{"title":"Derivation of [XP-NUN?] Revisited: Reply to Park (2021)","authors":"Daeho Chung","doi":"10.14342/smog.2022.115.51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Daeho Chung. 2022. Derivation of [XP-NUN?] Revisited: Reply to Park (2021). \nStudies in Modern Grammar 115, 51-76. Contra Chung’s (2021a) contrastive topic (CT) movement analysis of the so-called contrastive topic fragment (CTF) of the form [XP-NUN?], Park (2021) claims the following: (i) The pre-NUN remnant can be a contrastive focus (CF) (as well as a CT); (ii) the CTF is derived from a cleft-like wh-construction with ettehkey ‘how’ in the pivot; and (iii) the remnants undergo scrambling. This paper makes the following three points: (i) given the generally accepted definitions of topic, the pre-NUN element behaves like a CT, as suggested in Chung (2021a); (ii) Park’s cleft-like construction based derivation faces non-trivial problems, especially with respect to the available interpretation of the CTF; and (iii) Park’s generalized question [XP-NUN etteh/ettehkey ‘how’ ...?] can in fact be viewed as a derived structure due to a clausal replacement by etteh/ettehkey, analogous to the kuleh/kulehkey replacement entertained in Park (2013) and Sohn (2019).","PeriodicalId":257842,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Modern Grammar","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Modern Grammar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14342/smog.2022.115.51","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Daeho Chung. 2022. Derivation of [XP-NUN?] Revisited: Reply to Park (2021).
Studies in Modern Grammar 115, 51-76. Contra Chung’s (2021a) contrastive topic (CT) movement analysis of the so-called contrastive topic fragment (CTF) of the form [XP-NUN?], Park (2021) claims the following: (i) The pre-NUN remnant can be a contrastive focus (CF) (as well as a CT); (ii) the CTF is derived from a cleft-like wh-construction with ettehkey ‘how’ in the pivot; and (iii) the remnants undergo scrambling. This paper makes the following three points: (i) given the generally accepted definitions of topic, the pre-NUN element behaves like a CT, as suggested in Chung (2021a); (ii) Park’s cleft-like construction based derivation faces non-trivial problems, especially with respect to the available interpretation of the CTF; and (iii) Park’s generalized question [XP-NUN etteh/ettehkey ‘how’ ...?] can in fact be viewed as a derived structure due to a clausal replacement by etteh/ettehkey, analogous to the kuleh/kulehkey replacement entertained in Park (2013) and Sohn (2019).