Justification: Uniqueness requirements

Note that Korean lacks a definite article entirely. Since Abney (1987) and Bowers (1987) have assumed that a determiner takes NP as its complement and projects its own projection, DP, the universal DP hypothesis has become influential (Bowers 1991; Longobardi 1994; Cheng and Sybesma 1999;

Rappaport 2000; Bašić 2004; Pereltsvaig 2007, among others). Against the universal DP hypotheses, others argue that the DP projection can be parameterized (Zlatić 1997; Chierchia 1998; Dayal 2004, 2009; Bošković 2005, 2008, 2012, 2013; Ko and Seo 2012, among others). Among them, Bošković strongly advocates the non-universal DP approach in his series of studies, and specifically argues that DP is projected iff an article is present in a language. His proposal is supported by various syntactic and semantic data on extraction, scrambling, clitic doubling, relative clauses, quantifier scope, pro-drop, and so on.

In the middle of the two opposing views on D in determiner-less languages, it is arguable that Korean does not have a projection for definiteness, but D^FAM is used to encode familiarity/presuppositionality as a sub-type of D. This suggestion coincides with the universal DP hypotheses in that there is D in Korean which lacks an article. Also, on the other hand, it accommodates the parameterized DP hypotheses, since properties of D can vary depending on a language. In compliance with this, Schwarz (2009, 2013) divides definite articles into two types: strong and weak. The strong one is anaphoric, and the weak one is situationally unique. English the is ambiguous, but some languages employ distinct articles such as Fering or German (refer to Schwarz (2009, 2013) for details). Considering the imposter data, Korean seems to lack a strong determiner, and it only has a weak one, D^FAM, which is context-dependent.

encoded in D. However, Korean employs a different functional head to specify relevance apart from definiteness. This study argues that the functional head is D^FAM.

Imposters usually call for a definite construction in many languages. A definite constraint on imposters is attested as follows: imposters with (i) a definite article (the undersigned), (ii) a proximate singular demonstrative article (this reporter), (iii) a proximate plural demonstrative article (refer to Wood (2009) on þessir ‘these’ in Icelandic imposters), (iv) possessive DPs (your faithful servant), and (v) proper nouns (Nixon). Some imposters can be used without a definite expression: kinship terms and occupational titles, but an indefinite article such as a/an is seldom employed.

There are some examples of indefinite noun phrases seeming to function as an imposter in English, as shown in (195) (Vázquez Rojas 2014). However, they cannot antecede a first person plural pronoun when they are coordinated with another noun phrase, as in (196)a. This contrasts with a true imposter case in (196)b. Thus, Vázquez Rojas (2014) analyzes that the imposter-like noun phrases in (195) as denoting a kind which the speaker is a member of, rather than directly referring to the speaker.¹⁷⁰

(195)a. A girl can dream, can’t I? [(195)-(196),Vázquez Rojas (2014: 243)]

b. A guy wants to have some soup and this is what happens to me.

(196) a. * A guy and Barbara are going to get some cold beers for ourselves now.

b. This reporter and Barbara are going to get some cold beers for ourselves now.

170 This is a similar case to the Korean data in (179)b. When the R-expression enni

‘elder sister’ does not express the speaker and hearer’s relation, it cannot bind a first or second person pronominal, as in (196)a. That is, the speaker or hearer meaning can be inferred from the kind-denoting reading, but it is not a genuine first or second person DP.

However, an indefinite construction is not completely excluded from imposters. According to Vázquez Rojas (2014), indefinite imposters are not productive, but attested in Spanish as un servidor ‘a servant’ in (197)-(198), in which a first person binding is available. In addition, un servidor with a first person meaning is allowed in context where an indefinite phrase is rejected (Vázquez Rojas 2014: 244-246). This means that the imposter un servidor is syntactically definite, notwithstanding the presence of the indefinite article un(os).

(197)a. Es la especialidad de un servidor testificar be.3sg the.fem specialty of a servant testify.inf por mí mismo en qué condiciones están esos lugares.

by 1sg.refl self in what conditions be.3pl those places ‘It is the specialty of yours truly to ascertain for myself the conditions in which those places are.’

b. * Es la especialidad de Pedro testificar be.3sg the.fem specialty of P. testify.inf

por mí mismo en qué condiciones están esos lugares.

by 1sg.refl self in what conditions are those places ‘It’s Pedro’s specialty to ascertain for myself the conditions in which those places are.’ Vázquez Rojas (2014: 241)

(198) Unos servidores vamos a seguir intentando que a.pl servant.pl go.1pl to continue trying that esta página sea de tu interés.

this page be.subjunctive of your interest

‘Yours truly (pl) will continue trying to make this website catch your interest.’ Vázquez Rojas (2014: 242)

She claims that the indefinite imposters contain a more complex structure compared to simple indefinite noun phrases: (i) a head noun refers to a capacity in the sense of de Swart et al. (2007), and (ii) the entire imposter contains a covert deictic element anchoring it to [+proximal]. As mentioned

in (177), an R-expression jussive subject which does not express a speaker and hearer’s relation has a capacity reading in Korean, too. The covert deictic element in Spanish parallels with the D^FAM of Korean in that it is licensed by an utterance context, and so associated with a deictic meaning.

If the definite requirement is categorical, the use of an indefinite article in Spanish imposters is still incoherent. For this, Vázquez Rojas (2014) argues that the definite restriction on imposters arises, in fact, from its requirement of minimal situation. To satisfy this condition, an entire imposter phrase usually contains a definite article, a demonstrative, or a possessive pronoun.

However, by violating it, politeness effect is achieved. That is, the indefinite imposter un servidor does not imply that there is a unique servant, unlike the definite counterpart, su servidor ‘your servant’, hence it brings about the improvement of politeness. Refer to Vázquez Rojas (2014) for a specific analysis of the indefinite imposter.¹⁷¹

However, bare imposters in Korean do not display humility, unlike the indefinite imposter in Spanish un servidor since the former satisfies the minimal situation condition, unlike the latter, which employs an indefinite article. When D^FAM is bound by a conversational participant, the entire noun phrase is interpreted as presuppositional, hence it meets the minimal situation condition. By virtue of D^FAM, a covert possessor for a bare R- expression imposter is limited to an opposite conversational participant from

171 According to Vázquez Rojas (2014), un servidor means un servidor de usted ‘a servant of yours’ like a Korean imposter emma ‘(your) mom’. However, she has not considered the relation in question between a possessor and binding: i.e. whether a non-third person binding is possible with un servidor when its covert possessor is not anchored to an addressee.

a referent of imposters in Korean.¹⁷²