Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:38:21.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 22 - Case Stacking in Korean: Argument Structure or Information Structure?

from Part IV - Semantics and Pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2022

By
EunHee Lee
Edited by
Sungdai Cho  and
John Whitman
Sungdai Cho
Affiliation:
Binghamton University, State University of New York
John Whitman
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

Chapter 22 focuses on a unique phenomenon in the Korean case system – case alternations and stacking – as a case study to illustrate two opposing views of case in Korean: the structural case view vs. information structure analyses. A more fine-grained information structure-based account of case stacking is proposed, arguing that the phenomenon implicates focus embedded in the topic phrase.

Keywords

“case alternationcase stackingstructural casepsych and existential predicatesinformation structure”
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics , pp. 635 - 656
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

An, Duk-Ho. 2014. Genitive case in Korean and its implications for noun phrase structure. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23: 361–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto, and Kim, Jong-Bok. 2011. On structural case in Finnish and Korean. Lingua 121: 100–27.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Lisa. 1997. Wh-in-situ phenomena in French. MA thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Choe, Hyun-Sook. 1995. Focus and topic movement in Korean and licensing. In Kiss, K. E., ed., Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michae, D., and Uriagereka, J., eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 1–28.Google Scholar
Chung, Han Byul. 2012. i/ka marks focus. Paper presented at Japanese/Korean Linguistics 22, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In Pustejovsky, J., ed., Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1988. Bare plural subjects and stage/individual contrast. In Krifka, Manfred, ed., Genericity in Natural Language. Tübingen: University of Tübingen, pp. 107–54.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68: 553–95.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna. B., and Youn, Cheong. 1988. Korean psych constructions: Advancement or retreat? In MacLeod, L., Larson, G., and Brentari, D., eds., Papers from the 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 155–75.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna. B., and Youn, Cheong. 1999. Case stacking and focus in Korean. In Kuno, S. et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics VIII. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 325–39.Google Scholar
Harley, H. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2: 29–68.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Language Typology and Language Universals. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hong, Ki-Sun. 1991. Argument selection and case marking in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C. T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Jo, Jung-Min. 2001. Case-particles in Korean are not focus-markers: A minimalist approach to the focus interpretation of case-marked NPs. Presented at the 11th Japanese/Korean linguistics conference, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2000. K-ToBI (Korean ToBI) labelling conventions: Version 3. Speech Sciences 7: 143–69. [Version 3.1 is published in UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 99.]Google Scholar
Kim, Kyumin. 2015. A unified analysis of existentials and psych-constructions in Korean as pseudo-transitives. Studia Linguistica 1–36.Google Scholar
Kim, Young-Joo. 1990. The syntax and semantics of Korean case: The interaction between lexical and syntactic levels of representation. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin. 1995. Discourse configurational languages: Introduction. In Kiss, K. ed., Discourse Configurational Languages. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–27.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Individual-level and stage-level predicates. In Carlson, Gregory N. and Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, eds., The Generic Book. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 125–75.Google Scholar
Kwon, Song-Nim, and Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2008. Differential function marking, case, and information structure: Evidence from Korean. Language 84: 258–99.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Iksop, and Ramsey, Robert. 2000. The Korean Language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Chung-Min. 1996. Generic sentences are topic constructions. In Fretheim, T. and Gundel, J. K., eds., Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 213–22.Google Scholar
Lee, EunHee. 2017. Case alternation and stacking on non-nominative subjects in Korean: A new information structural analysis. In Funakoshi, Kenshi, Kawahara, Shigeto, and Tancredi, Christopher D., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 24. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2006. Parallel optimization in case systems: Evidence from case ellipsis in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 69–96.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2010. Explaining variation in Korean case ellipsis: Economy versus iconicity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19: 291–318.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2011. Gradients in Korean case ellipsis: An experimental investigation. Lingua 121: 20–34.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2016. Usage probability and subject–object asymmetries in Korean case ellipsis: Experiments with subject case ellipsis. Journal of Linguistics 52: 70–110.Google Scholar
Levin, Theodore. 2017. Successive-cyclic case assignment: Korean nominative-nominative case-stacking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35: 447–98.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan and Kim, Soowon. 1992. Case assignment in the inalienable possession construction in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 37–68.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In Westphal, G. F., Ao, B., and Chae, H., eds., ESCOL ’91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, pp. 234–53. Reprinted in Reuland, E., ed. 2000. Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Ph.D dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Næss, Ashild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
O’Grady, William. 1989. Categories and Case: The Sentence Structure of Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pires, A., and Taylor, H. L.. 2009. The syntax of wh-in-situ and common ground. Chicago Linguistic Society 43: 201–15.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229–90.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson. T. 2001. On Korean “case stacking”: The varied functions of the particles ka and lul. The Linguistic Review 18: 193–232.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1995. Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexical perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 277–325.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna, and Bakker, Dik. 2008. Case and alternative strategies: Word order and agreement marking. In Malchukov, A. and Spencer, A. M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 2001. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1999. Checking theory and dative subject construction in Japanese and Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 223–54.Google Scholar
Yang, In-Seok. 1972. Korean Syntax: Case Marking, Delimiters, Complementation and Relativization. Seoul: Paek Hap Sa.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira, Joan, Maling, and Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63: 217–50.Google Scholar
Yoon, James H. 1996. Ambiguity of government and the Chain Condition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 105–62.Google Scholar
Yoon, James H. 2004. Non-nominative (major) subjects and case-stacking in Korean. In Bhaskararao, P. and Subbarao, K. V., eds., Non-Nominative Subjects, vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 265–314.Google Scholar
Yoon, James Hye Suk. 2007. Raising major arguments in Korean and Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35: 615–53.Google Scholar
Youn, Cheong. 1998. Case stacking revisited. Studies in Modern Grammar 14: 125–49.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×