Reference Point and Case

A Cognitive Grammar exploration of Korean

| University of Minnesota Duluth
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027204295 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027261960 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
This monograph answers the rarely discussed questions of why complicated grammatical case phenomena exist in Korean and what the connection is between the case forms and their functions. The author argues that the case forms in Korean reflect patterns of the human cognitive process. While this approach may seem rather obvious to non-linguists, it is indeed a novel claim in contemporary linguistic theory. In order to provide technical analyses of Korean case phenomena such as multiple nominative/accusative, non-nominative subject, and adverbial case constructions, this book adopts an independently established descriptive construct known as reference point in the framework of Cognitive Grammar. The author demonstrates that the notion of reference point not only explains a substantially wider set of data, but also leads to a more reasonable generalization. The intended readership of this book are researchers who are interested in case phenomena, irrespective of their theoretical orientation.
[Human Cognitive Processing, 68]  2019.  xx, 264 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.68
Table of Contents
List of abbreviations
xiii
List of tables
xv
List of figures
xvii–xviii
Acknowledgements
xix–xx
Chapter 1. Introduction
2–11
Chapter 2. An overview of Cognitive Grammar
13–25
Chapter 3. Multiple nominative constructions
27–56
Chapter 4. Multiple accusative constructions
57–84
Chapter 5. Non-nominative subjects and case stacking
85–110
Chapter 6. Case-marked adverbials
111–138
Chapter 7. Case and verbal nouns
139–162
Chapter 8. Subject-to-object raising
163–192
Chapter 9. Nominative-nominative stacking
191–233
Chapter 10. Conclusion
235–239
References
241–257
Index
259
“Formalist-distributionalist and cognitive-functionalist approaches to language offer complementary insights into the underlying logic of languages. Naturally, their subject matters do not usually overlap. In this comprehensive and ambitious monograph, Chongwon Park tackles the complicated distribution of case and grammatical functions in Korean, which has thus far been the playground of formalist approaches, and demonstrates how a cognitive-functional perspective on the most challenging case phenomena in the language reveals an underlying unity that a formalist inquiry can easily miss. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in learning about the wonderful intricacies of case and grammatical relations in Korean and their implications for our understanding of the human language capacity.”
“This book presents an account of a range of different case phenomena in Korean utilizing concepts from Cognitive Grammar. It provides a different perspective on these phenomena from that of purely structure-based accounts, and shows how case marking possibilities and options are determined by the way the components of a situation are conceived by the speaker and presented to the hearer. It will be of great interest and relevance to all researchers concerned with the case-marking patterns of Korean.”
“Park brings to bear simple semantic and pragmatic functions in order to elucidate Korean case-marking. The results are elegant and compelling.”
References

References

Abusch, Dorit
1994 The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2.2, 83–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, Tafseer
2006 Spatial, temporal, and structural usages of Urdu ko . Paper presented at the LFG06 Conference, University of Konstanz, Germany.Google Scholar
Ahn, Hee-Don
1991 Light Verbs, VP-movement, Negation, and Clausal Architecture in Korean and English. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Akiyama, Masahiro
2005 On the general tendency to minimize moved elements: Multiple nominative construction in Japanese and its theoretical implications. The Linguistic Review 22.1, 1–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark
1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2015 Case: Its Principles and Its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, Antonio
2002 Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 207–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Metonymy in cognitive linguistics: An analysis and a few modest proposals. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in Language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 223–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In Réka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona, and Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 7–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðal, Jóhanna
2011 Lexical vs. structural case: A false dichotomy. Morphology 21, 619–654. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Basilico, David
2003 The topic of small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 34.1, 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri and Karumuri V. Subbarao
(eds.) 2004 Non-nominative Subjects, vol. 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2004 The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative Subjects, vol. 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 77–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar and Johanna Nichols
2009 Case marking and alignment. In Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 304–321.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar and Yogendra P. Yadava
2000 A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110.5, 343–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Walter Bisang, and Yogendra P. Yadava
1999 Face vs. empathy: The social foundations of Maithili verb agreement. Linguistics 37.3, 481–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Binnick, Robert I.
2006 Aspect and aspectuality. In Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp. 244–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, Maria and Kenneth Hale
1996 The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27.1, 1–68.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
2001 Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit
1999 The form, the forming, and the formation of nominals. Unpublished manuscript. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
2003 Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In John Moore and Maria Polinsky (eds.), The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 31–67.Google Scholar
Bresnan Joan and Sam Mchombo
1995 The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13.2, 181–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broccias, Cristiano
2013 Cognitive Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 191–210Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam
1995 The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
1997 Complex predicates in Urdu. In Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 107–149.Google Scholar
2006 Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Modern approach to case: An overview. In Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 27–43.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1998 Usage-based phonology. In Michael Darnell, Edith Moravcsik, Frederick M. Newmeyer, Michael Noonan, and Kathleen Wheatley (eds.), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, vol. 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 209–240.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N.
1977 Reference to Kinds in English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Chae, Hee-Rahk
1996 Properties of ha- and light predicate constructions. Language Research 32.3, 409–476.Google Scholar
1997 Verbal nouns and light verbs in Korean. Language Research 33.4, 581–600.Google Scholar
Chae, Hee-Rahk and Ilkyu Kim
2008 A clausal predicate analysis of Korean multiple nominative constructions. Korean Journal of Linguistics 33.4, 869–900. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25–56.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary and William McGregor
1996 Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. In Hilary Chappell and William McGregor (eds.), The Grammar of Inalienability. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Sungeun
2000 Three Forms of Case Agreement in Korean. Stony Brook, NY: SUNY-Stony Brook Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee Yu and Peter Sells
1995 A lexical account of inflectional suffixes in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4.2, 119–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Choe, Hyon Sook
1986 Syntactic adjunction, A-chains, and the ECP. In Joyce McDonouh and Bernadette Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Northeast Linguistic Society, pp. 100–121.Google Scholar
1995 Focus and topic movement in Korean and licensing. In Katalin E. Kiss (ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 269–334.Google Scholar
Choe, Jae-woong
1996 -man-uy cakyongyek cwunguyseng ‘Scopal ambiguity of Korean particle -man’. Korean Journal of Linguistics 21.1, 673–692 [written in Korean].Google Scholar
Choi, Incheol and Stephen Wechsler
2001 Mixed categories and argument transfer in the Korean light verb construction. Paper presented in HPSG-2001.Google Scholar
Choi, Kyu-soo
1999  Hankwuke cwuceye-wa imcamal yenkwu ‘Studies on Topic and Subject in Korean’. Busan: Busan National University Press [written in Korean].Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1970 Remarks on nominalizations. In Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosembaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. MA: Ginn and Company, pp. 184–221.Google Scholar
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
2000 Minamalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka, and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar
2001 Derivation by phase. In Michael J. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chun, Soon Ae
1985 Possessor ascension for multiple case sentences. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics I. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 30–39.Google Scholar
COBUILD
2001 Collins Cobuild English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel and Nomi Erteschik-Shir
2002 Topic, focus, and the interpretation of bare plurals. Natural Language Semantics 10.2, 125–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
1993 The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4.4, 335–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language 71.3, 490–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft. William
2006 Reprint version of Croft 1993. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 269–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2009 Connecting frames and constructions: A case study of ‘eat’ and ‘feed’. Constructions and Frames 1.1, 7–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William and Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa
1997 Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
1985 Tense and Aspect System. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria and Edwin Williams
1987 On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, René
1999 Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 275–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark
2008 Semantic alignment systems: What’s what, and what’s not. In Mark Donohue and Søren Wichmann (eds.), The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 24–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1979 Ergativity. Language 55.1, 59–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991 Thematic protoroles and argument selection. Language 67.3, 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas
1992 The phrase structure of English negation. The Linguistic Review 9.2, 109–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
1981 More on extractability from quasi-NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 12.4, 665–670.Google Scholar
1997 The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2007 Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan
2007 A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Salt Lake City, UT: The University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green
2006 Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1994 Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, George H.
1987 The Syntax of the Genitive Case in Russian. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Fu, Jingqui, Thomas Roeper, and Hagit Borer
2001 The VP within process nominals: Evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphora do-so . Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19.3. 549–582. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk and Yves Peirsman
2011 Zones, facets, and prototype-based metonymy. In Réka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona, and Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 89–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerdts, Donna
1985 Surface case vs. grammatical relation in Korean: The evidence from quantifier floating. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics I. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 48–61.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna and Cheong Youn
1988 Korean pysch constructions: Advancement or retreat? In Diane Brentari, Gary Larson, and Lynn Macleod (eds.), Papers from the 24th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 155–175.Google Scholar
1989 Non-nominative subjects in Korean. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 235–248.Google Scholar
Gibson. Edward
1998 Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68.1, 1–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2014 The information structure of ditransitives: Informing scope properties and long-distance dependency constraints. In Stacey Katz Bourns and Lindsy L. Myers (eds.), Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context: Studies in Honor of Knud Lambrecht. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 3–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. and Farrell Ackerman
2001 The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language 77.4, 798–814. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1991 Extended projections. Ms., Waltham, MA: Brandeis University,Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester
1988 Light verbs and theta-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19.2, 205–232.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette
1985 ‘Shared knowledge’ and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics 9.1, 83–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel J. Keyser
2002 Prolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-hey and Jong-Bok Kim
2004 Are there "Double Relative Clause" in Korean?. Linguistic Inquiry 35.2, 315-337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko
1991 On head movement in Japanese: The case of verbal nouns. Proceedings of Sophia Linguistic Society 6, pp. 8–32.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1991 Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1997 Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva
2002 Word Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline
1994 Focus projection in Japanese. In Mercè Gonzàlez (ed.), Proceedings of the 24th Northeast Linguistic Society, pp. 157–172.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline and Edit Doron
2003 Categorical subjects. Gengo Kenkyuu 123, 95–135.Google Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet
2003 A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken
2002 Raising and indeterminate agreement. Paper presented at WCCFL21 .Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime
1991 Raising-to-object, ECM, and the major object in Japanese. Paper presented at the Japanese Syntax Workshop. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.Google Scholar
2005 Major object analysis of the so-called raising-to-object construction in Japanese. Paper presented at the New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Hong Soo-Min
2005 “Exceptional” Case-marking and Resultative Construction. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Hong, Ki-Sun
1990 Subject-to-object raising in Korean. In Katarzyna Dzimirek, Patrick M. Farrell, and Errapel Meijas-Bikandi (eds.), Grammatical Relations: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 215–226.Google Scholar
1991 Argument Selection and Case Marking in Korean. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
1997 Yenge-wa kwuke-uy insang kwumwun pikyo pwunsek ‘Subject-to-Object raising construction in English and Korean’. Language Research 33.3, 409–434 [Written in Korean].Google Scholar
Hong, Sungshim and Howard Lasnik
2015 A note on ‘Raising to Object’ in small clauses and full clauses. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19.3, 275–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Im, Hong-Pin
2007 Hankwuke-uy cwucey-wa thongsa pwunsek ‘discourse-pragmatic notion of topic and syntactic analyses of Korean’. Seoul: Seoul National University Press [Written in Korean].Google Scholar
Ioup, Georgette
1975 Some universals of quantifier scope. In John P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1983 Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002 Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jang, Youngjun
1998 Multiple subjects and characterization. Discourse and Cognition 5.1, 99–116.Google Scholar
Jun, Jong Sup
2003 Syntactic and Semantic Basis of Case Assignment: A Study of Verbal Nouns, Light Verbs, and Dative. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
2006 Semantic constraints on the genitive complements of verbal nouns in Korean. Language Research 42.2, 357–397.Google Scholar
Jun, Youngchul
2015 Focus, topic, and contrast. In Lucien Brown and Jaehoon Yeon (eds.), The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Wiley Blackwell, pp. 179–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kageyama, Taro
1991 Light verb constructions and the syntax-morphology interface. In Heizo Nakajima (ed.), Current English Linguistics in Japan. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 169–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kang, Young-se
1985 Korean Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1998 Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1.2, 128–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Alan Hyun-Oak
1995 Word order at the noun phrase level in Japanese: Quantifier constructions and discourse functions. In Pamela Downing and Michael Noonan (eds.), Word order in Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 199–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Bo Kyoung
2008 Information structure of case on adjuncts in Korean. In Michael Grosvald and Dionne Soares (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th WECOL, Vol 19. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Davis, pp. 93–104.Google Scholar
2009 Case Assignment on Adverbial NPs in Korean. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Kim, Jeong-Ryeol
1993 Parsing light verb constructions in Lexical Functional Grammar. Language Research, 29.4. 535–566.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok
2013 Floated numeral classifiers in Korean: A non-derivational, functional account of floating quantifiers. Lingua 133, 189–212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016a The Syntactic Structures of Korean: A Construction Grammar Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016b: A family of topic constructions in Korean: A Construction-based analysis. Language and Information 20, 1–24.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok and Inchel Choi
2004 The Korean case system: A unified constraint-based approach. Language Research 40.4, 885–921.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok, Jaehyung Yang, and Inchel Choi
2005 Capturing and parsing the mixed properties of light verb constructions in a typed feature structure grammar. In Hiroshi Masuichi, Tomoko Ohkuma, Kiyoshi Ishikawa, Yasunari Harada, and Kei Yoshimoto (eds.), Proceedings of PACLIC 18, pp. 81–92.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok, Kyung-Sup Lim, and Jaehyung Yang
2007 Structural ambiguity in the light verb constructions: Lexical relatedness and divergence. Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea 15.2. 207–231.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok and Peter Sells
2006 Case assignment in the clause on adjuncts. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics XI. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, pp. 506–519.Google Scholar
2010a On the role of the eventuality in case assignment on adjuncts. Language and Linguistics 11.3, 625–652.Google Scholar
2010b Oblique case marking on core arguments in Korean. Studies in Language 34.3, 602–635. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok, Peter Sells, and Jaehyung Yang
2007 Parsing two types of multiple nominative constructions: A constructional approach. Language and Information 11, 25–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyumin
2013 Non-locative syntax of locative experiencers. Ms., University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Kim, Soowon and Joan Maling
1993 Syntactic case and frequency adverbials in Korean. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics V. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, pp. 368–378.Google Scholar
Kim, Young-Hee
1978 Kyepcwuelon ‘On multiple subject constructions’. Hangul 162, 39–75.Google Scholar
Kim, Young-joo
1990 The Syntax and Semantics of Korean Case: The Interaction between Lexical and Syntactic Levels of Representation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1998 Partitive case and aspect. In Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Argument: Lexical Compositional Factors. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 265–307.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2002 Remarks on the basic transitive sentence. Language Sciences 24.2, 107–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Remarks on involuntary agent construction. Word 56.3, 381–419. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klaiman, M. H.
1980 Bengali dative subject. Lingua 51.4, 275–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, Robert
1992 Deriving island constraints. In Helen Goodluck and Michael S. Rochemnot (eds.), Island Constraint. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 222–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda
2005 Korean (and Japanese) morphology from a syntactic perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 36.4, 601–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jacklin and Omer Preminger
2015 Nominative as no case at all: All argument from raising-to-ACC in Sakha. In Andrew Joseph and Esra Predolac (eds.), 9th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, pp. 109–208. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán
2002 Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010 Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán and Günter Radden
1998 Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9.1. 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1998 Scope or pseudo-scope: Are there wide scope indefinites? In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 163–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In Jacqueline Guéron and Alexander Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 389–423.Google Scholar
Kumashiro, Toshiyuki
2000 The Conceptual Basis of Grammar: A Cognitive Approach to Japanese Clausal Structure. Sand Diego, CA: UCSD Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
2016 A Cognitive Grammar of Japanese Clause Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kumashiro, Toshiyuki and Ronald W. Langacker
2003 Double-subject and complex predicate constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 14.1, 1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1973 The Structure of Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1976 Subject raising. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Japanese Generative Grammar. New York: Academic Press, pp. 17-49.Google Scholar
1987 Functional Syntax. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susume
1991 Remarks on quantifier scope. In Heizo Nakajima (ed.), Current English Linguistics in Japan. New York: Mouton, pp. 261–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-yuki
1972 The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9.2, 153–185.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki
1988 Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In William Poser (ed.), Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 103–142.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1964 The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William
1994 Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Mandy Harvey and Lynn Santelmann (eds.), Proceedings of SALT-IV, Cornell University: CLC Publications, pp. 220–229.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999 Philosophy in the Flash: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lambert, Silke
2010 Beyond Recipients: Towards a Typology of Dative Uses. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1984 Active zones. In Claudia Brugman and Monica Macaulay (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10, pp. 172–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1993 Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4.1, 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Grammatical traces of some ‘invisible’ semantic constructions. Language Sciences 15.4, 323–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 Raising and transparency. Language 71.1, 1–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 Constituency, dependency and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8.1, 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2004a Form, meaning and behavior: The Cognitive Grammar analysis of double subject constructions. In Ellen Contini-Morava, Robert Kirsner and Betsy Rodriguez-Bachiller (eds.), Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 21–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004b Metonymy in Grammar. Journal of Foreign Languages 27, 2–24.Google Scholar
2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 On the subject of impersonals. In Mario Brdar, Stefan Th. Gries, and Milena Žic Fuchs, Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 179–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lapointe, Steve
1980 A Theory of Grammatical Agreement. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Ph.D. Dissertation.Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin
2011 Genericity and topicality: Towards dynamic genericity. Journal of Language Sciences 18.1, 233–251.Google Scholar
Lee, EunHee
2017 Case alternation in duration and frequency adverbials in Korean: A semantic-pragmatic explanation. Lingua 189-190, 1-18.Google Scholar
Lee, Eun-Ji
1990 Exceptional case marking in Korean. In T. Green and S. Uziel (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 12, 113–127.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung
2015 Case particle ellipsis. In Lucien Brown and Jaehoon Yeon (eds.), The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Wiley Blackwell, pp. 196–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hayng-cheon
2007 -na, -to, -man ‘Korean particles -na, -do, -man’. Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea 47, 139–157 [Written in Korean].Google Scholar
Lee, Jeong-Shik
1992 Case alternation in Korean: Case minimality. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Lee, Pir Young
1992 Wanhyeng pomwun-eyse-uy cwue insang-ey tayhaye ‘On subject raising from closed complements’. Swulyen Emwun Noncip ‘Swulyen Studies in Language and Literature’ 19, 139–171 [Written in Korean].Google Scholar
Lee, Seong-yong
2007 Two subject positions in multiple nominative constructions. Journal of Language Sciences 14.2, 239–262.Google Scholar
Lee, Youngjoo
2005 Exhaustivity as agreement: The case of Korean man ‘only’. Natural Language Semantics 13.2, 169–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert
1960 The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Levin Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav
1995 Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Theodore
2017 Successive-cyclic case assignment: Korean nominative-nominative case-stacking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35.2, 447–498. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Yafei
1990 X0-binding and verb incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry 21.3, 399–426.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle
1980 On the Organization of the Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
1992 Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, Jeannette
2015 Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought, and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Dong-Hoon
1997 Icwung cwuemun-uy thongsa kwuco ‘The syntactic structure of double subject constructions’. Hankwuk hakpo ‘Korean Journal’ 19, 31–64.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
2009 Case in Cognitive Grammar. In Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 136–150.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2008 Split infinitives, experiencer objects, and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (Re-)establishing the connection. In Mark Donohue and Søren Wichmann (eds.), The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 76–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan
1989 Adverbials and structural case in Korean. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing. pp. 297–308.Google Scholar
1993 Of nominative and accusative: The hierarchical assignment of grammatical case in Finnish. In Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 49–74.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan and Soowon Kim
1992 Case assignment in the inalienable possession construction in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1.1, 37–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan, Jong Sup Jun, and Soowon Kim
2001 Case-marking on duration adverbials revisited. In Hee-Don Ahn and Namkil Kim (eds.), Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference of Korean Linguistics. Seoul: Kyungjin Mwunhwasa, pp. 323–335.Google Scholar
Malouf, Robert
1998 Mixed Categories in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher
1993 Analyzing the verbal noun: Internal and external constraints. In Soonja Choi (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 236–253.Google Scholar
Manova, Stela and Mark Aronoff
2010 Modeling affix order. Morphology 20, 109–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1991 Case and licensing. In German Wesphal, Benjamin Ao, and Hee-Rahk Chae (eds.), Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 1991 (ESCOL) Vol 8. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, pp. 234–253.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel
1992 A Reference Grammar of Korean. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo
1992 On the Wordhood of Complex Predicates in Japanese. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
McKoon, Gail and Talke Macfarland
2000 Externally and internally caused change of state verbs. Language 76.4, 833–858. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A.
2004 Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15.1, 1–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura and Michelle Gregory
2001 Topicalization and left dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33.11, 1665–1706. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, Mithilesh
1990 Dative/experiencer subjects in Maithili. In Manindra K. Verma and Tara Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, PP. 105–117.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2008 The emergence of agentive systems in core argument marking. In Mark Donohue and Søren Wichmann (eds.), The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, PP. 297–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
1989 Light verbs and the ergative hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 20.4, 659–668.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Tara
1997 Multidimensionality of representation: NV complex predicates in Hindi. In Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 431–471.Google Scholar
Naess, Ashild
2007 Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad and Hans van de Koot
2006 Syntactic haplology. In Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 685–710. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick
1998 Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael
1992 A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, William
1991 Categories and Case: The Sentence Structure of Korean. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 On the status of ha-ta in multiple complement structures. Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, pp. 531–544.Google Scholar
1998 Korean case: A computational approach. Keynote Paper presented at the 11th International Circle of Korean Linguistics Meeting. Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Oka, Toshifusa
1988 Abstract case and empty pronouns. Tsukuba English Studies 7, 187–227.Google Scholar
Pak, Miok
2001 Verbal nouns in Korean: Categorically unspecified lexical roots. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics IX. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, pp. 517–531.Google Scholar
Panther, Kalus-Uwe and Günter Radden
(eds.) 1999 Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg
1999 The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 337–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 279–319.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita
2004 Where does metonymy stop?: Senses, facets, and active zone. Metaphor and Symbol 19.4, 245–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change. In Réka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona, and Francisco Jose Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Toward a Consensus View. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp 61-88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Park, Byung-soo
2001 Constraints on multiple nominative constructions in Korean: A constraint-based lexicalist approach. The Journal of Linguistic Science 20, 147–190.Google Scholar
Park, Chongwon
2009 (Inter)subjectification and Korean honorifics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11.1, 122–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 The role of metonymy in the interpretation of Korean multiple subject constructions. Language Sciences 33.1, 206–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013a Metonymy in grammar: Korean multiple object constructions, Functions of Language 20.1, 1–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b Setting and location: Case-marked adverbials in Korean, Constructions and Frames 5.2, 190–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013c Nominal and clausal grounding of Korean verbal nouns, Linguistics 51.6, 1361–1395. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Reference point and blending in Korean non-nominative subject constructions. Studies in Language 38.4, 717–751. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Park, Chongwon and Bridget E. Park
2017 Cognitive Grammar and English nominalization: Event/result nominals and gerundives. Cognitive Linguistics 28.4, 711–756.Google Scholar
Park, Chongwon and Sook-kyung Lee
2009 The evolution of Korean datives: Its formal and functional motivations. Language Research 45.2, 283–318.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Yves and Dirk Geeraerts
2006 Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics 17.3, 269–316.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya
2000 On accusative adverbials in Russian and Finnish. In Artemis Alexiadou and Peter Svenonius (eds.), Adverbs and Adjunction. Potsdam: Universitätsbibliothek Publikationsstelle, pp. 155–176Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven
1999 Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. London: Phenix.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
(ed.) 1995 Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989 Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 26.2, 277–325.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul
2002, Topicality and (non-)specificity in Mandarin. Journal of Semantics 19.3, 275–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perminger, Omer
2011 Agreement as a Fallible Operation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer
2014 Agreement and Its Failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam
1999 Adjuncts as complements: Evidence from case assignment. In Gert Webelhuth, Jean-Pierre Koenig, and Andreas Kathol (eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 231–245.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina
2008 Argument Introducers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randloph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter and Zoltán Kövecses
1999 Towards a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 17–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, Günter and René Dirven
2007 Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1997 Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20.4, 335–397. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Robert J.
1967 Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan
2004 Predicates and their Subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, E.
1915  Synsoplevede Figurer: Studier i psykologisk Analyse. Første Del ‘Visually experienced figures: Studies in psychological analysis. Part one’. Copenhagen and Christiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2011 Metonymy and cognitive operations. In Réka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona, and Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Toward a Consensus View. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 103–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saeed, John I.
2008 Semantics. (3rd Edition) Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru
1983 Comments on the papers in generative syntax. In Yukio Otsu, Henk van Riemsdijk, Kazuko Inoue, Akio Kamio, and Noriko Kawasaki (eds.), Studies in Generative Grammar and Language Acquisition. Tokyo: International Christian University, pp. 79–89.Google Scholar
1985 Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
2002 Recent activity in the theory of aspect: accomplishments, achievements, or just non-progressive state? Linguistic Typology 6.2, 199–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sato, Yutaka
1993 Complex Predicate Formation with Verbal Nouns in Japanese and Korean: Argument Transfer at LF. Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
2008 A phonologically null copula functioning as a light verb in Japanese. In Mutsuko Endo Hudson, Peter Sells, and Sun-Ah Jun (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 13. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 207–217.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T.
1996 Korean ‘case stacking’ isn’t: Unifying noncase uses of case particles. In Carson Schütze (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 26. Amherst, MA: GLSA publications, pp. 351–165.Google Scholar
2001 On Korean ‘case stacking’: The varied functions of the particles ka and lul . The Linguistic Review 18.3, 193–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob
1983 Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth
1982 The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter
1990 Is there Subject-to-Object raising in Japanese? In Katarzyna Dzimirek, Patrick M. Farrell, and Errapel Meijas-Bikandi (eds.), Grammatical Relations: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 445–458.Google Scholar
1995a Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexical perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 26.2, 277–325.Google Scholar
1995b The category and case marking properties of verbal nouns in Korean. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics VI. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, pp. 370–386.Google Scholar
1996 Optimality and economy of expression in Korean and Japanese. Paper presented at the Japanese/Korean Linguistics, UCLA.Google Scholar
1997 Positional constraints and faithfulness in morphology. In Susumu Kuno et al. (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics VII. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 488–503.Google Scholar
Seto, Ken-ichi
1999 Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 91–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1990 The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1999 Dative subject constructions twenty-two years later. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29.2, 45–76.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldor Armann
1989 Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Smith, Miachel
1985 An analysis of German dummy subject constructions. In Scott DeLancey and Russell S. Tomlin (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference 1, pp. 412–425.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min
1999 The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung
1995 The organization and document construction in Korean: A relational analysis. Linguistics 33.6, 763–808.Google Scholar
2011 There’s more than “more animate”. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi, and Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, Animacy, and Semantic Roles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 183–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Song, Jae-Gyun
1994 Clause-embedding Verbs and the Interpretation of wh in-situ. Austin, TX: University of Texas Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominuque
1998 Atoms and Partitions of Clause Structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark
1985 Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language 61.3, 523–568. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 The Syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan
1977 On being possessed. In Kenneth Whistler, Robert D. Van Valin, Jr., Chris Chiarello, Jeri J. Jaeger, Miriam Patrick, Henry Thompson, Ronya Javkin, and Anthony Woodbury (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 3, 114–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter F.
1964 Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 30.2, 96–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subbarao, Karumuri V.
2001 Agreement in South Asian languages and the minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2001. London: Sage, pp. 457–492.Google Scholar
Sullivan, William
1998 Space and Time in Russian: A Description of the Locus Prepositions of Russian. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji
2003 Nominative objects as proleptic objects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21.4, 779–834. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1972 Semantic Structures in English and Atsugewi. Berkeley, CA: University of California Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
1983 How language structures space. In Herbert L. Pick and Linda P. Acredolo (eds.), Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 225–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985 Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3, Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–149.Google Scholar
2000 Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1, Concept Structuring Systems . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Hidekazu
2002 Raising to objects out of CP. Linguistic Inquiry 33.4, 637–652. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John
1996 Possessives in English: An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002 Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003 Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Terada, Michiko
1990 Incorporation and Argument Structure in Japanese. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff
2004 Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd Edition). Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
1992 First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi and Chang-Yong Sim
2005 Event structure of inalienable possession in Korean. In Sudha Arunachalam, Tatjana Scheffler, Sandhya Sundaresan, and Joshua Tauberer (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual Penn linguistics colloquium, pp. 279–292.Google Scholar
2007 The event semantic root of inalienable possession. Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Uchida, Yoshiko and Mineharu Nakayama
1993 Japanese verbal noun constructions. Linguistics 31.4, 623–666. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki
1999 Checking theory and dative constructions in Japanese and Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8.3, 223–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan
2004 Spell-Out Consequences. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Urushibara, Saeko
1991 -ey/-eykey: A postposition or a case marker? In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics IV, Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 421–432.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, Reiko
2005 Possessive and adjunct multiple nominative constructions in Japanese. Lingua 115.10, 1329–1363. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen and Yae-Sheik Lee
1996 The domain of direct case assignment. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14.3, 629–664. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Søren
2008 The study of semantic alignment: Retrospect and state of the art. In Mark Donohue and Søren Wichmann (eds.), The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1988 The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009 Case in NSM: A reanalysis of the Polish dative. In Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 151–169.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen
2006 Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37.1, 111–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yadava, Yogendra P.
2004 Non-nominative subjects in Maithili. In Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative Subjects, vol. 2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 253–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yang, In-Seok
1972 Korean Syntax: Case Marking, Delimiters, Complementation and Relativization. Seoul: Paek Hap Sa.Google Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon
1999 A cognitive account of the constraints on possessor-ascension constructions. Language Research 35.2, 211–230.Google Scholar
2003 Korean Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. London: Saffron.Google Scholar
2010 Constraints on double-accusative external possession constructions in Korean: A cognitive approach. In Jaehoon Yeon and Jieun Klaer (eds.), Selected Papers from the 2nd European Conference on Korean Linguistics (Lincom studies in Asian linguistics). Munchen: Lincom Europa, pp. 188–201.Google Scholar
Yi, Nam-Soon
1988  Kwuke-uy pwucengkyek-kwa kyekphyoci saynglyak ‘A Study on the Indefinite Case and Case-marker ellipsis in Korean’. Seoul: Top Press [Written in Korean].Google Scholar
Yip, Moria, Joan Maling, and Ray Jackendoff
1987 Case in tiers. Language 63.2, 217–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, James H.
1986 Some queries concerning the syntax of MNCs in Korean. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 16, 215–236.Google Scholar
1987 Some queries concerning the syntax of multiple nominative constructions in Korean. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics II. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 138–162.Google Scholar
1989 The grammar of inalienable possession constructions in Korean, Mandarin, and French. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 357–368.Google Scholar
1990 Theta theory and the grammar of inalienable possession constructions. In Juli Carter (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Meeting of the Northeast Linguistic Society, pp. 502–516.Google Scholar
1991 Theta operations and the syntax of multiple complement constructions in Korean. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics IV. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 433–446.Google Scholar
1995 Nominal, verbal, and cross-categorial affixation in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4.4, 325–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 Ambiguity of government and chain condition. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14.1, 105–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Multiple (identical) case constructions: A case study focusing on inalienable possession type multiple accusative constructions. LSA Lecture Notes. Unpublished manuscript. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
2004a Non-nominative subjects and case stacking in Korean. In Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 265–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004b The independence of grammatical case from interpretive factors. Paper presented at the 2004 Linguistic Society of Korea International Conference, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
2005 Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean. In Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordonez (eds.), Clitic and Affix Combinations: Theoretical Perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 239–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Raising of major arguments in Korean and Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25.3, 615–653. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 The distribution of subject properties in MNCs. In Yukinori Takubo, Tomohide Kinuhata, Szymon Grzelak, and Kayo Nagai (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 64–83.Google Scholar
2015 Double nominative and double accusative constructions. In Lucien Brown and Jaehoon Yeon (eds.), The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Wiley Blackwell, pp. 79–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, James H. and Chongwon Park
2008 Process nominals and morphological complexity. In Mutsuko Endo Hudson, Peter Sells, and Sun-Ah Jun (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 13. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 231–242.Google Scholar
Yoon, Jeong-Me
1989 ECM and multiple subject constructions in Korean. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 369–381.Google Scholar
1997 The argument structure of relational nouns and inalienable possessor constructions in Korean. Language Research 33.2, 231–264.Google Scholar
2009 Aspect and agentivity in Korean multiple subject constructions. Studies in Generative Grammar 19, 211–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Double relativization in Korean – An explanation based on the processing approach to island effects. Korean Journal of Linguistics 36, 133–169.Google Scholar
2015 Constructions sharing similar restrictions with MSCs in Korean and the processing approach to island effects. Studies in Generative Grammar 25, 377–411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Youn, Cheong
1990 A Relational Analysis of Korean Multiple Nominative Constructions. Buffalo, NY: SUNY-Buffalo Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Höskuldur Thráinsson
1985 Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3.4, 441–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan
2007 Spatial Semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts and Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 318–350.Google Scholar
Subjects

Linguistics

Syntax
Cognition and language
Theoretical linguistics
Cognitive linguistics
Semantics
BIC Subject: CF/2GK – Linguistics/Korean
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2019036977 | Marc record