Cover not available
Part of
The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking
Edited by Alexandru Mardale and Silvina Montrul
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 26] 2020
► pp. 343–365

Chapter 13
Acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Korean

| Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
The present chapter investigated whether Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Korean can be subject to the same generalizations made for acquisition of DOM in other languages – the early target-like use of DOM by monolingual children in contrast to variability and incomplete knowledge of second language (L2) and heritage language (HL) learners. The main findings of the two studies reported in this chapter largely correspond to such generalizations, although there were important differences. While native Korean children and HL learners showed notable similarities with native adult controls, L2 learners integrated relevant factors in a divergent manner. Such findings indicate that early exposure to aural naturalistic input plays a key role in the acquisition of the Korean DOM system.
Keywords: Differential Object Marking, Korean, monolingual children, L2 learners, heritage language speakers, early exposure
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • A multi-factor system of Korean DOM
  • Study 1: L1 acquisition
    • Method
    • Results
  • Study 2: Bilingual acquisition
    • Method
    • Results
      • Written forced choice task
      • Oral picture description task
  • Discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.26.13chu
References (43)
References
Ahn, H.-D., & Cho, S. (2007). Subject-object asymmetries of morphological case realization. Language and Information, 11(1), 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Argus, R. (2008). Psühholingvistiline katse eesti keele objekti käändevahelduse omandamise uurimise meetodina [Psycholinguistic experiments as a method for the research of the acquisition of object case alternation in Estonian]. Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat, 5, 22–43.Google Scholar
(2015). On the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Estonian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60, 403–420.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italians. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in der neuiranischen Sprachen [Empirical universal research: Differential Object Marking in New Iranian languages). Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(1991). Differential Object Marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. Kibbee (Eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics (pp. 143–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M., & Montrul, S. (2009). Instructed L2 acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. In H. Campos & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little words. Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and acquisition (pp. 199–210). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cho, S-W. (1981). The acquisition of word order in Korean (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Chung, E.S. (2013). Sources of difficulty in L2 scope judgments. Second Language Research, 29(3), 285–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, E.-S. (2015a). Challenging a single-factor analysis of case drop in Korean. Language and Information, 19, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). The acquisition of case drop in child Korean. Language and Linguistics, 68, 117–148.Google Scholar
Chung, E. S. (2018). Second and heritage language acquisition of Korean case drop. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(1), 63–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, E. S. & Lee, E-K. (2017). Morpho-syntactic processing of Korean case marking and case drop. Linguistic Research, 34(2), 191–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, G-H. (1994). Case and its acquisition in Korean (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University at Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Dabašinskienė, I. (2015). Growing knowledge in Differential Object Marking: The view from L1 Lithuanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60, 369–382.Google Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2012). The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 15(4), 701–720. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Marinis, T. (2007). Acquiring the syntax/semantic interface in L2 Spanish: The personal preposition a. Eurosla Yearbook, 7, 67–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hržica, G., Palmović, M., Kovačević, M., Voeikova, M., Ivanova, K., & Galkina, E. (2015). Animacy and case in the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Croatian and Russian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 351–368.Google Scholar
Ketrez, F. N. (2008) Cardinal reading in children’s indefinites. Is it really wide scope? In C. Boeckx and S. Ulutaş (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Altaic in Formal Linguistics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 56. 127-134.Google Scholar
Ketrez, F. N. (2015). Incomplete acquisition of the Turkish Differential Object Marking. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60, 421–430.Google Scholar
Kim, T. (2008). Subject and object markings in conversational Korean (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Kim, Y-J. (1997). The acquisition of Korean. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol.4, pp. 335–443). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ko, E.-S. (2000). A discourse analysis of the realization of objects in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 9, 195–208.Google Scholar
Kwon, S.-N., & Zribi-Hertz, A. (2008). Differential function marking, case, and information structure: Evidence from Korean Language. Language, 84(2), 258–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laleko, O., & Polinsky, M. (2016). Between syntax and discourse: Topic and case marking in heritage speakers and L2 learners of Japanese and Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6(4), 396–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, D.-Y. (2002). The function of the zero particle with special reference to spoken Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 645–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, H. (2006a). Iconicity and variation in the choice of object forms in Korean. Language Research, 42, 323–355.Google Scholar
(2006b). Parallel optimization in case systems: evidence from case ellipsis in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 15, 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Explaining variation in Korean case ellipsis: Economy versus iconicity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 19, 291–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011a). Contrastive focus, usage probability and gradients in Korean case ellipsis. Discourse and Cognition, 18, 219–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b). Gradients in Korean case ellipsis: An experimental investigation. Lingua, 121, 20–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, H.-S., & Thompson, S. A. (1989). A discourse account of the Korean accusative marker. Studies in Language, 13, 105–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, S.-B. (2006). A pragmatic analysis of accusative case marker deletion. Discourse and Cognition, 13(3), 69–89.Google Scholar
Martoccio, A. M. (2012). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in L2 Spanish learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back to basics: Incomplete knowledge of Differential Object Marking in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 363–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R. (2015). Differential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N. (2013). Differential Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20, 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2008). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus, 20(1), 111–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ticio, E. (2015). Differential Object Marking in Spanish-English early bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(1), 62–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uziel-Karl, S. (2015). The development of Differential Object Marking in child Hebrew. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 339–350.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Coskun Kunduz, Aylin & Silvina Montrul
2022. Sources of variability in the acquisition of Differential Object Marking by Turkish heritage language children in the United States. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 25:4 ► pp. 603 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 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.