Linguistic Research 28(2), 289-309 문법성과문법모델링 : 영어목적어외치구문의변이형을중심으로 * 1 조세연 ( 강원대학교 ) Cho, Sae-Youn. 2011. Grammaticality and Grammar Modelling: Variations in English Object Extraposition. Linguistic Research 28(2), 289-309. It is a well-known fact that grammar modelling for the English object extraposition construction is never easy due to too many variations in the construction; nevertheless, there are at least 3 grammar models for this construction, such as Kim & Sag (2006, 2007), Kim (2008) and Cho (2010) in Formal Syntax. Though each model accounts for some subset of the construction data, they all seem to face empirical and theoretical problems mainly due to the difficulty of deciding the grammaticality of controversial data. Consequently, they have to hold somewhat different grammar models, which appear to be counter- intuitive. To judge which model is better among the 3 models and to see which is the most optimal model for the construction, we will provide statistical results of 21 native speakers' grammatical judgments for 9 controversial data, and we will discuss the factors that lead to the difficulties of modelling the grammar of the construction. Throughout this paper, we will argue that we must assume a larger set of grammatical sentences than previous analyses and consider various factors such as LP rules, redundancy, and intervention effects to postulate an optimal grammar model for the construction. (Kangwon National University) Key Words Grammaticality, Grammar Modelling, English Object Extraposition, Variations, Constructions, Linear Precedence (LP), Redundancy, Intervention Effects, Formal Syntax 1. 서론,., *.. 2010 5 15 2010 10 16.
290. (Formal Syntax) (Grammar Modelling)', (justification) (adequacy) (Chomsky(1965;18))., ㆍ. ( ) (subjectivity). (Grammaticality), (objectivity)... (English Object Extraposition). (1) it. (1) I blame it on you [that we can't go]. blame it, on you (2). (2) a.?i blame on you [that we can't go.] b.?i blame [that we can't go] on you. (1) (2) (2a) (2b) (2a-b)
: 291., expect (3) it ㆍ. (3) a.?nobody expected (it) of you [that you could be so cruel]. b.?nobody expected [that you could be so cruel] of you., think (4) love (5) it ㆍ. (4) a. John thought (?it) to himself [that we had betrayed him]. b.?john thought [that we had betrayed him] to himself. (5)?I just love (it) [that you are moving in with us]. (Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar) Kim & Sag (2006, 2007), Kim (2008) Cho (2010) (Pollard & Sag (1994), Sag et al. (2003) ).,. 21 9 ㆍ. 1 (6) (Research Questions) I-1. blame expect it 1,.. W. Bottiger, J. Lundahl, W. Harrell, O. Komintas, B. Fair, T. Steigerwalt, G. Sawyer, R. Marcil, K. O'Donnell, T. Cole, T. Darden, P. King, K. Dang, P. Lunellr, S. C. Lyle, D. Brickman, E. Smith, B. B. Burrows, R. Freer, Sean, Rainer..
292? I-2. I-1, ( PP[+/- PRD(predicative)])? 2 II-1. think love it? II-2. II-1,? III.?,? it (Linear Precedence), (Intervention Effects), (Redundancy). : 2 Kim & Sag (2006, 2007), Kim (2008) Cho (2010),. 3,. 3. 2. 기존분석모델들 Bolinger (1977) Authier (1991) (empirical) (theoretical).. Kim & Sag (2006, 2007), 2 (Predicative) (Non-predicative) Kim & Sag (2006, 2007).
: 293 Kim (2008) Cho (2010).. 2.1 문법모델 I: Kim & Sag (2006, 2007) Kim & Sag (2006, 2007) it., (7) it 1, (8) 2, (9) 3. (7) 1 : I blame *(it) on you [that we can't go]. (8) 2 : Nobody expected (it) of you [that you could be so cruel]. (9) 3 : John thought (?it) to himself [that we had betrayed him]. Kim & Sag (2006, 2007) ICE-GB (International Corpus of English - Great Britain) BNC (British National Corpus)., (10) blame (10b) it, on you that (10c)., (11) expect (11b) it of you that (11c). (10) a. I blame it on you [that we can't go]. b. *I blame on you [that we can't go]. c. *I blame [that we can't go] on you. (11) a. Nobody expected it of you [(that) you could be so cruel]. b. Nobody expected of you [(that) you could be so cruel]. c. *Nobody expected [(that) you could be so cruel] of you. blame it expect, (10b) (11b) (on you) that
294 (of you). think (12a) it, (12b). (12) a.?john thought it to himself [that we had betrayed him]. b. John thought to himself [that we had betrayed him]. (12a) (13). (13)... and I think it's great when Nessa says (or maybe she just thinks it to herself) that Eyvind, unlike Somerled, is wise. Kim & Sag (2006) love like (14) it 1 2. (14) I like *(it) that she has good manners. : Kim & Sag,. (15) part-of-speech core adj prep nominal verbal noun comp verb Kim and Sag (2007;3)
: 295., pinch, hope, prove (16-18). (16) a. She pinched [his arm] as hard as she could. b. *She pinched [that he feels pain]. (17) a. We hope [that such a vaccine could be available in ten years]. b. *We hope [the availability of such a vaccine in ten years]. (18) a. Cohen proved [the independence of the continuum hypothesis]. b. Cohen proved [that the continuum hypothesis was independent]. Kim & Sells (2008;94), pinch, hope that prove that.. (19) a. pinch: [SUBCAT<NP, NP[HEAD noun],...>] b. hope: [SUBCAT<NP, CP[HEAD comp],...>] c. prove: [SUBCAT<NP, [HEAD nominal],...>] prove (19c) NP CP nominal. Kim & Sag (20) (21). (20) (Extraposition Construction; Kim & Sag (2007;6)) PHON MTR S C SUBCAT <NP[it]> EXTRA < > DTRS PHON S C SUBCAT < [verbal]>
296 (21) - (Head-Extraposition Construction) MTR S C EXTRA < > DTRS <, > H-DTR S C [SUBCAT <(X)> EXTRA < >], verbal S, CP, VP Extra ( ) it. 3. (22) (English Linear Precedence Constraints) LP1: Hd-Dtr[word] < X LP2: [1] < [SYN CAT SUBCAT <[1]>] LP3: NP < PP LP4: Complement < [SYN CAT HEAD verbal] Kim & Sag (2007;4-5) (22), LP1 LP2. LP3 LP4 verbal., -, Kim & Sag :, 1 blame (10a). 3 CP.
: 297 (23=(10a)) PHON <blame, it, on, you, that, we, can't, S C verb HEAD FORM fin SUBCAT < > EXTRA < > PHON <blame, it, on, you> S C verb HEAD FORM fin SUBCAT < > EXTRA < > PHON <that, we, can't, S C CP PHON <blame> S C HEAD verb FORM fin SUBCAT <,, > EXTRA < > PHON <it> S C NP[it] PHON S C PP <on, Kim & Sag (2007), (10a) it (20-21) - (23) (22). Kim & Sag (10b-c) LP2 LP4. 2 expect (11a-b) (11a) of you that (11b). (11c) that LP4., 3 think (12) 2 (11)., Kim & Sag love.
298 Kim & Sag (2006, 2007) ICE-GB love. verbal. 2.2 문법모델 II: Kim (2008) Kim (2008). Kim Kim & Sag (2006, 2007). Kim Kim & Sag. Kim (2008). (24) English Object Extraposition Rule ( ) Verbs selecting a nominal can undergo it object extraposition. The placement of it is optional if the post-expletive phrase is non-predicative. Kim (2008;127), NP CP nominal, it. CP verbal nominal. (24) Kim & Sag (2006, 2007) 1 blame it, 2 expect. Kim Kim & Sag 1 ( ) 2 ( ). think 3 Kim & Sag 2 Kim (2008) Bolinger (1977)
: 299 Kim & Sag (25a) 3. (25) a. *John thought it to himself [that we had betrayed him]. b. John thought to himself [that we had betrayed him]. love it. (26) a. I like it that she has good manners. b. *I like that she has good manners., Kim Kim & Sag (2006, 2007) it. love. (27) <love> ARG-ST <NP, NP> <love> ARG-ST <NP, NP i[nform it], CP i> Kim (2008;129) love NP 2 it (Index) CP. Kim (2008) ICE-GB Bolinger (1977), love. nominal love Kim & Sag, Kim & Sag 4.
300 2.3 문법모델 III: Cho (2010) Cho (2010). Cho. Cho. (28) (The Data Generalization on Object Extraposition) All English verbs selecting CP object basically allow object extraposition. Seemingly optional or obligatory cases of object extraposition with respect to the occurrence of it are not due to the different classes of verbs but due to the LP constraints. The additional extraposition cases including love-type verbs are also not the case requiring another lexical rule but a subcase of object extraposition generated by the same general extraposition rule. Cho (2010;60-61) CP blame, expect, think it CP. Cho love,. (29) I just love (it) that you are moving in with us. Cho (30), Kim & Sag LP1, LP2, LP3 LP4 (31).
: 301 (30) (Object Extraposition Lexical Rule) pi-rule INPUT X, S C SUBCAT <, CP i, > OUTPUT Y, S C SUBCAT <, NP i [NFORM it], > EXTRA < i> (31) 4 (Modified LP4 Constraint) Non-predicative Complement < [SYN CAT HEAD verbal] Cho (2010;61), Cho blame (10b) (on you) that LP2 expect (11b) (of you) that (31) LP4. Cho (12) think (14) love (30). Cho (2010) CP. LP1-3 LP4. 2.4 기존문법모델간의비교,,,.
302 (32) I II III ( ;Bolinger(1977)) (5 ) love (LP1-4) (LP1-4) (LP1-4) 1, 2, love 1, 2, 3, love. 3. 문제데이터의문법성과핵심요인들 3.1 문제데이터의문법성직관조사방법및결과통계 2,.,.,, 9. (33-36) (33) a. I blame that we can't go on you. b. I blame on you that we can't go. (34) a. Nobody expected that you could so cruel of you. b. Nobody expected of you that you could so cruel.
: 303 (35) a. I think it that John had an accident. b. I thought it that it would be nearly impossible for the filmmakers to sustain such a level of excitement through the rest of the movie. c. John though it to himself that Mary was coming. (36) a. I just love it that you are moving in with us. b. I just love that you are moving in with us., I Kim (2008), II Kim & Sag (2006, 2007) (33), (34-35), (36). Cho (2010). Cho (2010) 21. 4 (37) (%) (33a) (33b) (34a) (34b) (35a) (35b) (35c) (36a) (36b) 43 38 10 67 43 56 52 90 95 43 33 71 24 38 17 24 0 0 14 29 19 10 19 28 24 10 5,. 3.2 직관조사통계지표와문제데이터의요인들 9 I (Kim (2008)) II (Kim & Sag (2006, 2007)) (33)-(36). blame (33a-b) I II 4 Appendix.
304 it. III (Cho (2010)) (33a) LP2, (33b). (37). (33) 57%., LP2 CP (33a) (33b)., blame ( I II), LP2 ( III ). blame. expect (34a-b) blame., (34a) that 10% (34b) 70% LP4. CP LP4 III., I II LP4 that. 5 think (35)., II (Kim (2008)) (35a-b) (35c). II (35b) (35a) (35c) 13%. I (Kim & Sag (2006, 2007)) III (Cho (2010)) (35). 5, Kuno (1987) BNFC (Ban on Non-sentence Final Clause) I II LP4.
: 305 (35a) 43% (35b-c) 50%. 43% (35a) that it (Redundant). 6 50% (35b-c) Bolinger (1977) (35b) that (35c) (Intervention Effects). (Processing Effects),. love (36) I II (36a) (36b). III (36a-b)., II (36a) love, kick (38) it. (38) *John kicked it that the ball flew away. III (36b) CP (36a). love (37). (36) (36b) 95% (36a) 5%. III I II., blame it, 6 (35a).
306. expect, think. love,., II (Kim (2008)), I (Kim & Sag (2006, 2007)) 3 (think ) 2 love 1, 2. III (Cho (2010)).,, ( ),. 4. 결론.., Kim & Sag (2006, 2007) ICE-GB,, Kim (2008) Bolinger (1977). Cho (2010)..
: 307, 21., it I II ( Kim & Sag (2006, 2007) Kim (2008)) blame, expect, think, love. III ( Cho (2010)).,.., ICE-GB.,. 참고문헌 Authier, Marc. 1991. V-Governed Expletives, Case Theory, and the Projection Principle. Linguistic Inquiry 22(4): 721-740. Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and Form. Harlow: Longman. Cho, Sae-Youn. 2010. Toward a Unified Constraint-Based Analysis of English Object Extraposition. Language and Information 14(1): 49-66. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kim, Jong-Bok and Ivan A. Sag. 2006. English Object Extraposition: A Constraint-Based Approach. Proceedings of the HPSG05 Conference. CSLI.
308 Kim, Jong-Bok and Ivan A. Sag. 2007. Variations in English Object Extraposition. Proceedings of the 41st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 1-15. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2008. Grammatical Interfaces in English Object Extraposition. Studies in Language 25(3): 117-131. Kim, Jong-Bok and Peter Sells. 2008. English Syntax: An Introduction. CSLI Publications. Kuno, Susumo. 1987. Functional Syntax. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI Publications. Sag, Ivan, Tom Wasow, and Emily Bender. 2003. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. 2nd Edition. CSLI Publications. (200-701) 2 E-mail: sycho@kangwon.ac.kr : 2011. 07. 14 : 2011. 08. 09 : 2011. 08. 12
: 309 Appendix <Grammar Modelling & Grammaticality: Variations in English Object Extraposition> Full Name: Nationality: No Examples 1 I blame that we can't go on you. 2 I blame on you that we can't go. 3 4 Nobody expected that you could be so cruel of you. Nobody expected of you that you could be so cruel. 5 I think it that John had an accident. 6 7 8 9 I thought it that it would be nearly impossible for the filmmakers to sustain such a level of excitement through the rest of the movie. John thought it to himself that Mary was coming. I just love it that you are moving in with us. I just love that you are moving in with us. Choose 1 - grammatical & acceptable 2 - questionable 3 - ungrammatical & unacceptable 1 2 3 Specify your personal intuitive reasons about your choice.