A Comparative Study Of Nominal Clauses Between English And Korean

The study of nominal clauses has long been one of the major topics in TG Theory. Based on Chomsky's Universal Grammar and by using general theory and the method of comparative linguistics, this paper not only compares and analyzes the nominal clauses between English and Korean, but also discusses their similarities and differences from structural and semantic aspects.In this paper, we will discuss the following two points.First, while comparing the structural features of nominal clauses between English and Korean , we found these following similarities and differences: (1) both English and Korean finite nominal clauses are CPs. The difference between them is: while all Korean finite nominal clauses are overt CPs, English finite nominal clauses can be both overt and covert CPs; (2)both English and Korean non-finite nominal clauses are IPs by their nature, which there is usually a covert subject in clausal subject position, and we consider it as PRO in English and pro in Korean. Among English non-finite nominal clauses, infinitival clauses which introduced by for, whether and wh-words are CPs.Second, while comparing the restrictive relationship between the matrix clauses and the embedded clauses from the structural, semantic and tense views, we also found theses following similarities and differences: (1) the relationship between the subject of matrix clauses and the subject of embedded clauses: based on the semantic features, there is a kind of restrictions between them: in subject clauses, while the subject of matrix clause has the [+PROPOSITION] semantic feature, there is no semantic restrictions on the subject of embedded clauses; in object clauses, while the subject of matrix clauses has the [+ANIMATE] semantic feature, there is no semantic restrictions on the subject of embedded clauses. Also, according to the referential meaning between the subject of matrix clauses and the subject of object clauses, we found that the subject of English nominal clauses can not be anaphors since anaphors in English must strictly comply with the Locality Condition, while the subject of Korean nominal clauses can be the anaphor——"cagi", which comply with Long Distance Binding. (2) the relationship between clausal predicate and the matrix clausal predicate: from the structural view of point, there is no structural restrictions on the verb forms between that of matrix clauses and that of embedded clauses; from the tense view of point, the standard of sequence of tense ( SOT) between the tenses in the matrix clauses and that of the embedded clauses both in English and Korean nominal clauses can not be structural SOT, but semantic SOT, which requires that the matrix clausal time and the embedded clausal time must be the same from the referential point of time.