Checking Theory and the Dative Subject Constructions in Japanese and Korean

hiroyuki ura

Goes over how dative constructions display subjecthood, and also how in some respects they do not seem to be subjects.

He (or she?) refers to Chomsky often. He never conclusively says whether or not dative subject constructions are really dative subjects or not.

Korean dative experiencers: The evidence for their status as surface subjects

gerdts and youn respond back to moore and perlmutter. They say that the Korean data does not yield the same result as Russian. They say that Korean datives obey all 5 tests for subjecthood.

What does it take to be a dative subject?

In response to gerdts & youn, Moore and Perlmutter said that there are two datives that linguists have been confusing: “the surface subject is the dative case” and “dative-marked nominal” that behaves like a subject but really isn’t one. They call the second type I-nominals and they fail to behave like subjects. They analyze Russian.

Korean Psych Constructions: Advancement or retreat?

Gerdts and Youn said that “Advancement—not Retreat—is the preferred analysis of Korean Psych constructions.”