That-절의 격 인허

Case-licensing of that-clause

The purpose of this paper is to consider how Case of that-clause can be licensed. Under the Government-Binding Theory, Stowell (1981) proposes Case Resistance Principle that Case of that-clause need not be licensed, As a result, that-clause should move to the position in which Case is not licensed: the trace of that-clause is Case-licensed instead. However, There are some problems with his analysis. One of them is that the trace of that-clause should not have any properties of that-clause. In spite of the weak point of the analysis, Alrenga (2005) claims that that-clause is base-generated in the Topic Position TP, which means that that-clause has nothing to do with Case-licensing. Using the subcategorization of the verb, he maintains that the distribution of that-clause depends on the distribution of the Determiner Phrase DP. On the basis of the fact, he suggests the structure of the sentence including that-clause in which that-clause is base-generated in the TP, and this TP controls or binds DP in the Spec of IP. However such his claim weakens by the sentences in which that-clause is base-generated in the Case-licensed position, say, the Spec of IP. Besides, it is questionable whether that-clauses occurring in the complement position of the transitive verb and in the complement position of the preposition can be applied to his analysis. Adopting and adapting Alrenga s (2005) analysis, this paper proposes how and where Case of that-clause can be licensed; while that-clause occurring in the same position as DP should be Case-licensed, that-clause occurring in the different position as DP should not be Casse-licensed. In other words, this paper shows that that-clause occurs in the sentence in two ways: One is that it is distributed in the position of DP and the Other is that it is not distributed in the position of DP. Based on the discussion we made so far, this paper claims that in the case of the former, that-clause can be Case-licensed as DP can. In the case of the latter, that-clause cannot be Case-licensed because this that-cluase does not occur in the same position as DP. Lastly, it is observed how Noun Clause in Korean can be Case-licensed. When Noun Clause occurs in the sentence, the Noun Clause is transformed into the noun-shaped clause unlike that (especially, that-clause) in English. This means that Noun Clause in Korean dose not behave as that in English.