PANTALLA UTILITIES

In this Section, I examine the function of FOCAL Stress in adnominal modifiers, and what drives the movement of non-restrictive adnominal modifiers into the pre­ determiner position.

In Sections 3.1 and 3.2 above, we noticed that the restrictive adnominal modifier (RAM) remains in situ and has FOCUS (Focal stress) while the non-restrictive adnominal modifier (NAM) does not have Focal stress, and moves out of its base­ generated position, and raises to the pre-determiner position. The movement of the NAM takes places in overt syntax for Korean and in LF for English. I identify FOCAL stress with a FOCUS feature. Based on this, I claim that the [Spec,AgrP] is the FOCUS position and therefore the de-focused adnominal modifier should move out of the focus position to [Spec,DP].

Concerning the movement of non-restrictive relative clauses (NRCs) or adjectives (NAs), I propose that the NAM is assigned a NON-FOCUS feature which triggers its syntactic movement from [Spec,AgrP] to [Spec,DP]. Notice that when the adnominal modifier does not have FOCAL stress, it appears out of the scope of the determiner, as seen in (6)-(15). As seen in Section 3.3.2, Kayne (1994) claims that the non-restrictive RC should get out of the scope of the determiner. It is my argument that the restrictive modifier has a FOCUS feature and remains in [Spec,AgrP] while the non-restrictive modifier has a NON-FOCUS feature and moves to [Spec,DP].

I assume that DP and MP (or IP) have parallel properties concerning FOCUS and NON-FOCUS, as seen in 2.1. Both [Spec,DP] and [Spec,MP] are the positions where the NON-FOCUSed element can appear; in contrast, [Spec,AgrP] in the DP-structure

and [Spec,AgrsP] in the IP-structure are assumed to be FOCUS positions, as illustrated in (48). (48) a. DP Spec [NON-FOCUS] D" D ’ Spec [FOCUS] AgrP b. MP Spec [NON-FOCUS] Spec [FOCUS] Agrs AgroP

With this background in mind, let us turn to the case of Korean RCs and their syntactic structures, as illustrated in (49) and (50), respectively.

(49) a. Ku nay-ka salangha-n yeca the I-Nom love-AM woman ‘the woman whom I loved’

b. Nay-ka salangha-n ku yeca I-Nom love-AM the woman

(50) a.

D AgrP

ku RC [FOCUS]

nay-ka salanghan Agr" NP N“ Agr" N ’ yeca. RC, [NON-FOCUS] D’ nay-ka salanghan ku Spec W Agr° N ’

In Korean an RC is base-generated in [Spec,AgrP]. An RRC having a FOCUS feature remains in [Spec,AgrP]; an NRC having a NON-FOCUS feature moves further to [Spec,DP] to check its [NON-FOCUS]^^ and to receive a non-restrictive interpretation, as illustrated in (50) above.

If I am on the right track, my argument is consistent with the minimalist framework (Chomsky 1995) in which movement is characterised as having

McConvell (1973) describes and analyses NRCs in Hausa as '(right-dislocated) topics’ which are marked off from the rest of the sentence by a pause. The NON-FOCUS feature may equivalently be called TOPIC feature.

morphological reasons. I propose that a [NON-FOCUS] f e a t u r e i s assigned to the determiner D°, and, if assigned, then the determiner bearing this [NON-FOCUS] feature attracts an RC or pre-nominal adjective having a [NON-FOCUS] feature into [Spec,DP] to check and delete its [NON-FOCUS] feature, resulting in the movement of the whole RC or the adjective into [Spec,DP].

The argument that the restrictive modifier has a FOCUS feature and the non- restrictive one has a NON-FOCUS feature is supported by Jaggar (1997). He notes that the restrictive relative clause in Hausa, an Afroasiatic language, has only the FOCUS form of INFL while the non-restrictive relative clause has either the FOCUS or NON-FOCUS form. That is, the NON-FOCUS feature is related only to the NRCs and never to the RRCs.

Jaggar (1997)^^ argues that the FOCUSiNON-FOCUS behaviour is attributable to the fact that, unlike RRCs, NRCs do not uniquely restrict/defme/identify their antecedents. NRCs do not restrict the reference set for the head nominal that they modify, but merely add a piece of information. With respect to the FOCUS :NON- FOCUS distinction in RCs, Jaggar (1997) says:

This NON-FOCUS feature in Korean is assumed to be strong and [-Interprretable] and therefore should be checked and deleted before Spell-Out.

Parsons (1981) was the first to recognise that there is a formal distinction between Restrictive and Non-restrictive RCs in Hausa. He proposes that one syntactic property distinguishing the two RC-types was that the NON-FOCUS form of INFL as well as the FOCUS form of INFL can be made use of in Non-restrictive RCs; in contrast, RRCs exploits only the FOCUS form of INFL.

“Since NRCs do not have the specifying power of RRCs, NRCs license a wider range of tense-aspect options. In NRCs, some speakers permit either the FOCUS form of the INFL as occurs in RRCs, or the NON-FOCUS form of the INFL as an alternative. Notice that if the RC is semantically restrictive, the INFL must take the FOCUS form, not the NON-FOCUS from. Any explanation of the distribution and increased acceptability of the NON-FOCUS INFL in NRCs must refer to semantic (and not simply formal) factors. According to Schuh (1985), the choice of the specific/presuppositional FOCUS form in narrative discourse is attributable to the semantic fact that the speaker has a specific time and /or place in mind when the actualised event took place, and also presupposes that the hearer shares this assumption. Use of the definite/specific FOCUS form acts to narrow down the temporality of the single, actualised events of the historical narrative, all of which have a clear and specific end result.”

To sum up, the FOCUS feature of RCs is closely related to the RRC and the NON-FOCUS is tied to the NRC.