초록 열기/닫기 버튼
This paper is primarily concerned with the licensing of that-less complement clauses of nominals. In particular, the present study is purposed to answer the question why a null complementizer(NC) is not allowed with nominals while it is with verbs. In pursuit of an answer to the question the relationship between predicate raising and the presence/absence of NC is examined. This paper proposes a solution to the problem in terms of n to N (and to D) raising. The present study also deals with another interesting relationship between predicate raising and the presence/absence of NC with respect to the that-t effect and suggests that the alleged complementizer in Korean may not be a complementizer in a regular sense.
