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 (67)
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 (1)

Cited by one other publication

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.