Negation in Let Imperatives in English and Key-ha-la Imperatives in Korean

The primary goal of this paper is to provide a syntactic account for the difference between let imperatives in English and the Korean equivalent constructions, namely key-ha-la imperatives, in how they are negated with sentential negation. Specifically, the paper focuses on the hitherto neglected fact that sentential negation in English let imperatives can only target the entire sentence, while sentential negation in Korean key-ha-la imperatives can negate either the entire sentence or the base predicate dominated by key-ha 'let.' Answering where this cross-linguistic difference comes from, we argue that the verb let in the English let imperatives takes a small clause, lacking TP, an essential element for licensing sentential negation, while key-ha 'let' in the Korean equivalent selects for TP. Given this difference in the structural make-up, we show that the contrast between the two constructions in the scope of sentential negation can be captured by Zanuttini's (1996) generalization that licensing of sentential negation is contingent upon the existence of TP.