Quantifier floating (Q-floating) displays interesting asymmetries in English. First of all, there is a subject/object asymmetry. The subject permits Q-floating, whereas the object does not. However, if the object is followed by a predicative constituent, Q-floating can be permitted. In this case, there is another subject/object asymmetry. If the object is followed by a constituent that bears a predication relation with it, Q-floating is permitted, If, on the other hand, the object is accompanied by a constituent that bears a predication relation with the subject, Q-floating is not permitted. This paper shows that the various types of asymmetries follow if (i) Q-floating is licensed when A-movement takes place (Sportiche 1988), (ii) object can move to SPEC-V (Chomsky (2008, 2013, 2015), but in simple transitive constructions raising of the object to SPEC-V is prohibited by an anti-locality condition, and (iii) the movement theory of control is correct (Hornstein 1999, 2001).

The aim of this paper is to show that raising and object shift of the verbal noun are determined by agentivity and stativity of the verbal noun. The functional head ν is related to the agentive role of the subject and the transitivity of the verb (cf. Jung 2003). In Chomsky`s (1995) conception, ν is the light verb to which V overtly raises. In this vein, following Ahn (2002) and Jung (2003), we suggest that ha occupies the functional head ν, which means that it is a realization of ν. We also claim that it is the [+agentive] feature rather than the [-stative] feature of the verbal noun and the so-called light verb ha `do` that induces 0s of the verbal noun with (l)ul in the ha-construction. We further show that the verbal noun on L (i.e.. here, neutral head) undergoes raising to ha on ν at S-structure (cf. Ahn 1991), which is due to the morpho-syntactic property of ha on ν (cf. Pesetsky 1989, Ahn 2002).

This paper develops an argument for the M-merger of Movement based on consideration of Holmberg`s Generalization[HG], well-documented constraint on object shift in the Scandinavian language. Assumed head-movement and phrasal movement are the same thing, Head undergoes movement to SPEC of XP in a same way as XP does. From the SPEC of XP, it is argued that head-merging operation called M-Merger happens. If Object is placed in the SPEC of XP, objects also undergo head-merging operation with verbs under rich morphological formations such as Icelandic full DP or Weak pronouns in mainland scandinavian. This operation assumed to be a morphological process showing a different pattern to that of syntax, which gives the reason why object shift shows the mixed nature in syntactic phenomena. It is argued also that the characterization of HG presented here can be explained in terms of M-Merger.

Ji - Eun Kim. 2002 . T rans lation of body part s ' nouns from Kore an into French in the NP Object . S t ud ie s in M od e rn Gramma r 27, 197 - 225 . This paper investigates the nouns of body part s in Korean that are translated as an NP object in French (These Korean Nouns are abbreviated below as 'Npcrul' ). My discussion centers on describing two things: (a) What grammatical functions in French perform when describing the person of 'Npcrul' . (b) What are linguistic factors by which 'Npcrul' s are translated in French, when they are preceded by one of the three articles : the indefinite article (un Npc), the definite article (le Npc) and possessive article (son Npc).

Kim Dongseok. 1997. Case Checking in Double Object Construction. Studies in Modern Grammatical Theories 10: 21-96. This paper critically reviews Larson`s(1988) and Fujita`s(1996) analyses of double object construction, and proposes an alternative one that can effectively explain the asymmetries shown in dative and double object constructions. The major contents are summarized as follows: (a) In dative construction the argument assigned the role of Goal is not a complement of V but an argument merged with V`. (b) The thematic role of indirect object in double object construction is different from that of dative construction. The former assumes Benefactive or Affective, while the latter, Goal. (c) The verb in dative construction and the corresponding one in double object construction are separate lexical items that have the same phonological features but are different in their semantic and formal features. The former selects Theme and Goal as its internal arguments while the latter selects Theme and Benefactive, Experiencer or Affective. (d) The difference in thematic interpretation of the subjects in dative and double object constructions is not from the syntactic relation but from the difference in the properties of semantic selection of the verbs. (e) Indirect object of double object construction moves to the SPEC of V to satisfy the [+SPEC] feature of V. The movement is not for Case assignment or checking of Case feature.