Abstract
The Korean VP anaphor (VPA) kuleha or kulay ‘do so’ has often been argued to involve ellipsis of an articulated VP structure, which is replaced with the surface form at PF (e.g., Cho in Lang Res 32:621–636, 1996; Ha in Korean J Linguist 35:471–487, 2010; Park in Linguist Res 32:693–718, 2015). In this paper, we present empirical data that does not support such a characterization, obtained from two experimental studies designed to diagnose the presence of “hidden” syntactic structure. In Experiment 1, building upon Kim and Han’s (in: Grosz, Patel-Grosz (eds) The impact of pronominal form on interpretation. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 349–373, 2016) finding that quantificational binding of the Korean pronoun ku ‘he’ is subject to inter-speaker variation, we conducted a truth-value judgment task experiment to examine the (un)acceptability of sloppy identity interpretation in the VPA construction. If the VPA is indeed derived from the deletion of an articulated VP, and thus has an unpronounced internal structure to house ku, the distributions of the sloppy reading of ku and the quantificational binding of ku should be correlated across the sampled population; however, such a pattern was not found. In Experiment 2, we conducted a Likert scale rating experiment testing whether extraction out of the VPA site is possible. If the VPA is an instance of ellipsis, extraction from the VPA site should be possible since there would be a syntactic structure that hosts an extractable constituent. This prediction, however, was not confirmed. On the basis of these empirical findings, we argue that Korean VP anaphora are base-generated pro-forms (Bae and Kim in Stud Mod Gramm 70:49–71, 2012; Park in Stud Mod Gramm 72:41–66, 2013), and retrieve their semantic values from the context through interpretive rules (Hoji in Linguist Inq 29:127–152, 1998; Hoji, in: Barss (ed) Anaphora: a reference guide. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 172–236, 2003), as in the case of pronominal resolution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Some researchers, e.g., Hankamer and Sag (1976), Partee and Bach (1984), use the term VP anaphora (or VP anaphor) to refer to verbal anaphoric items in general, which include null anaphoric VPs, i.e., VP ellipsis. Throughout this paper, however, we only use the term VP anaphora to refer to overt anaphoric VPs such as Korean kuleha/kulay and English do it, following the convention used in Matsuo and Duffield (2001), Cecchetto and Percus (2006), and Lee (2012).
The VP anaphors kuleha and kulay can be used interchangeably in (2) and (3), with no apparent difference in meaning.
For expository purposes, we follow Sag (1976), Heim and Kratzer (1998), Fox (2000), and Kennedy (2003) in imposing a parallelism condition on (VP) ellipsis constructions requiring that the elided constituent have an antecedent constituent with an identical representation at LF. Alternative semantic accounts of parallelism/identity, such as Merchant’s (2001) E-givenness, are consistent with the proposals in this paper.
The VP anaphor kuleha consists of two components kule ‘so’ and ha ‘do’. The issue of how they are syntactically distributed within a verbal projection does not fall within the scope of the current study. Throughout this paper, kuleha is treated as if it is a non-decomposable string that simply corresponds to a VP, as shown in (5) and (8). See, however, Park (2015) for the claim that ha, as a light verb, comes under v, and it takes a VP complement that is replaced by kule, as shown in (i). See also Stroik (2001) and Hallman (2004) for a similar analysis of do so in English, as shown in (ii).
For simplicity, the current paper eschews the vP/VP distinction and vP-internal subjects.
If the owner of the beverage that John will drink is Mike or an individual other than John and Mike, say Robert, then two other strict identity readings can also be available, as illustrated in (i) and (ii).
See Takahashi (1994) for his argument that sluiced remnant in Japanese undergoes wh-movement to SpecCP.
Merchant (2013a:540) also provides pro-form examples such as (i)–(iii) below, where, he argues, “ellipsis cannot be implicated”, but sloppy readings are still found. Based on these examples, Merchant claims that the presence of sloppy readings is a “non-diagnostic” or “problematic diagnostic” for ellipsis.
According to Frazier (2013), it was found in Clifton and Frazier’s (forthcoming) written interpretation study that sentences containing do the same thing such as (14a) are even more likely to induce sloppy readings than their ellipsis counterparts. In light of this finding, Frazier concludes that “sloppy readings may have many and varied sources” other than the variable binding mechanism, and therefore “sloppy readings do not diagnose ellipsis” (p. 499).
For this reason Hoji calls these “sloppy-like readings”.
In contrast to the pronoun ku, the long-distance anaphor caki ‘self’ can readily yield a bound variable interpretation, as illustrated in (i), indicating that native speakers of Korean do have knowledge of variable binding (Han and Storoshenko 2012).
In VP anaphora sentences, as in (ii), caki readily makes available the sloppy reading (Cho 1996).
Kim and Han’s (2016) findings are not too surprising given that there is much disagreement in the literature regarding the availability of a bound variable construal for ku. Some researchers report that wh-questions and quantificational sentences as in (i) and (ii) are acceptable under a bound variable reading of ku (e.g., Kang B.-M. 1988 and Kang M.-Y. 1988), while others report that the same sentences are not acceptable under such a reading (e.g., Kang 1990; Choi 2013; Kim 2016).
The lack of consensus in the extant literature can reasonably be taken to be a reflection of the inter-speaker variation found in Kim and Han’s (2016) experimental studies.
A reviewer asks why we think the stated correlation is bi-directional, noting that the presence of sloppy interpretations entails the possibility of a bound variable pronoun, but the existence of a bound variable pronoun does not necessarily enable a sloppy interpretation since the strict reading is more easily accessible. In our TVJT experiment, we provided context sentences to promote the sloppy reading for the VP anaphora condition, and the bound reading for the quantificational condition. Assuming that Maxim of Quality is in effect, participants will accept the test sentences if their grammar allows the readings being tested (Crain and McKee 1985; Crain and Thornton 1998). As such, we are predicting that if the \(\lambda \)-binding mechanism for pronouns is available to a speaker, she would employ it for both the sloppy pronoun in the VP anaphora condition and the bound variable pronoun in the quantificational condition when called for by the context. Hence, the stated correlation is assumed to be bi-directional in our experimental setting if the VPA is the result of ellipsis.
In a separate experiment of a similar design, which consisted of two sessions separated by one month, a clear bimodal distribution was found in the Quantificational-Bound condition in each session, with about 40% of the participants accepting the quantificational binding of ku. Moreover, a linear regression analysis revealed a strong correlation (r\(=\) 0.74, t\(=\) 6.43, p < .001) between the two sessions in the Quantificational-Bound condition. These results show that the participants exhibited the same judgment over time on the bound variable construal of ku, further supporting that the inter-speaker variation reported in Kim and Han (2016) and replicated in the present study is a synchronically active phenomenon in Korean.
We are indebted to Jeffrey Runner for his suggestion of conducting this additional inspection.
A reviewer notes that since under the ellipsis analysis of the Korean VPA, the elided VP structure is assumed to be replaced with kuleha at PF (Cho 1996; Ha 2010; Park 2015), one could argue that this process might promote a surface-based processing of the VPA, ignoring the underlying syntactic representation, suppressing the availability of the sloppy reading, which could be the reason why the distribution of the sloppy reading of ku and the quantificational binding reading of ku were not correlated in our results. Note that we found that while the sloppy reading of ku was available in VPA sentences to most participants, the quantificational binding reading of ku was not available to many. Thus, clearly kuleha is making available a mechanism, distinct from the VP ellipsis, to generate a sloppy-like reading even though ku cannot be a bound variable for some speakers.
One might attempt to defend the ellipsis analysis of kuleha (thus, the presence of an internal structure), by postulating that those speakers who only allow ku to be (co)referential could nevertheless accept the sloppy interpretation for kuleha via the operation of “vehicle change” (Fiengo and May 1994; Safir 1999), “by which one type of expression (say, a name) can be [turned into] a distinct type of expression (say, a pronoun)” (Kim 1999:270). Under this view, then, ku in the VPA site would transform to an LF object (\(\alpha \)) that would have to be, for a sloppy reading, coreferential with the subject of the VPA clause, as illustrated in (i).
Crucially, however, this idea is incompatible with Fiengo and May’s (1994:218) claim that a nominal can only be vehicle-changed into another form when its index value remains the same. Even if the alleged vehicle change could somehow derive an LF structure as in (i), PF-deletion (thus, ellipsis) would not be licensed since the indices assigned to the overt ku and the vehicle-changed entity are different and therefore the LF identity requirement that the elided material be identical to its antecedent (see footnote 5) is not satisfied.
Crucially, whether an anaphor has a null phonological realization is irrelevant to whether it can license overt extraction or not. For instance, Null Complement Anaphora (NCA), which has been argued to be a null pro-form, does not pass the extraction diagnostics, as illustrated in (i)–(ii) below (e.g., Hankamer and Sag 1976; Depiante 2000; Merchant 2013b).
Japanese null clausal complements have also been claimed to be null pro-forms, resisting overt extraction out of them, as illustrated in (iii) by scrambling below (e.g., Shinohara 2006; Kasai 2014).
Note that the non-extraction counterpart in (iv) is totally acceptable.
As can be seen from their translations, the scrambled sentences and the canonical sentences share the same meaning (or proposition), though they might be used in different pragmatic contexts since some kind of emphasis would be put on the scrambled object sakwa-lul ‘apple-acc’.
Hereafter, the terms “extraction” and “scrambling” will be used interchangeably.
A reviewer points out that inextractability does not necessarily rule out the ellipsis analysis. For example, Saito (2007) observes that scrambling is not possible from Japanese null clausal complements, and argues that this follows from the LF-copy analysis of the CP-ellipsis. See Saito (2007) for details. Kasai (2014), however, does conclude that null CPs are pro-forms from the same observation, as was noted in footnote 20.
Park follows Lasnik (1999)’s proposal that A-movement, unlike Ā-movement, does not necessarily leave an (A-)trace.
In his earlier work, however, Park (2013:56) argues that “kulay ‘do so’ anaphora” is a pro-form rather than an ellipsis phenomenon.
We will see in the next section that these informants’ introspective judgments were replicated in Experiment 2.
Although there are proposals in the extant literature that the landing sites for short and long-scrambled objects are not uniform (for example, Mahajan 1990), in this paper, we simply assume that both short and long-scrambled objects adjoin to TP, in the spirit of Saito (1992), for the sake of convenient illustration. Whether the landing site of short and long-scrambled objects are distinct is not directly pertinent to the current discussion.
Unlike in Experiment 1, the VP anaphor kulay, not kuleha, was used for the target sentences in Experiment 2, because it is generally deemed to sound more natural or authentic in colloquial contexts.
For reasons of space, we do not provide in the paper the complete set of test items used for the two experiments reported here. They can however be made available upon request.
“(+VPA)” is used in Fig. 6 to indicate that the target sentences for all four test conditions include the VP anaphor kulay.
The mean ratings for the two scrambling conditions were as low as the mean ratings for the two filler conditions (i) and (ii) below, both of which contained a target sentence that was expected to be (completely) unacceptable.
In the target sentence in (ii), the embedded object swuhak-ul ‘math-acc’ has been “right-scrambled” over the embedded verb kongpwuha ‘study’. According to Lee (2007), a sentence with such scrambling is not acceptable in Korean.
As opposed to “(+VPA)” in Fig. 6, “(-VPA)” is used here to indicate that the target sentences for the four control conditions did not include the VP anaphor kulay.
A reviewer points out that the findings of Experiment 2 regarding the impossibility of scrambling out of Korean VP anaphora can alternatively be accounted for based on the LF-copying approach to ellipsis resolution and, thus, do not necessarily constitute evidence for the pro-form analysis of Korean VP anaphora. That is, under the LF-copying approach, the VP anaphor kuleha or kulay would be structurally “empty” in the overt syntax, the interpretation of which would be reconstructed from that of its antecedent VP by copying the antecedent structure into the position of kulay at the level of LF representation (see also Hallman 2013 for the LF-copying analysis of English do so anaphora). If so, given the standard assumption that the scrambling phenomenon is an overt movement process, it follows that scrambling out of the VP anaphor would not be permissible because it would not contain any movable elements in the overt syntax. See also Shinohara (2006) and Saito (2007) for their LF-copying account of the non-extractability out of Japanese null clausal complement (intertwined with “radical reconstruction” property of scrambling), which could be applied to Korean VP anaphora. Such a possibility of the LF-copying analysis, however, is not compatible with the findings of Experiment 1, which investigated the availability of sloppy identity interpretation in the Korean VP anaphora construction. Under the LF-copying approach, the sentence in (i) [repeated from (19)] can roughly be represented as in (ii) at LF, in which the antecedent VP structure containing ku is copied onto the position occupied by kuleha.
If kuleha has the LF structure with “covert” ku, which should display the same grammatical possibility of variable binding as “overt” ku, the distributions of the sloppy readings in VP anaphora sentences as in (i) and the quantificational binding of ku should be correlated across the sampled population. However, such a pattern was not found in Experiment 1, undermining the above LF-copying analysis.
One difference between Park’s (2015) scrambling examples and ours is that while the scrambled constituents in Park were contrastive, ours were not. For instance, in his example in (36a), say-lul ‘bird-acc’ in the antecedent clause contrasts with cwi-lul ‘mouse-acc’ in the VPA clause, while in our example in (43), the scrambled constituent in both the antecedent clause and the VPA clause is the same, swuhak-ul ‘math-acc.’ A reviewer notes that the fact that we used non-contrastive scrambled constituents in our target sentences may have affected our results in Experiment 2. To address this possibility, we collected judgments on VPA sentences with contrastive scrambled constituents from 11 Korean native speakers, via an informal survey. We asked the participants to rate from 1 (“unnatural”) to 7 (“natural”) four short scrambling VPA sentences as in (i) and four long scrambling VPA sentences as in (ii). The mean scores for the short scrambling condition was 2.35 and the long scrambling condition was 2.04. Given the low acceptability ratings on both types of VPA sentences, contrastiveness is not likely to be a factor in extractability from the VPA.
Houser (2010) develops a similar analysis for English, where the internal argument in unaccusatives is argued to be base-generated outside the VP, to account for the fact that do so, which Houser takes to be a deep anaphor lacking any internal structure, can stand for unaccusative VPs, as in (i).
Interestingly, Houser also points out that long A-movement (e.g., raising) cannot proceed from do so in English, echoing hints of a short/long contrast in Korean, which serves to make more plausible the idea that internal arguments can be generated slightly higher, but only in their own clause.
Wei and Li (2016) also show that zheme zuo ‘do so’ does not necessarily need a linguistic antecedent, as in (i), and can have split antecedents, as in (ii), either of which has been widely taken as an indication that an anaphoric object is a pro-form, not an instance of ellipsis, since Hankamer and Sag (1976) (cf. Merchant 2013a, b).
Hoji (2003) demonstrates that in the Japanese “comparative ellipsis” construction in (i) below, the sloppy reading (ia) is marginally possible or simply impossible with the R-expression Bill within the CP.
References
Bae, Eun-Gyeong, and Jeong-Suk Kim. 2012. On missing objects: Model-interpretive anaphora or ellipsis. Studies in Modern Grammar 70: 49–71.
Bailyn, John Frederick. 2001. On scrambling: A reply to Bošković and Takahashi. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 635–658.
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, and Bolker Bolker. 2012. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R Package Version 0.999999-0. (http://CRAN.R-project. org/package=lme4).
Bošković, Željko, and Daiko Takahashi. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 347–366.
Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cecchetto, Carlo, and Orin Percus. 2006. When we do that and when we don’t: A contrastive analysis of VP ellipsis and VP anaphora. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Mara Frascarelli, 71–105. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cho, Dong-In. 1996. Anaphor or pronominal? Language Research 32: 621–636.
Choi, Ki-Yong. 2013. Hankwukeuy 3 inching cisi phyohyen ‘ku’ey kwuanhan soko [A look on 3rd person referring expression ku in Korean]. Studies in Generative Grammar 23: 527–558.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1993. Principles and parameters theory. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann, 505–569. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Reprinted in Noam Chomsky, The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995.
Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 2011. Sluicing (:) between structure and inference. In Representing language: Essays in honor of Judith Aissen, ed. Rodrigo Gútierrez-Bravo, Line Mikkelsen, and Eric Potsdam, 31–50. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz, Linguistics Research Center.
Crain, Stephen, and Cecile McKee. 1985. The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of 15th North East Linguistic Society, ed. Steve Berman, Jae-Woong Choe, and Joyce McDonough, 94–110. Amherst, Mass.:GLSA.
Crain, Stephen, and Rosalind Thornton. 1998. Investigations into Universal Grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalrymple, Mary. 2005. Against reconstruction in ellipsis. In Ellipsis and nonsentential speech, ed. Reinaldo Elugardo, and Robert J. Stainton, 31–55. Dordrecht: Springer.
Depiante, Marcela Andrea. 2000. The syntax of deep and surface anaphora: A study of null complement anaphora and stripping/bare argument ellipsis. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Frazier, Lyn. 2013. A recycling approach to processing ellipsis. In Diagnosing syntax, ed. Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, and Norbert Corver, 485–501. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frazier, Lyn, and Charles Clifton 2001. Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy \(\alpha \). Syntax 4: 1–22.
Fukaya, Teruhiko, and Hajime Hoji. 1999. Stripping and sluicing in Japanese and some implications. In Proceedings of the 18th west coast conference on formal linguistics, ed. Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 145–158. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
Fukui, Naoki. 1993. Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 399–420.
Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. Phrase structure grammar. In The nature of syntactic representation, ed. Pauline Jacobson, and Geoffrey Pullum, 131–186. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Ha, Seungwan. 2010. Re-binding puzzles in Korean VP-anaphora. Korean Journal of Linguistics 35: 471–487.
Haddican, Bill. 2007. The structural deficiency of verbal pro-forms. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 539–547.
Haïk, Isabelle. 1987. Bound VPs that need to be. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 503–530.
Hallman, Peter. 2004. Constituency and agency in VP. In Proceedings of the 23rd west coast conference on formal linguistics, ed. Vineeta Chand, Annd Kelleler, Angelo J. Rodríguez, and Benjamin Schmeiser, 304–317. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
Hallman, Peter. 2013. Predication and movement in passive. Lingua 125: 76–94.
Han, Chung-hye, and Dennis Ryan Storoshenko. 2012. Semantic binding of long-distance anaphor caki in Korean. Language 88: 764–790.
Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–428.
Harada, Shinichi. 1977. Nihongo ni henkei wa hitsyoo da [Transformations are necessary for Japanese]. Gengo [Language] 6: 96–103.
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Hoji, Hajime. 1998. Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 127–152.
Hoji, Hajime. 2003. Surface and deep anaphora, sloppy identity, and experiments in syntax. In Anaphora: A reference guide, ed. Andrew Barss, 172–236. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Houser, Michael John. 2010. The syntax and semantics of do so anaphora. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Hwang, Kyuseek. 2008. The effect of information structure on Korean scrambling. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa.
Johnson, Kyle. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Mark Baltin, and Chris Collins, 439–479. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing.
Kang, Beom-Mo. 1988. Unbounded reflexives. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 415–456.
Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1988. Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding and movement. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kang, Sahie. 1990. Discourse conditions and Korean anaphora. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Kasai, Hironobu. 2014. On the nature of null clausal complements in Japanese. Syntax 17: 168–188.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2003. Ellipsis and syntactic representation. In The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, ed. Kerstin Schwabe, and Susanne Winkler, 29–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing.
Kim, Jeong-Seok. 1997. Syntactic focus movement and ellipsis: A minimalist approach. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Kim, Soowon. 1999. Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects, and NP ellipsis. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 255–284.
Kim, Jeong-Seok. 2010. Do so is shallow. Studies in Generative Grammar 20: 301–320.
Kim, Yong-Ha. 2016. Hankwuke taymyengsauy pemcwucek ciwui: ‘ku’lul cwungsimulo [The categorial status of the pronoun ku]. Studies in Modern Grammar 87: 45–58.
Kim, Kyeong-min, and Chung-hye Han. 2016. Inter-speaker variation in Korean pronouns. In The impact of pronominal form on interpretation, ed. Patrick Grosz, and Pritty Patel-Grosz, 349–373. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kim, Jungho, Masatoshi Koizumi, Naho Ikuta, Yuichiro Fukumitsu, Naoki Kimura, Kazuki Iwata, Jobu Watanabe, Satoru Yokoyama, Shigeru Sato, Kaoru Horie, et al. 2009. Scrambling effects on the processing of Japanese sentences: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22: 151–166.
Kim, Ji-Hye, and James Hye-suk Yoon. 2009. Long-distance bound local anaphors in Korean? An empirical study of the Korean anaphor caki-casin. Lingua 119: 733–755.
Ko, Heejeong. 2007. Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 49–83.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Lee, Eunsuk. 2007. Types of scrambling in Korean syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Lee, Yong-hun. 2012. A unified approach to VP-ellipsis and VP-anaphora. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on head-driven phrase structure grammar, ed. Stefan Müller, 272–291. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Lee, Young-Suk, and Beatrice Santorini. 1994. Towards resolving Webelhuth’s paradox: Evidence from German and Korean. In Studies on scrambling, ed. Norbert Corver, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 257–300. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lobeck, Anne C. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Madigan, Sean. 2015. Anaphora and binding. In The Handbook of Korean Linguistics, ed. Lucien Brown, and Jaehoon Yeon, 137–156. Chichester: Wiley.
Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Matsuo, Ayumi, and Nigel Duffield. 2001. VP-ellipsis and anaphora in child language acquisition. Language Acquisition 9: 301–327.
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merchant, Jason. 2013a. Diagnosing ellipsis. In Diagnosing syntax, ed. Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, and Norbert Corver, 485–501. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merchant, Jason. 2013b. Yet another look at deep and surface anaphora. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago.
Murphy, Gregory L. 1985. Psychological explanations of deep and surface anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 785–813.
Neeleman, Ad. 1994. Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenon. In Studies on scrambling, ed. Norbert Corver, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 387–429. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Park, Myung-Kwan. 2013. Debunking null objects in Korean: From pro to DP/NP ellipsis. Studies in Modern Grammar 72: 41–66.
Park, Myung-Kwan. 2015. Extraction out of overt anaphora: Korean kule(h). Linguistic Research 32: 693–718.
Partee, Barbara, and Emmon Bach. 1984. Quantification, pronouns, and VP anaphora. In Truth, interpretation and information, ed. Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo M.V. Janssen, and Martin Stokhof, 99–130. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
Peirce, Jonathan W. 2007. Psychopy-psychophysics software in python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162: 8–13.
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction in Ā-chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 587–620.
Sag, Ivan A. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 69–118.
Saito, Mamoru. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43: 203–227.
Schuyler, Tamara. 2001. Wh-movement out of the site of VP ellipsis. Syntax and semantics at Santa Cruz 3: 1–20.
Shinohara, Michie. 2006. On some differences between the major deletion phenomena and Japanese argument ellipsis. Unpublished manuscript, Nanzan University, Japan.
Son, Minjeong. 2006. Directed motion and non-predicative Path P in Korean. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 33: 176–199.
Sprouse, Jon, Carson T. Schütze, and Diogo Almeida. 2013. A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua 134: 219–248.
Storoshenko, Dennis Ryan. 2008. A bound-variable account of the Korean anaphor caki. In Proceedings of the 26th west coast conference on formal linguistics 438–444.
Stroik, Thomas. 2001. On the light verb hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 362–369.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Sluicing in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 265–300.
Tancredi, Chris. 1992. Restructuring parameters and complex predicates: A transformational approach. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2008. A step-by-step guide to ellipsis resolution. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. Kyle Johnson, 210–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, and Jason Merchant. 2013. Elliptical phenomena. In The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, ed. Marcel den Dikken, 1427–1520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wei, Ting-Chi, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 2016. How to do so in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 25: 183–212.
Weskott, Thomas, and Gisbert Fanselow. 2011. On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language 87: 249–273.
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 19th International Circle of Korean Linguistics Conference held at the University of Chicago in July 2015, the 29th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing held at the University of Florida, Gainesville, in April 2016, and the Workshop on Experimental Approaches to East Asian Languages held at the University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa, in May 2016. Thanks are due to the audiences in those meetings, including James Hye-Suk Yoon, Michael Barrie, Kyumin Kim, Nayoung Kwon, Jeffrey Runner, Shinichiro Fukuda, Jon Sprouse, William O’Grady, and Bonnie Schwartz, for their critical questions and feedback. We are also extremely indebted to the three anonymous reviewers of JEAL for their insightful comments that were crucial in improving this paper. This work was partially supported by SSHRC 435-2014-0161 and AKS-2016-LAB-2250004 to Han.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, Km., Han, Ch. & Moulton, K. The syntax of Korean VP anaphora: an experimental investigation. J East Asian Linguist 29, 31–76 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-020-09203-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-020-09203-x