We offer evidence for a structural identity constraint between a fragment and the structurally parallel position in the antecedent (which we term correspondent here). We ask if there is a preference for morphosyntactic match (generally in terms of syntactic category, but in terms of case marking in the Korean data discussed here) between a fragment and its correspondent. This question follows from the idea that in order to interpret fragments, the parser directly accesses content-addressable representations stored in memory, using as retrieval cues the linguistic information that fragments provide. We explore this preference using experimental data from Korean. In three acceptability judgment experiments, we demonstrate that (1) morphosyntactic match between fragments and correspondents is favored over mismatch, (2) the acceptability of mismatch is directional, favoring fragments that are morphosyntactically less complex than correspondents over the reverse, and (3) caseless fragments are degraded when paired with implicit correspondents compared to explicit ones.

This paper is concerned with case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis. We begin by considering available crosslinguistic data that indicate that variation in case marking on a fragment is delimited by the argument structure of the lexical head that assigns case to the fragment’s correlate in the antecedent clause. We then offer experimental evidence for a case-matching preference in Korean when a fragment and its correlate may differ in case marking. This case-matching preference corresponds to a known case of mandatory case-matching in Hungarian, but their relationship is not predicted by any of the existing syntactic accounts of case-matching effects under clausal ellipsis. We propose a novel perspective on fragments that derives case-matching effects, including optional and mandatory case matching, from the predictions of cue-based retrieval. Two further acceptability judgment studies are offered in support of our proposal.

Despite similar argument structure, the syntax of English need and Korean philyo contrasts, illuminating differences in lexical derivation and insertion of argument-taking elements. Verbs need, require, deserve, want, and bear take gerundive complements that are "understood passively" (Jesperson 1927/1954:112[9.23]) and called concealed passive constructions (CPCs) (Huddleston and Pullum 2002:1429). In this paper, we argue that in English, the gerund CPC object of need is a lexically passivized V that takes a nominalizing derivational -ing affix, whereas in Korean, the CPC object of philyo is a verbal noun, directly inserted as a complement of the verb without derivation.

No abstract