Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:4 (2014) ► pp.717–751

Reference-point and blending in Korean non-nominative subject constructions

| University of Minnesota Duluth

This article examines three types of Korean constructions: case stacking and two types of non-nominative subject constructions. Relying on an independently established descriptive construct known as reference-point, I argue that the complex forms of these constructions reflect their meanings and functions. I further argue that the reference-point-based analysis of these constructions offers a unified account of a substantial range of phenomena when it is combined with the notion of conceptual and constructional blending. In providing technical analyses of the phenomena, I adopt the Cognitive Grammar (CG) framework. To justify the choice of the theoretical framework of my analysis, I examine the crucial role of spatial semantics in the said constructions, which is viewed as the primary factor underlying the distribution of case marking in CG. I then demonstrate that my CG-based analysis yields a natural explanation of the constructions both intuitively and theoretically.

Keywords: Korean, blending, non-nominative subject, Cognitive Grammar (CG), reference-point
Published online: 8 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.4.03par
References
Ahmed, Tafseer
2006 Spatial, temporal, and structural usages of Urdu ko . Paper presented at the LFG06 Conference, University of Konstanz, Germany.
Bhaskararao, Peri & Karumuri V. Subbarao
2004 Non-nominative subjects, vol. 11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2004 The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Bhaskararao, Peri & Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol.11, 77–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Walter Bisang & Yogendra P. Yadava
1999 Face vs. empathy: the social foundations of Maithili verb agreement. Linguistics 37(3). 481–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Yogendra P. Yadava
2000 A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110(5). 343–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols
2009 Case marking and alignment. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 304–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J
2001 Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam
2009 Modern approach to case: An overview. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 27–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Choe, Hyon Sook
1995 Focus and topic movement in Korean and licensing. In Katalin E. Kiss (ed.), Discourse configurational languages, 269–334. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donahue, Mark
2008 Semantic alignment systems: What’s what, and what’s not. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 24–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
1997 The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan
2007 A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerdts, Donna & Cheong Youn
1988 Korean psych constructions: Advancement or retreat?, Papers from the 24 th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society , 155–175. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
1989 Non-nominative subjects in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics IV1, 249–268.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E
1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2002 Word Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hong, Ki-Sun
1991 Argument selection and case marking in Korean. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Peter Sells
2010 Oblique case marking on core arguments in Korean. Studies in Language 34(3). 602–635. DOI logoGoogle 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 dissertation.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2002 Remarks on the basic transitive sentence. Language Sciences 24(2). 107–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaiman, M.H
1980 Begali dative subject. Lingua 51(4). 275–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kumashiro, Toshiyuki & Ronald W. Langacker
2003 Double-subject and complex predicate constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 14(1). 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, Silke
2010 Beyond recipients: Towards a typology of dative uses. Buffalo: University at Buffalo, State University of New York dissertation.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1984 Active zones. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 101, 172–188. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1993 Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Raising and transparency. Language 71(1). 1–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov. Andrej
2008 Split infinitives, experiencer objects, and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (re-)establishing the connection. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 76–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mishra, Mithilesh
1990 Dative/experiencer subjects in Maithili. In Manindra K. Verma & K.P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian Languages, 105–117. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2008 The emergence of agentive systems in core argument marking. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 297–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Ashild
2007 Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Chongwon
2011 The role of metonymy in the interpretation of Korean multiple subject constructions. Language Sciences 33(1). 206–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Metonymy in grammar: Korean multiple object constructions. Functions of Language 20(1). 31–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Chongwon & Sook-kyung Lee
2009 The evolution of Korean datives: Its formal and functional motivations. Language Research 45(2). 283–318.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
(ed.) 1995 Double case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & René Dirven
2007 Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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 Linguistics Sciences 22(2). 45–76.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 Kittilä, Seppo, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, Animacy, and Semantic Roles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T
1996 Korean ‘case stacking’ isn’t: Unifying noncase uses of case particles. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 261, 351–165. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
2001 On Korean ‘case stacking’: The varied functions of the particles ka and lul . The Linguistic Review 18(3). 193–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Subbarao, Karumuri V
2001 Agreement in South Asian languages and the minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 20011, 457–492. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Taylor, John
1996 Possessives in English: An exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
1992 First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ura, H
1999 Checking theory and dative constructions in Japanese and Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8(3). 223–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Søren
2008 The study of semantic alignment: Retrospect and state of the art. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 3–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1996 Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009  Case in NSM: A reanalysis of the Polish dative . In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, 151–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yadava, Yogendra P
2004 Non-nominative subjects in Maithili. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol. 21, 253–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon
2003 Korean grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning. London: Saffron.Google Scholar
Yoon, James H
1996 Ambiguity of government and chain condition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(1). 105–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Non-nominative subjects and case stacking in Korean. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol. 21, 265–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Jeong-Me
1989 ECM and multiple subject constructions in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III1, 369–381. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Youn, Cheong
1990 A Relational Analysis of Korean Multiple Nominative Constructions. Buffalo: University at Buffalo, State University of New York dissertation.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan
2007 Spatial semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 318–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

[no author supplied]
2019. Reference Point and Case [Human Cognitive Processing, 68], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.