour!

(Potsdam 1998)

21 Aikhenvald (2010: 69) mentions that indirect order bears “the trace of the canonical person reference” in that it has prior condition for the presence of a hearer who will pass a command to a third person.

Here, in (18) and (19), entities that nessuno and everyone denote do not belong to the same group with the hearers Signor Rossi and counselors, so they are completely third person. Instead, according to Potsdam (1998), the vocative hearers and the subjects build a control relationship in an extra-linguistic domain such as social or military situations. Although such a pragmatic aid is required, a genuine third person subject is an available option under jussive constructions in some languages.

However, not all third person jussive subjects are understood as an indirect order. Aikhenvald (2010) presents (20) as a third person command, but it seems to be difficult to be analyzed as an indirect order. According to her, the third person command is not common in English, but it is natural when it is coordinated with a second person command. That is, an indirect order meaning is fed by a coordination containing a second person. Thus, the subjects you and John belong to the same group, and can be analyzed to have a covert partitive construction, [you^[sg] of you^[pl]] and [John of you^[pl]]. The null partitive hypothesis was mentioned in Zanuttini et al. (2012: 1247-1248), as well. If this is on the right track, (20) is not different from canonical second person imperatives. It may be described as a third person command in that the subject has a third person form, but this has to be distinguished from a genuine non-partitive third person command which is named as an indirect order here.

(20) You make the dinner and John do the washing up. No? All right then, John cook and you wash up. (Aikhenvald 2010: 68)

Korean, which is the main concern of this study, manifests all the subtypes of typical jussives regarding person features. It has imperatives (21)a, promissives (21)b, and exhortatives (21)c. Korean employs a sentential particle to mark a sentence type or to express the speaker’s intent, as

mentioned in Chapter 2.²² In jussive constructions, too, a sentential particle is attached to a predicate: -la for imperatives (21)a, -ma for promissives (21)b, and -ca for exhortatives (21)c. Under a normal circumstance, imperatives employ a second person subject, promissives a first person one, and exhortatives a first person inclusive one. This patterns with the typical jussives in English and Italian.

(21)a. (Ney-ka) cemsim-ul sa-la. b. (Nay-ka) cemsim-ul sa-ma. =(13) you-nom lunch-acc buy-imp I-nom lunch-acc buy-prm ‘(You) buy lunch.’ Int. ‘(I) promise to buy lunch.’

c. (Wuli-ka) cemsim-ul sa-ca.

we-nom lunch-acc buy-exh

‘Let’s buy lunch.’ (Zanuttini et al. 2012: 1234, adapted)

However, Korean does not substantiate indirect order. As shown in (22), the imperative marker does not allow the third person subject Hoya despite an intended indirect command.²³ The ungrammaticality of (22) seems to be slightly improved with a contrastive meaning such as Mina is another candidate for the agent of the ordered action or Hoya is selected from a group that Mina belongs to. In that case, the third person subject can be considered as a subset of a hearer group and analyzed as a covert partitive construction

22 Also, a sentential particle can express a relation between a speaker and hearer as a politeness marker, which is a speech style particle in Pak’s (2008) term. Refer to Pak (2008) for a classification of sentential particles and their usages.

23 The same goes with the promissives or exhortative marker. Both do not allow indirect order just like the imperative case (22)-(23). Although, exhortatives seem to be compatible with a third person subject, but it does not have an indirect ordering force. Instead, only agreement between a speaker and a hearer is asked. Such extended meaning of exhortatives will be mentioned below, again.

as in (20).²⁴ However, (23), which is not capable of utilizing such a context, is completely ruled out. Rossi kwun ‘Mr. Rossi’ is not included in the audience group when he is a staff member for a performance. In this case, there is no room for improvement.

(22) Indirect order in Korean: (Seo and Hoe 2015: 22, adapted) [Scenario: Mina is a class leader and her homeroom teacher transmits instructions to other student, Hoya, through Mina.]

Teacher: * Mina-ya, (ipeney) Hoya-ka aph-ey anca-la!

M.-voc this.time H.-nom front-in sit-imp Lit. ‘Mina, (see to it that) Hoya sit in the front row.’

(23) * Rossi kwunⁱ, kwankayk-tul amwuto^j aphcwul-ey R. Mr. audience-pl no.one front.row-in ancci ma-la!

sit not(deontic)-imp

Lit. ‘Mr. Rossi, (see to it that) no audiences sit in the first row.’

(Seo and Hoe 2015: 4, adapted)

Still, one might argue that indirect order is possible in Korean, too, though somewhat degraded. That is, (23) seems to be fine with a causative meaning for some speakers, and this intuition is confirmed by an overt embedded causative construction as shown in (24). When the causative particle -key²⁵ is inserted with a supportive light verb ha ‘do’, the

24 Prof. Jongho Jun (p.c.) also commented that (22) is quite acceptable when it is coordinated with a second person subject. As mentioned above, it is ameliorated by a covert partitive construction which can be analyzed as a typical jussive. In Korean, when a genuine third person subject is used with an imperative marker, the sentence has an extended meaning like optatives, which will be discussed in Section 3.6.1.

25 Refer to Shibatani (1973), Kim (1994), Yeo (2005), and Park (2013), among many others, on semantics and syntax of periphrastic causatives.

ungrammatical (23) becomes grammatical in (24).²⁶ This is differentiated from typical jussives which resist embedding the causative construction under the jussive marker. For instance, (13) becomes absolutely ungrammatical when the causative construction is added, as in (25). Of course, (25) is grammatical when a covert third person subject, such as Rossi kwun-i ‘Mr. Rossi-nom’, exists within the embedded clause. That is an indirect command, which is not the intended meaning, however.

(24)Rossi kwunⁱ, kwankayk-tul amwuto^j aphcwul-ey cf.(23) R. Mr. audience-pl no.one front.row-in

anc-key haci ma-la!

sit-causative do not(deontic)-imp

Lit. ‘Mr. Rossi, do not let any audience sit in the first row.’

(25)a. * (Ney-ka) cemsim-ul sa-key hay-la. cf.(13) you-nom lunch-acc buy-causative do-imp

Int. ‘(You) buy lunch.’

b. * (Nay-ka) cemsim-ul sa-key ha-ma.

I-nom lunch-acc buy-causative do-prm Int. ‘(I) promise to buy lunch.’

c. * (Wuli-ka) cemsim-ul sa-key ha-ca.

we-nom lunch-acc buy-causative do-exh Int. ‘Let’s buy lunch.’

In addition, the intuition is clearer when a third person subject is not bare, and contains a demonstrative, which cannot be read as non-third person at all. This is given in (26)-(27).

26 Some Korean native speakers who accept (23) as being grammatical seem to be able to re-analyze it as an embedded causative construction as in (24). However, such a reanalyzed interpretation is not up for discussion in this thesis.

(26)* Kyay-ka cemsim-ul {sa-ma/la/ca}.

that.kid-nom lunch-acc buy-prm/imp/exh [prm] Lit. ‘(I) promise for that kid to buy lunch.’

[imp] Lit. ‘That kid buy lunch.’

[exh] Lit. ‘Let’s that kid buy lunch.’

(27) Kyay-ka cemsim-ul sa-key {ha-ma/la²⁷/ca}.

that.kid-nom lunch-acc buy-causative do-prm/imp/exh [prm] Lit. ‘(I) promise to let that kid to buy lunch.’

[imp] Lit. ‘Let that kid buy lunch.’

[exh] Lit. ‘Let’s let that kid buy lunch.’

The contrast between (24)/(27) and (25) shows that the indirect order and typical jussives contain different internal structures in Korean. Indirect orders contain an embedded construction and its matrix and embedded subjects are disconnected. In contrast, typical jussives do not allow such embedding with an intended canonical meaning. From this, we know that indirect order has a more complex structure than typical jussives in Korean.

Since the causative meaning of indirect order is not the major concern of this thesis, I will not go into details.

Lastly, the sub-type of exhortatives is worth considering: a subject of exhortatives is not a sum of a first and a second person, but only one of them, as shown in (28).

27 The exact form of ha- ‘do’ with an imperative la is hay.

(28)Non-typical exhortatives: =(14) a. (Ipeney) nay-ka cemsim-ul sa-ca.

this.time I-nom lunch-acc buy-exh Lit. ‘Let’s I buy lunch (this time).’

Int. ‘I wish for myself to buy lunch under our agreement (this time).’

b. (Ipeney) ney-ka cemsim-ul sa-ca.

this.time you-nom lunch-acc buy-exh Lit. ‘Let’s you buy lunch (this time).’

Int. ‘I wish for you to buy lunch under our agreement (this time).’

(Seo and Hoe 2015: 3, adapted)

The exhortative subjects are na ‘I’ and ne ‘you’, and these are not exactly identical to what the jussive marker denotes. Instead, they establish the subset relation. This construction lies somewhere between typical jussives in (13) and indirect order in (18) in that it does not exactly correspond to the exhortative construction, but it is not completely unrelated to the construction, either. Thus, this has been dealt with under pragmatic effects.

I refer to these partially dependent data as non-typical exhortatives, and will treat them in syntax.

In this subsection, three types of jussive constructions have been discussed: typical jussives, indirect orders, and non-typical exhortatives.

Whether or not those sub-types of jussives are available depends on properties of a language. So far, typical jussive and indirect order have received much attention in generative grammar, but non-typical exhortatives have not been given in the spotlight. However, I will show that they are a sub-type of typical jussives, and a unified analysis is available for the three types of jussives below.