This thesis proposes Person Feature Intervention (PFI), in which a co-indexed interpretable person feature functions as an intermediary to block binding by C (Jussive in jussive clauses) under the assumption that a functional head, rather than an antecedent DP, a binder (Kratzer 2009). In general, this thesis argues that a first- or second-person feature that is not inherent in DP comes from a clausal domain.
Introduction
Purpose of the study
When the person feature of an R-expression is probed by a discourse-oriented element (here, the jussive head), it can take the first- or second-person interpretation. 4 Some may think that enni 'elder sister' in (6)b can also be read as second person, regardless of the speaker-hearer relationship.
Outline of the thesis
General background on sentential form and force
I refer to the particles as sentential particles.8 9 The full representation of Pak's classification is given in (9). Since they are marked with a punctuation mark in (i), the sentences to which -ci is attached can be understood as declaratives, interrogatives, or jussives, depending on the intonation.
Subset probing in exhortatives
Data
That is, the third-person command is understood as an indirect command (indirect command, henceforth). Aikhenvald (2010) presents (20) as a third-person command, but it seems difficult to analyze it as an indirect command.
Previous studies
- Non-syntactic approaches
- Syntactic approaches
- Syntactic category approaches in general
- Zanuttini et al. (2012)
In this case, first and second person features exist on the Jussive head, and a subject is understood as a first person inclusive in the same way as an imperative subject. Korean, on the other hand, attests to the availability of the Jussive head containing only one speaker.
Proposal
- Subset probing: Seo and Hoe (2015)
- Proposal: Predication and J-Agree
- Total Probing: Probe or not
If the subject carries only the first person feature as in (36)a, it is plausible that the first person on a subject corresponds to the first and second persons of the Jussieve head. It is counterintuitive if the second personal characteristic on the jussive subject matches the first and second personal characteristic on the Jussive, neglecting the first personal characteristic, which determines the personal characteristic of the summed characteristic.32.
Analysis
- Non-typical exhortatives by subset probing
- Total probing cases
- Typical jussives by total probing
- Indirect order by no probing
A number feature is not inherited from Jussive, and it is an innate feature of a nominal head, unlike a personal feature.50 Atypical impelling subjects are thus not limited to the singular. Also, a topic with non-typical prompts is predicted to be unspoken since it is licensed via mandatory Agree. It is true that wuli 'we' can be inserted into (52)a, but it is not a real subject, because the nominative marker -ka cannot be linked to wuli56 as in (53)a.
Nevertheless, since the first- and second-person POV features of the exhortative head are not fully realized as a jussive subject in non-typical exhortations, it is true that they require rich context compared to typical jussives. Thus {[1], [pl]} is pronounced as wuli 'we' in Korean, but it is structurally determined as a first person exclusive. In (64), however, any jussive marker cannot license a third-person subject, even if it is. supposed to be read as indirect order in Korean.
POV as a discourse argument
Linking this assumption with non-typical exhortations, I argue that it is not that SpecJP is occupied by a justified subject. In this line of reasoning, we can expect that SpecJP is not compatible with a Case tag, since it is not generated within TP. This shows that the SpecJP is not a simple duplication of a thematic argument, especially a justified topic.
It seems that ne in this setting is simply a repetition of the subject and that the genuine discourse argument is wuli 'we'. in SpecJP it is unspoken in this case. i) Mina-ya ne ney-ka wuncenha-ca. As a result, SpecJP in admonitions is always anchored to first person inclusive, and the jussive subject is ambiguous between first person inclusive and exclusive person. 77 The feature of number on SpecJP is not inherent, as opposed to the function of person, and comes from the jussive subject via the jussive head.
Extended usages: Optatives and conditionals
- Optative usages of jussives
- Conditional usages of jussives
On the other hand, it is slightly degraded when -ka follows the third person subject. It is the case that the speaker pronounces (78) as if the date were present at the place of utterance. Some people may find the first person optional subject strange, especially when it is uttered simultaneously with a related activity.
It differs from declaratives in that the proposition in optatives does not indicate a fact. Thus, it is not true that jussives do not allow for a visible or temporal marker at all. It is true that mal negation was most natural also in embedded imperatives, as in (96).
Cross-linguistic support on subset probing
Let it be further expanded to include different subjects in addition to a first-person inclusion, which is mentioned as atypical advice in this study. The singular subjects of (105) are confirmed by a tag question in (106): an atypical first person let's can take shall. 113 According to a performative approach, Quirk et al. 1985) argue that let as a first-person imperative is analyzed to contain an executive predicate and a first-person subject.
According to Davies (1986), let's is indistinguishable from let us with respect to a syntactic structure; they differ only semantically. 116 I assume that let's constructions also contain a Jussive projection since it is required to update a list of tasks of conversation participants as advice. On the other hand, when the subject is nominative as in (111)a, the whole construction is read exclusively as advisory, as with let's in English.
Summary
Person Feature Intervention
Puzzles
Inho-nom you/he-gen friend-acc bring kom-imp 'Inho bring your friend.' (Inho = hearer) b. 118 An R expression can easily be read by a first or second person if the speaker or listener is a child, as Prof. the Chapter 5.
Thus (a phrase with) a bound anaphora is mobile as in other clauses in principle.124 This implies that the interaction of a pronominal element and an R-expression with a non-third person reader does matter . So I generalize that a co-referential pronominal element can never precede an R-expression with a first or second person reading throughout the derivation (in jussives). That is, an R-expression with a non-third person reading must precede a co-referential pronominal element any time it occurs together.
Proposal
- Person Feature Intervention
- Assumptions
- Schematization
- Independent support for Person Feature Intervention
To solve this conundrum, I propose Person Property Intervention (PFI) in the J-bond, so that a DP with an interpretable person feature acts as an intermediary between licensor and licensee when they all contain the same kind of feature. Jussive' is placed over a TP that has an interpretable person property and licenses the jussive subject via Agree as a λ-operator. However, a particular representation of a third-party function will remain open, regardless of whether its value is null, third, null, etc.
In this subsection, based on the given assumptions, a tree representation of the intervention in the person's properties within Jussives is presented. In jussive constructions, there is always a JussiveP above the TP, and the subject inherits the person property from the head (Zanuttini et al. 2012). Thus, it is not illogical that an interpretable property of a person can be an intervenor, as in PFI.
Analysis
The subjects in are non-third person R-terms, so they are not introduced with an interpretable person trait. When it is pronominal ney 'your', it can be introduced with an interpretable valuable person feature, and it enters into a matching relation with the Jussive head, which carries a second person feature. Of course, DP2 can have a third-party function by default as in the other clauses.
However, the pronoun DP1 carries an interpretable person feature, so it causes the interference of person features and completes the multiple derivation of the conjunction J. Here, DP1 must be directly related to J, but the upper copy of DP2 has a feature interpretable person. The gist of my proposal is that, in implementing the multiple connection from the Jussive head, an interpretable feature of the person in a goal ends the further investigation of Jussive.
Further data
- Expected movement: Leftward scrambling
- Co-referential pronominal elements
- Co-referential reciprocals
- Unexpected movement: Rightward dislocation and
From this, we can think that collision is allowed when a subject and a bindee are identical, such as "Hyeki-nom Hyeki-gen" in (121) and "you-nom you-gen" in (144). As marked with the dotted box on the tree, the "one-to-one" mutual seal does not cause the person's traits to interfere after the fight. As in the previous case of the R-expression, the reciprocal subject must follow a co-referential pronoun.
136 I will reserve comment on whether this analysis can be applied to the anaphora caki 'self' in Korean. Similarly, Hong (2005) argues that in the specification of MP, -nun is generated in the base, which is related to mood, and is an operator that requires a variable. According to Hong (1994), the Case-less (nominative) Chelswu in (i) is allowed because it is a subject that is not in an A position, while the Case-less (nominative) wh-phrase nwukwu 'who' in (ii) is ungrammatical because a wh-clause cannot receive a subject interpretation due to its focal character.
Cross-linguistic variations on binding: English
Specifically, everyone in (164) is read as all of you, and a non-third person anaphor is realized when a fixed part, you, functions as a binder, and third person anaphor is realized when the entire sentence functions as a binder. However, as represented in (166), I assume that the bottom co-referential element with a third-person function has a default value and is therefore free from the featural collapse. The morphological realization of the bound elements can be either standard (namely third person) or non-third person.
2012) mention that “in sentences with quantifier subjects in English, the bound element shows either the personal characteristic of the partitive expression or the default value of the person. right there: 1248). This may also be due to the property of a special DP in English that has a third-person form but a non-third-person meaning. Such a noun phrase can license both third and non-third persons within nonjussive constructions in English, which is called imposter in English (Collins and Postal 2012).
Summary
Alternative analyses on a subject of jussives
A subject of jussives is not an imposter
- Backgrounds: A non-third person noun phrase in non-
- Observations
- Disambiguation by the Jussive head
- Previous analyses on imposters
- Collins and Postal (2012)
- Applying Collins and Postal (2012) to Korean
- Interim summary
- Tentative solution: Familiar D for Korean imposters
- DP FAM over NP
- Justification: Uniqueness requirements
- Cross-linguistic differences
- Imposters and Person Feature Intervention
- Further data regarding interpretative restrictions on jussives
152 Collins and Postal (2012) refer to an apparent third person noun phrase with a non-third person reading as deceiver. In jussives, therefore, a cheat approach on the non-third person R expression is not sufficient to explain this environment. I will also refer to a non-third person R-expression occurring in non-jussives as a deceiver in this study.
This is because other types of deceivers, such as so-called camouflage DPs, can precede a non-third person pronoun if it is singular, as in (188). Because Korean tricksters act as a non-third person in terms of bonding, there is no movement in it (191). To explain the non-third person attachment in Korean deceivers, Choi (2016a) hypothesizes that an imaginary pronoun (DP2) elevates to the highest SpecDP, projecting its person attribute onto an entire DP (DP4).
First, a jussive subject is limited to a non-third-person reading, and does not exhibit an ambivalent property. This is because the cardinal reading of a bare figure tends to be non-specific, and thus third person.
A subject of jussives is not a vocative, either
- Bare numeral phrases
- Demonstratives
Summary
Concluding remarks
