Cover not available
Part of
Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries
Edited by Yoshiko Matsumoto, Bernard Comrie and Peter Sells
[Typological Studies in Language 116] 2017
► pp. 59–89

Chapter 3
Noun-modifying constructions in Korean

| University of York
| University of York
We survey clausal noun-modification examples in Korean, initially setting out constructions into these types: argument and adjunct NMCCs, content noun NMCCs, and a group of other extended NMCCs. We show that the range of interpretations of NMCCs in Korean is not quite as broad as Japanese, but nevertheless we argue that the wide variety of interpretations in Korean motivates the claim that it has a GNMCC. We also argue, based on observed constraints on movement, that the Korean argument and adjunct NMCCs constitute an RC construction. We propose that there is no conflict in a language having both a syntactically identifiable RC construction as well as a GNMCC.
Keywords: Korean, content noun NMCCs, extended NMCCs, relative clause, island constraints, multiple nominative construction,
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Forms and functions of NMCCs
    • 2.1Overview of morphology
    • 2.2Relative clauses: Basic patterns
    • 2.3Noun complement clauses
    • 2.4Other complement-like clauses
    • 2.4.1Perception noun complements
    • 2.4.2Arguments of relational nouns
    • 2.5Obliquely related modifying clauses
    • 2.6Modifying clauses with multiple nominative sources
  • 3.Limits of NMCCs
    • 3.1Extended relativization examples
    • 3.2Consequential calculation
    • 3.3Limits on apparent relative clauses
  • 4.Island effects in relative clauses
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.116.04kim
References (30)
References
Baldwin, Timothy. 1998. The Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses. M.Eng. thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bugaeva, Anna & Whitman, John. 2016. Deconstructing clausal noun modifying constructions. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 23, Ted Levin, Ryo Masuda & Michael Kenstowicz (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Cha, Jong-Yul. 2005. Constraints on Clausal Complex Noun Phrases in Korean with Focus on the Gapless Relative Clause Construction. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit & Heycock, Caroline. 1999. Filling and licensing multiple specifiers. In Specifiers: Minimalist Approaches, David Adger, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett & George Tsoulas (eds), 69–89. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2004. Are there “double relative clauses” in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry 35: 315–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoshi, Koji. 2004. Remarks on N-final relativization in Japanese. English Language and Literature 44: 113–147. Yokohama: Keio University.Google Scholar
Kameshima Nanako. 1990. On aboutness conditions. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1, Hajime Hoji (ed.), 255–267. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Kim, Ilkyu. 2013. Rethinking “island effects” in Korean relativization. Language Science 38: 59–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2000. A local treatment of nonlocal relativization in Korean. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–169. Department of Linguistics, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kim, Shin-Sook. 2011. Noun complements and clause types in Korean (and Japanese). In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18, William McClure & Marcel den Dikken (eds), 278–290. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1986. Movement of noun phrase in Japanese. In Issues in Japanese Linguistics, Takashi Imai & Mamoru Saito (eds), 229–271. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin & Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2012. Gap in “gapless” relative clauses in Korean and other Asian languages. In Theories of Everything. In Honor of Ed Keenan [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 17], Thomas Graf, Denis Paperno, Anna Szabolcsi & Jos Tellings (eds), 204–214. Los Angeles CA: Department of Linguistics, UCLA.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan & Kim, Soowon. 1992. Case assignment in the inalienable possession construction in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 37–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1989. Japanese-style noun modification…in English. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Shelley Axmaker & Helen Singmaster (eds), 226–237. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
. 1997. Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame Semantic Approach [Studies in Language Companion Series 35]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakayasu, Minako. 1999. Extensibility in Japanese noun modification. Proceedings of the 13th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 3–14. Taiwan, ROC.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki. 2005. Conceptual blending and the interpretation of relatives: A case study from Greek. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 169–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sakai, Hiromu. 1994. Complex NP constraint and case-conversions in Japanese. In Current Topics in English and Japanese, Masaru Nakamura (ed.), 179–203. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2002. Functional theories of island phenomena: The case of Japanese. Studies in Language 26(1): 6–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 2001. The Korean Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock S. 1995. Tense and Aspect in Korean [Center for Korean Studies Monograph 18]. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Shino. 1997. Use and Functions of Optional [to iu] in Japanese Clausal Noun Modification. MA thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Teramura, Hideo. 1969. The syntax of noun modification in Japanese. Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 6: 64–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi & Sim, Chang-Yong. 2005. Event structure of the inalienable possession in Korean. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 11(1): 22.Google Scholar
Whitman, John. 2013. The prehead relative clause problem. In Proceedings of WAFL 8, Umut Özge (ed.), 361–380. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Yoon, James Hye-Suk. 1989. The grammar of inalienable possession constructions in Korean, Mandarin and French. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III, 357–368.Google Scholar
. 2004. Non-nominative major subjects and case stacking in Korean. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Language 61], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 265–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Wu, Tong & Haiping Long
2024. The relative clause resisting unification. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Yutaka & Sungdai Cho
2023. The Comparative Syntax of Korean and Japanese, DOI logo
WU, Tong
2022. The general noun-modifying clause construction beyond Eurasia. Linguistic Typology 26:1 ► pp. 89 ff. 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.