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-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:44:09.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Morphology and Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2022

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

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics , pp. 337 - 486
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

References

Abe, Jun. 1999. On directionality of movement: A case of Japanese right dislocation. Ms., Nagoya University.Google Scholar
Abe, Jun. 2015. Two types of Japanese right dislocation under the bi-clausal analysis. Paper presented at Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 11, University of York, 4–6 June.Google Scholar
Abe, Jun. 2016. Against the “repair by ellipsis” approach: The case of Japanese multiple right dislocation. In Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar (SICOGG) 18, 3–16. Seoul: The Korean Generative Grammar Circle.Google Scholar
Ahn, Hee-Don. 2012. Cokakmwun yenkwu [Studies on Fragments]. Seoul: Hankuk Mwunhwasa.Google Scholar
Ahn, Hee-Don, and Cho, Sungeun. 2015. Right dislocation vs. fragment: A reply to Ko (2014). Studies in Generative Grammar 25: 427–46.Google Scholar
Ahn, Hee-Don, and Cho, Sungeun. 2016. A uniform analysis of right dislocation: A reply to Ko (2016). Language Research 52(2): 213–45.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Dayal, Veneeta. 2007. Rightward scrambling as rightward remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentina, Bianchi, and Zamparelli, Roberto. 2004. Edge coordinations: Focus and conjunction reduction. In Tsoulas, George, Adger, David, and de Cat, Cicile, eds., Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and Their Effects. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 313–28.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2008. On the operator freezing effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 249–87.Google Scholar
Cho, Jai-Hyoung. 1994. Scrambling in Korean: Crossover, reconstruction and binding theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Choe, Hyon-Sook. 1987. Successive-cyclic rightward movement in Korean. In Kuno, S. et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 2. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, pp. 40–56.Google Scholar
Choe, Hyon-Sook. 1988. Restructuring parameters and complex predicates: A transformational approach. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Choi, Jaeyoung. 2008. Economy in rightward movement. Unpublished MA thesis, SNU.Google Scholar
Choi, Youngju. 2006. Base-generated right-dislocation. In Kuno, S. et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 11. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, pp. 387–400.Google Scholar
Choi, Youngsik. 2012. Argument negative polarity items redux. Studies in Modern Grammar 68: 113–36.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. et al., eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar
Chung, Daeho. 2008. Agree but not necessarily at the same time. Studies in Generative Grammar 18: 509–24.Google Scholar
Chung, Daeho. 2009. An elliptical coordination analysis of the right dislocated construction in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 17(4): 1–23.Google Scholar
Chung, Daeho. 2010. Replies to Lee (2009): In defense of a double clause approach to the right dislocated construction in Korean. Studies in Modern Grammar 61: 167–96.Google Scholar
Chung, Daeho. 2011. A constituency-based explanation of syntactic restrictions on Korean predicates. Linguistic Research 28(1): 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Daeho. 2012. Pre- vs. post-verbal asymmetries and the syntax of Korean right dislocated construction. Studies in Generative Grammar 22(4):703–21.Google Scholar
Chung, Daeho. 2015. Some notes on Ko’s (2014b, 2015) hybrid approach to the Korean RDC. Studies in Generative Grammar 25(3): 735–54.Google Scholar
Chung, Daeho. 2016. On what determines the modification relation in Korean adnominal adjunct RDCs. Linguistic Research 33(3): 351–70.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2): 245–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Katalin. 2010. Structural focus and exhaustivity. In Zimmermann, M. and Fery, C., eds., Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 64–88.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–69.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, and Kroch, Anthony. 1999. Pseudocleft connectivity: Implications for the LF interface. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 365–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken, and Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2012. Syntactic metamorphosis: Clefts, sluicing, and in-situ focus in Japanese. Syntax 15(2): 142–80.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2008. Adjunction, labeling, and bare phrase structure. Biolinguistics 2: 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Im, Hongbin, and Chang, Sowon. 1995. Kukemwunpeplon 1 [Korean Grammar 1]. Seoul: Korea Broadcasting University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Kwang-sup. 1999. A paradox in Korean NPI licensing. Studies in Generative Grammar 9:403–28.Google Scholar
Kim, Rhanghyeyun. 2013. On the negativity of negative fragment answers and ellipsis resolution. Studies in Generative Grammar 23:171–97.Google Scholar
Kim, Sun-Woong, and Hong, Yong-Tcheol. 2013. Hanging topic, pseudo right dislocation, and (pseudo) fragment answers. Talk presented at Dongguk University, December 7, 2013.Google Scholar
Kim, Sun-Woong, and Park, Myung-Kwan. 2010. Parallel linearization: A thought on afterthought. The Journal of Studies in Linguistics 26(3): 459–80.Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2014a. Edges in Syntax: Scrambling and Cyclic Linearization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2014b. Remarks on right dislocation construction in Korean: Challenges to bi-clausal analyses. Language Research 50(2): 275–310.Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2015a. Two ways to the right: A hybrid approach to right-dislocation in Korean. Language Research 51(1): 3–40.Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2015b. Types of right dislocation: Copies, adjuncts, and fragments in syntax. Paper presented at the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 11, University of York, June 4–6, 2015.Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2016. Gapless right-dislocation: The role of overt correlates. Language Research 52: 1–30.Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2017. Right dislocation: Copies vs. fragments. In Halpert, Claire, Kotek, Hadas, and van Urk, Coppe, eds., A Pesky Set: A festschrift for David Pesetsky, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 80. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 253–62.Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2018. Scrambling in Korean syntax. In Aronoff, Mark, ed., Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong, and Choi, Jaeyoung. 2009. Rightward movement and output economy. In Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar (SICOGG) 11, 247–55. Seoul: The Korean Generative Grammar Circle.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1998. On rightward movement in Turkish. In Johanson, L., ed., The Mainz Meeting: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 107–23. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. Asymmetries between pre-verbal and post-verbal scrambling in Turkish. In Sabel, Joachim and Saito, Mamoru, eds., The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 163–80.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1978. Danwa-no Bunpo [Grammar of Discourse]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.Google Scholar
Kural, Murat. 1997. Postverbal constituents in Turkish and the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 28(3): 498–519.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Kund. 2001. Dislocation. In Haspelmath, Martin, ed., Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook Vol. 2. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1050–78.Google Scholar
Lee, Chung-Hoon. 2009. The structure of Korean afterthought constructions [written in Korean]. Emwunyenkwu 142: 31–54.Google Scholar
Lee, Chung-Hoon. 2010. Some notes on Korean after-thought constructions [written in Korean]. Studies in Generative Grammar 59: 119–32.Google Scholar
Lee, Chung-Hoon. 2013. Why are WH-afterthoughts impossible? [written in Korean]. Studies in Modern Grammar 72: 105–19.Google Scholar
Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2007. Deriving SOV from SVO in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 15: 1–20.Google Scholar
Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2008. Notes on right dislocated constructions in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 16: 47–68.Google Scholar
Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2009. A verb-initial single clause analysis of right-dislocated constructions in Korean. Studies in Modern Grammar 57: 1270.Google Scholar
Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2013. Replies to Chung (2012): On pre- vs. post-verbal asymmetries in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 23: 171–97.Google Scholar
Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2016. Right dislocated elements and fragments in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 26(2): 115–41.Google Scholar
Lee, Wooseung. 2009. The role of case-marked noun phrase in clause structure building. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.Google Scholar
Lee, Wooseung. 2010. The architecture of right dislocation constructions. Studies in Generative Grammar 20: 521–43.Google Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey. 1999. The morphosemantics of object case in Kannada. In Bird, Sonya, Carnie, Andrew, Haugen, Jason D., and Norquest, Peter, eds., West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 18. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 325–36.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1988. Scrambling, weak crossover and binding. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA [recited from Mahajan 1997].Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1990. The A/A’-distinction and movement theory. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1997. Rightward scrambling. In Beerman, Dorothee et al., eds., Rightward Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 185–213.Google Scholar
Manetta, Emily. 2012. Reconsidering rightward scrambling: Postverbal constituents in Hindi-Urdu. Linguistic Inquiry 43(1): 43–74.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 303–44.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis, and de Vries, Mark. 2016. Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2): 641–90.Google Scholar
Pak, Miok D. 2008. Types of clauses and sentence end particles in Korean. Korean Linguistics 14(1): 113–56.Google Scholar
Park, Bum-Sik. 2005. Island-insensitive fragment answers in Korean. In Alderete, John, Han, Chung-hye, and Kochetov, Alexei, eds., West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 24. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 317–25.Google Scholar
Park, Bum-Sik, and Kim, Hyosik. 2016. Case-drop, left-branch extraction and multiplicity in the right-dislocation construction. Linguistic Research 33(2): 259–97.Google Scholar
Park, Bum-Sik, and Sei-Rang, Oh. 2017a. On the island-(in)sensitivity in the right-dislocation construction in Korean. The Journal of Linguistic Science 83: 135–53.Google Scholar
Park, Bum-Sik, and Sei-Rang, Oh. 2017b. On the nature of the gap in the gapped RDC. Studies in Generative Grammar 27(4): 735–78.Google Scholar
Park, Myung-Kwan. 2012. Left branch extraction in fragment and truncated cleft construction in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 22(1): 219–33.Google Scholar
Park, Myung-Kwan. 2013. On amwuto “anyone” and its kin in Korean: Their status and licensing as a fragment answer. Studies in Generative Grammar 23: 171–97.Google Scholar
Park, Myung-Kwan, and Kim, Sun-Woong. 2009. The syntax of afterthoughts in Korean: Move and delete. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 17: 25–53.Google Scholar
Park, So-Young. 2013. Polarity mismatches in Korean fragments. Studies in Generative Grammar 23(4): 867–81.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L., ed., Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Cheng, L. and Corver, N., eds., Wh-Movement: Moving On. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 97–133.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2015. Cartography, criteria, and labeling. In Shlonsky, Ur, ed., Beyond Functional Sequence: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Vol. 10. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 314–38.Google Scholar
Ross, John. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Baltin, M. and Kroch, A., eds., Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 182–200.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Long-distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 69–118.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1999. Japanese postposing involves no movement. Paper presented at the meeting of the Linguistic Association of Great Britain, Lancaster.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter, and Kim, Shin-Sook. 2006. Korean NPIs scope over negation. Language Research 42(2): 275–97.Google Scholar
Seo, Saetbyol. 2017. The syntax of jussives: Speaker and hearer at the syntax-discourse interface. Ph.D. dissertation, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Simpson, Andrew, and Choudhury, Arunima. 2015. The nonuniform syntax of postverbal elements in SOV languages: Hindi, Bangla, and the rightward scrambling debate. Linguistic Inquiry 46(3): 533–51.Google Scholar
Sohn, Keun-Won. 1995. Negative polarity items, scope, and economy. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji. 2007. Making rightward scrambling possible. In Kawano, Y. and Takahashi, H., eds., Kinjo gakuin daigaku ronshu [Studies in Humanities] Vol. 3. Nagoya, Japan: Kinjo Gakuin University, pp. 17–58.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji. 2014. A comparative approach to Japanese postposing. In Saito, M., ed., Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 139–80.Google Scholar
Takita, Kensuke. 2011. Argument ellipsis in Japanese right dislocation. In McClure, W. and den Dikken, M., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 380–91.Google Scholar
Takita, Kensuke. 2014. Pseudo-right dislocation, the bare-topic construction, and hanging topic constructions. Lingua 140: 137–57.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Hidekazu. 2001. Right-dislocation as scrambling. Journal of Linguistics 37: 551–79.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Wh-in-situ, subjacency, and chain formation: MIT occasional papers in linguistics 2. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 2004. The genesis of negative concord: Syntax and morphology of negative doubling. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 559–612.Google Scholar
Whitman, John. 2000. Right dislocation in English and Japanese. In Takami, et al., eds., Syntactic and Functional Exploration: In Honor of Susumu Kuno. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers, pp. 445–70.Google Scholar
Yamashita, Hideaki. 2011. An(other) argument for the “repetition” analysis of Japanese right dislocation: Evidence from distribution of thematic topic -wa. In McClure, W. and den Dikken, M., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 410–22.Google Scholar
Yim, Changguk. 2013. Bi-clausal evidence for right dislocation in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 23(1): 25–39.Google Scholar
Yoon, James Hye Suk. 2013. Implications of constraints on null constituents for analyses of the right dislocation construction. Paper presented at the Department of English Colloquium, Dongguk University.Google Scholar
Yoon, James. 2016. Implications of constraints on null constituents for analyses of the right dislocation construction. In Kenstowicz, Mike, Levin, Ted, and Masuda, Ryo, eds., Japanese-Korean Linguistics 23. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Yoon, James, and Lee, Wooseung. 2005. Conjunction reduction and its consequences for noun phrase morphosyntax in Korean. In Alderete, John, Han, Chung-hye, and Kochetov, Alexei, eds., West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 24. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 379–87.Google Scholar
Yun, Suyeon. 2013. Post-verbal arguments in Korean: Syntax, prosody, and information structure. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2011. The Syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References

Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Sun. 1977. Korean reflexive pronoun caki and its referent NP’s point of view. Language Research 13: 35–48.Google Scholar
Cho, Mi-Hui. 1994. On the orientation problem in Korean “caki” binding and the typology of X reflexive binding. In Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 165–83.Google Scholar
Choe, Hyon-Sook. 1988. Restructuring parameters and complex predicates: A transformational approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella, and James Huang, C.-T.. 2001. Long-distance reflexives: The state of the art. In Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella, and James Huang, C-T, eds., Syntax and Semantics: Long-Distance Reflexives Vol. 33. New York: Academic Press, pp. xiii–xlvii.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella, and Sung, Li-May. 1990. Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 1–22.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, and Sung, Li-May. 1994. Head movement and long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 355–406.Google Scholar
Cooper, Robin M. 1974. The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory and language processing. Cognitive Psychology 6: 84–107.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen, and Thornton, Rosalind. 1998. Investigations into Universal Grammar: A Guide to Research in Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gill, Kook-Hee. 1999. The long-distance anaphora conspiracy: The case of Korean. In Alexander, Jim, Han, Na-Rae, and Fox, Michelle Minnick, eds., Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Vol. 6.1 of U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 171–183. Philadelphia: Penn Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye, Storoshenko, Dennis Ryan, Leung, Betty Hei Man, and Kim, Kyeong-min. 2015. The time course of long-distance anaphor processing in Korean. Korean Linguistics 17: 1–32.Google Scholar
Hermon, Gabriella. 1992. Binding theory and parameter setting. The Linguistic Review 9: 145–81.Google Scholar
Hong, Sungshim. 1985. A and A’ binding in Korean and English: Government-binding parameters. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi, Runner, Jeffrey T., Sussman, Rachel S., and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2009. Structural and semantic constraints on the resolution of pronouns and reflexives. Cognition 112: 55–80.Google Scholar
Kang, Beom-Mo. 2001. The grammar and use of Korean reflexives. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6: 134–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1988. Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding and movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kang, Nam-Kil. 2000. Reflexives and the Linking Theory in Universal Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Kanno, Kazue. 1997. The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in Japanese by English speakers. Second Language Research 13: 265–87.Google Scholar
Kim, Eunah, Kim, Myeong Hyeon, and Yoon, James H.. 2013. An experimental investigation of online and offline binding properties of Korean reflexives. In Giriko, Mikio, Kanzaki, Kyoko, Nagaya, Naonori, and Takemura, Akiko, eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 22. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kim, Ji-Hye, Montrul, Silvina, and Yoon, James. 2009. Binding interpretation of anaphors by Korean heritage speakers. Language Acquisition 16: 3–35.Google Scholar
Kim, Ji-Hye, and Yoon, James H.. 2008. An experimental syntactic study of binding of multiple anaphors in Korean. Journal of Cognitive Science 9: 1–30.Google Scholar
Kim, Ji-Hye, and Yoon, James H.. 2009. Long-distance bound local anaphors in Korean – An empirical study of the Korean anaphor caki-casin. Lingua 119: 733–55.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyeong-min, and Han, Chung-hye. 2016. Inter-speaker variation in Korean pronouns. In Grosz, Patrick and Patel Grosz, Pritty, eds., The Impact of Pronominal Form on Interpretation, Studies in Generative Grammar series. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 347–72.Google Scholar
Kim, Soo-Yeon. 2000. Acceptability and preference in the interpretation of anaphors. Linguistics 38: 315–53.Google Scholar
Koak, Heeshin. 2008. A morpho-syntactic approach to pronominal binding. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 227–40.Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin. 1973. Abstract syntax and Korean with reference to English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Indiana.Google Scholar
Madigan, Sean. 2006. Exhaustive and partial control in Korean: Long-distance caki as an overt form of PRO. In Kuno, Susumu, Lee, Ikhwan, Whitman, John, Maling, Joan, Kang, Young-Se, Sells, Peter, and Sohn, Hyang-Sook, eds., Havard Studies in Korean Linguistics XI,. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, pp. 642–55.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1984. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 211–41.Google Scholar
Noguchi, Tohru. 1997. Two types of pronouns and variable binding. Language 73: 770–97.Google Scholar
O’Grady, William. 1987. The interpretation of Korean anaphora: The role and representation of grammatical relations. Language 63: 251–77.Google Scholar
Park, Sung-Hyuk. 1986. Parametrizing the theory of binding: The implications of caki in Korean. Language Research 22: 229–53.Google Scholar
Pica, Pierre. 1987. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. In McDonough, Joyce and Plunkett, Bernadette, eds., Proceedings of NELS 17, Vol. 2. Amherst: GLSA, pp. 483–99.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 261–303.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–79.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldor Armann. 1986. Moods and (long-distance) reflexives in Icelandic. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax. Linguistics Department, University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sohng, Hong-Ki. 2004. A minimalist analysis of X0 reflexivization in Chinese and Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 14: 375–96.Google Scholar
Suh, Jinhee. 1990. Scope phenomena and aspects of Korean syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., and Sedivy, J. E.. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268: 1632–4.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskulder. 1992. Long-distance reflexives and the typology of NPs. In Koster, Jan and Reuland, Eric, eds., Long-Distance Anaphora. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–75.Google Scholar
Yoon, Jeong-Me. 1989. Long-distance anaphors in Korean and their cross-linguistic implications. In Wiltshire, Caroline, Graczyk, Randolph, and Music, Bradley, eds., Papers from the 25th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 479–95.Google Scholar

References

Alexiadou, Artemis, and Schäfer, Florian. 2010. On the syntax of episodic vs. dispositional -er nominals. In Alexiadou, Artemis and Rathert, Monika, eds., The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 9–38.Google Scholar
An, Duk-Ho. 2014. Genitive case in Korean and its implications for noun phrase structure. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23: 361–92.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive Descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 1998. Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation. Language 74: 694–727.Google Scholar
Busa, Federica. 1996. Compositionality and the semantics of nominals. Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Busa, Federica. 1999. The semantics of event-based nominals. In Saint-Dizier, Patrick, ed., Predicative Forms in Natural Language and in Lexical Knowledge Bases. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 349–74.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-Mee Yu, and Sells, Peter. 1995. A lexical account of inflectional suffixes in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4: 119–74.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Han, Eunjoo. 1994. A prosodic analysis of Korean compounding. In Kim-Renaud, Young-Key, ed., Theoretical Issues in Korean Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 61–76.Google Scholar
Ihm, H., Hong, K., and Chang, S.. 2001. Korean Grammar for International Learners. Seoul: Yonsei University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Shin-Sook, and Sells, Peter. 2017. Noun-modifying constructions in Korean. In Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Comrie, Bernard, and Sells, Peter, eds., Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking Theoretical and Geographical Boundaries. Amsterdam and New York: John Benjamins, pp. 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1992. Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Collected papers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kwon, Song-Nim, and Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2008. Differential function marking, case, and information structure: Evidence from Korean. Language 84(2): 258–99.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport, Malka. 1988. Nonevent -er nominals: A probe into argument structure. Linguistics 26: 1067–83.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2016. English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel. 1992. A Reference Grammar of Korean. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle.Google Scholar
Nishiyama, Yuji. 2016. Complement-taking nouns. In Kageyama, Taro and Kishimoto, Hideki, eds., Handbook of Japanese Lexicon and Word Formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 631–64.Google Scholar
Ono, Naoyuki. 2013. Two modes of argument selection in nominals. In Frellesvig, Bjarke and Sells, Peter, eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 413–28.Google Scholar
Ono, Naoyuki. 2016. Agent nominals. In Kageyama, Taro and Kishimoto, Hideki, eds., Handbook of Japanese Lexicon and Word Formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 599–629.Google Scholar
Poser, William J. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Sag, Ivan and Szabolcsi, Anna, eds., Lexical Matters. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 111–30.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriette, Winter, Yoad, and Zwarts, Joost. 2007. Bare nominals and reference to capacities. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 195–222.Google Scholar

References

Ackema, P., and Neeleman, A.. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity. Linguistik Actuell 42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2009. On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes: The case of (Greek) derived nominals. In Giannakidou, A. and Rathert, M., eds., Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–80.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., and Grimshaw, J.. 2008. Verbs, nouns and affixation. In Schäfer, Florian, ed., Working Papers of the SFB 732. Incremental Specification in Context 1: 1–16.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In Moore, J. C. and Polinsky, M., eds., The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 31–67.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense Vol II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2013. By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16(1): 1–41.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2018. Word formation is syntactic: Raising in nominalizations. Glossa 3(1): 102.1–25.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. S., eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, pp. 184–221.Google Scholar
Fabregas, A., and Marin, R.. 2012. The role of Aktionsart in deverbal nouns: State nominalizations across languages. Journal of Linguistics 48: 35–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, J., Roeper, T., and Borer, H.. 2001. The VP within process nominal: Evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do so. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 549–82.Google Scholar
Göksel, A. 2015. Phrasal compounds in Turkish: Distinguishing citations from quotations. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 68: 359–94.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K., and Keyser, S. J.. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J., eds., The View from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 53–109.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Jay Keyser, S., eds., The View from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 111–76.Google Scholar
Harley, H. 2009a. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Giannakidou, A. and Rathert, M., eds., Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 320–42.Google Scholar
Harley, H. 2009b. Compounding in distributed morphology. In Lieber, R. and Stekauer, P., eds., Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 129–44.Google Scholar
Harley, H., and Noyer, R.. 1998. Mixed nominalizations: Short verb movement and object shift in English. Northeast Linguistic Society 28: 143–58.Google Scholar
Hong, K-S. 1999. Nonhang phankyel-uy kicwun: hankwuke-uy tongsaseng pokhap.e [A test for argumenthood: Verbal compounds in Korean]. Inmwun Nonchong 42: 85–103.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. 2003. The etiology of adjunct islands. Nordlyd 31(1): 187–215.Google Scholar
Kaiser, L. 1998. The morphosyntax of clausal nominalization constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Kim, C-S. 1996. Kwuke-uy Tane Hyengseng-kwa Tane Kwuco Yenkwu [Word Formation and Word Structure in Korean]. Monograph 21. Seoul: Thayhaksa.Google Scholar
Kim, M-K. 2004. Kwuke cepsa -um, -ki-ey uyhan tan.e hyengseng yenkwu [A study of word formation by the Korean suffixes -um, -ki]. Ph.D. dissertation, Sogang University, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
Kim, S-S., and Sells, P.. The morphosyntax of person-denoting nominals. In Cho, S. and Whitman, J., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ko, Y-K. 1989. Kwuke Hyengthaylon Yenkwu. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrenz, B. 2006. Moderne deutsche Wortbildung: Phrasale Wortbildung im Deutschen: Linguistichse Untersuchung und sprachdidaktiche Behandlung (Philologia 91). Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 2016. English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–25.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2007. Phases and words. In Choe, S-H., ed., Phases in the Theory of Grammar. Seoul: Dong-In Publishing Co, pp. 191–222.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 2008. Current challenges to the lexicalist hypothesis: An overview and a critique. In Lewis, W. D., Karimi, S., Harley, H., and Farrar, S. O., eds., Time and Again: Theoretical Perspectives in Formal Linguistics in Honor of D. Terence Langendoen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 91–117.Google Scholar
Pafel, J. 2015. Phrasal compounds and the morphology-syntax relation. In Trips, C. and Kornfilt, J., eds., Further Investigations into the Nature of Phrasal Compounding. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 233–59.Google Scholar
Park, C-W. 2013. Nominal and clausal grounding of Korean verbal nouns. Linguistics 51: 1361–95.Google Scholar
Park, C-W., and Park, B.. 2017. Cognitive grammar and English nominalizations: Event/result nominal and gerundives. Cognitive Linguistics 28: 711–56.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. 2009. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roy, I., and Soare, E.. 2012. Naming participants in the eventuality. Manuscript, University of Paris 8.Google Scholar
Sato, Y. 2010. Complex phrase structures within morphological words: Evidence from English and Indonesian. Lingua 120: 379–407.Google Scholar
Shi, C-K. 1998. Kwuke-uy Tane Hyengseng Wenli [Principles of Word Formation in Korean]. Seoul: Hankwukmwunhwasa.Google Scholar
Shi, C-K. 2015. Word formation. In Brown, L. and Yeon, J., eds., Handbook of Korean Linguistics. London: Wiley, pp. 61–78.Google Scholar
Trips, C., and Kornfilt, J.. 2015. Typological aspects of phrasal compounds in English, German, Turkish, and Turkic. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 68: 281–322.Google Scholar
Yoon, J. 1996a. Nominal gerund phrases in English as phrasal zero derivations. Linguistics 43: 329–56.Google Scholar
Yoon, J. 1996b. A syntactic account of category-changing phrasal morphology: Nominalizations in Korean and English. In Ahn, H. et al., eds., Morphosyntax in Generative Grammar. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co., pp. 63–86.Google Scholar
Yoon, J. 2017. Lexical integrity and suspended affixation in two types of Korean denominal predicates. Glossa 2(1): 45.1–45.Google Scholar
Yoon, J., and Park, C.. 2003. Process nominals and morphological complexity. In Hudson, M. Endo et al., eds., Japanese-Korean Linguistics 13. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 231–42.Google Scholar

References

Barkley, C., Kluender, R., and Kutas, M.. 2015. Referential processing in the human brain: An Event-Related Potential (ERP) study. Brain Research 1629: 143–59.Google Scholar
Berwick, R., and Weinberg, A.. 1982. Parsing efficiency, computational complexity, and the evaluation of grammatical theories. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 165–91.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. M., and Kaplan, R. M.. 1982. Introduction: Grammars as mental representations of language. In Bresnan, J., ed., The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cai, Z., Sturt, P., and Pickering, M.. 2013. The effect of non-adopted analyses on sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 27: 1286–311.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., Alpert, N., and Waters, G.. 1998. Effects of syntactic structure and prepositional number on patterns of regional blood flow. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10: 541–52.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., Alpert, N., and Waters, G.. 1999. PET studies of syntactic processing with auditory sentence presentation. NeuroImage 9: 343–51.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., Alpert, N., Waters, G., and Olivieri, A.. 2000. Activation of Broca’s area by syntactic processing under conditions of concurrent articulation. Human Brain Mapping 9: 65–71.Google Scholar
Carminati, M. N. 2002. The processing of Italian subject pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Carminati, M. N. 2005. Processing reflexes of the feature hierarchy (Person > Number > Gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 115: 259–85.Google Scholar
Chen, B., Ning, A., Bi, H., and Dunlap, S.. 2008. Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object relative clauses. Acta Psychologia 129: 61–5.Google Scholar
Chen, E., West, C., Waters, G., and Caplan, D.. 2006. Determinants of bold signal correlates of processing object-extracted relative clauses. Cortex 42: 591–604.Google Scholar
Choi, K. 2010. Subject honorification in Korean: In defense of Agr and head-spec agreement. Language Research 46: 59–82.Google Scholar
Choo, M. 1994. A unified account of null pronouns in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa.Google Scholar
Chow, W. Y., Lewis, S., and Phillips, C.. 2014. Immediate sensitivity to structural constraints in pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology 27.Google Scholar
Cohen, L., and Mehler, J.. 1996. Click monitoring revisited: An online study of sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition 24: 94–102.Google Scholar
Constable, R. T., Pugh, K. R., Berroya, E., Mencl, W. E., Westerveld, M., Ni, W., and Shankweiler, D.. 2004. Sentence complexity and input modality effects in sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. NeuroImage 22: 11–21.Google Scholar
Cooke, A., Zurif, E. B., DeVita, C., Alsop, D., Koenig, P., Detre, J., Gee, J., Pinãngo, M., Balogh, J., and Grossman, M.. 2002. Neural basis for sentence comprehension: Grammatical and short-term memory components. Human Brain Mapping 15: 80–94.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., King, J. W., and Kutas, M.. 1998. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 13: 21–58.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., and Jakendoff, R.. 2001. Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 493–512.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., and Jackendoff, R.. 2006. Turn over control to the semantics. Syntax 9: 131–52.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138.Google Scholar
Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., and Friederici, A. D.. 2002. Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 250–72.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. 1978. Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 427–73.Google Scholar
Fraunfelder, U., Segui, J., and Mehler, J.. 1980. Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19: 328–37.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5: 519–59.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., and Clifton, C.. 1989. Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes 4: 93–126.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., and Rayner, K.. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14: 178–210.Google Scholar
Gennari, S. P., and MacDonald, M. C.. 2008. Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 58: 161–87.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, A. P., Miyashita, Y., and O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., and Wu, I.. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 125–55.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., and Ko, K.. 2005. Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 313–54.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., and Johnson, M.. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 27: 1411–23.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H., ed., Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 58–90.Google Scholar
Hale, J. 2001. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 159–66.Google Scholar
Hale, J. 2006. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30: 609–42.Google Scholar
Han, C. H. 2013. On the syntax of relative clauses in Korean. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 58: 319–47.Google Scholar
Han, C. H., and Kim, J. B.. 2004. Are there “double relative clauses” in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry 35: 315–37.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammar. Language 75: 244–85.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heider, P., Dery, J., and Roland, D.. 2014. The processing of object relative clauses: Evidence against a fine-grained frequency account. The Journal of Memory and Language 75: 58–76.Google Scholar
Holmes, V. M., and O’Regan, J. K.. 1981. Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20: 417–30.Google Scholar
Hong, S. 1985. A and A’ binding in Korean and English: Government-binding parameters. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.Google Scholar
Hsiao, F., and Gibson, E.. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition 90: 3–27.Google Scholar
Huang, C-T. J. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Theory 15: 531–73.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., Keller, T. A., Eddy, W. F., and Thulborn, K. R.. 1996. Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science 274: 114–16.Google Scholar
Kang, Y. S. 1986. Korean syntax and universal grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kaplan, T. I., and Whitman, J.. 1995. The category of relative clauses in Japanese, with reference to Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4: 29–58.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N., Lau, E., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., and Phillips, C.. 2007. The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 56: 384–409.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., and Comrie, B.. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Kehler, A. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kennison, S. M., Fernandez, E. C., and Bowers, J. M.. 2009. Processing differences for anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns: Implications for theories of discourse processing. Discourse Processes 46: 25–45.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., and Tomasello, M.. 2007. Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children’s processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes 22: 860–97.Google Scholar
Kim, J. B. 2015. Grammatical interfaces in Korean honorification: A constraint-based perspective. Language and Information 19: 19–36.Google Scholar
Kim, J. B., and Sells, P.. 2008. Korean honorification: A kind of expressive meaning. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16: 303–36.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. J. 2000. Subject/object drop in the acquisition of Korean: A cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9: 325–51.Google Scholar
King, J., and Just, M. A.. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 580–602.Google Scholar
King, J., and Kutas, M.. 1995. Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7: 376–95.Google Scholar
Kluender, R., and Kutas, M.. 1993a. Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbound dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5: 196–214.Google Scholar
Kluender, R., and Kutas, M.. 1993b. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 573–633.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1972. Sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., and Hillyard, S. A.. 1983. Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory & Cognition 11: 539–50.Google Scholar
Kwon, N. 2008. Processing of syntactic and anaphoric gap-filler dependencies in Korean: Evidence from self-paced reading time, ERP and eye-tracking experiments. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., and Sturt, P.. 2013. Null pronominal (pro) resolution in Korean, a discourse-oriented language. Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 377–87.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., and Sturt, P.. 2014. The use of control information in dependency formation: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language 73: 59–80.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., and Sturt, P.. 2016. Attraction effects in honorific agreement in Korean. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1302. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01302 [last accessed September 24, 2020].Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Monahan, P., and Polinsky, M.. 2010. Object control in Korean: A backward control impostor. In Hornstein, Norbert and Polinsky, Maria, eds., Movement Theory of Control. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 299–328.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., and Polinsky, M.. 2013. Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data. Language 89: 537–85.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Polinsky, M., and Kutas, M.. (In preparation). The processing of syntactic vs. anaphoric referential dependencies in Korean: Evidence from reading times and ERPs.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Lee, Y., Gordon, P. C., Kluender, R., and Polinsky, M.. 2010. Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of pre-nominal relative clauses in Korean. Language 86: 546–82.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1968. Pronouns and Reference. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Levy, R. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106: 1126–77.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L., and Vasishth, S.. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29: 1–45.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L. Vasishth, S., and Van Dyke, J. A.. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 447–54.Google Scholar
Lin, C. J. (In press). Subject prominence and processing filler-gap dependencies in prenominal relative clauses: The comprehension of possessive relative clauses and adjunct relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Language.Google Scholar
Lin, C. J., and Bever, T. G.. 2006. Subject preference in the processing of relative clauses in Chinese. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., and Scanlon, M., eds., Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 254–60.Google Scholar
Lin, Y. 2010. Comprehending Mandarin relative clauses: Ambiguity, locality, and expectation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
Lin, Y., and Garnsey, S.. 2007. Plausibility and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. In Proceedings of The Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Liversedge, S. P., and Van Gompel, R. P. G.. Manuscript. Resolving anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., and Christiansen, M. H.. 2002. Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review 109: 35–54.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., and Pleh, C.. 1988. The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition 29: 95–141.Google Scholar
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., and Schriefers, H.. 2002. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 50–68.Google Scholar
Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., and Friederici, A. D.. 1995. Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition 23: 477–94.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, A. 1983. Backward anaphora and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 129–39.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, E. T., and Nakamura, M.. 2003. Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In Garding, G. and Tsujimura, M., eds., Proceedings of the 22nd WCCFL. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 342–55.Google Scholar
Müller, H. M., King, J. W., and Kutas, M.. 1997. Event-related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses. Cognitive Brain Research 5: 193–203.Google Scholar
Münte, T. F., Heinze, H. J., and Mangun, G. R.. 1993. Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5: 335–44.Google Scholar
Münte, T. F., Schiltz, K., and Kutas, M.. 1998. When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature 395: 71–3.Google Scholar
Neville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Foster, K. I., and Garnett, M. F.. 1991. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence form event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3: 151–65.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. 1997. Syntactic Development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. 2011. Relative clauses: Processing and Acquisition. In Kidd, Evan, ed., The Acquisition of Relative Clauses: Functional and Typological Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., and Mobley, L. A.. 1995. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 739–73.Google Scholar
Pablos, L., Doetjes, J., Ruijgrok, B., and Cheng, L. L. S.. 2015. Active search for antecedents in cataphoric pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1638.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. 1996. Order and structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. 2006. The real-time status of island phenomena. Language 82: 795–823.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., and Abada, S. H.. 2005. ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research 22: 407–28.Google Scholar
Reali, F., and Christiansen, M. H.. 2007. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 57: 1–23.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Rösler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., Roder, B., and Hennighausen, E.. 1998. Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 38: 150–76.Google Scholar
Qiao, X., Shen, L., and Forster, K.. 2012. Relative clause processing in Mandarin: Evidence from the maze task. Language and Cognitive Processes 27: 611–30.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., and Kuhn, K.. 1995. The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 499–520.Google Scholar
Sohn, H. M. 1980. Theme-prominence in Korean. Journal of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics 2: 2–19.Google Scholar
Sohn, H. M. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. A. 1986. Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for online gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1: 227–45.Google Scholar
Stromswold, K., Caplan, D., Alpert, N., and Rauch, S.. 1996. Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language 52: 452–73.Google Scholar
Sturt, P., and Kwon, N.. 2015. The processing of raising and nominal control: An eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology 6 [online].Google Scholar
Traxler, M., Morris, R., and Seely, R.. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from the eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 69–90.Google Scholar
Ueno, M., and Garnsey, S. M.. 2006. An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 646–88.Google Scholar
Van Gompel, R. P. G. and Liversedge, S. P.. 2003. The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29: 128–39.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Chen, Z., Li, Q., and Guo, G.. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PLoS ONE 8(10): e77006. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077006 [last accessed September 4, 2020]..Google Scholar
Wanner, E., and Maratsos, M.. 1978. An ATN approach to comprehension. In Halle, M., Bresnan, J., and Miller, G., eds., Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 119–61.Google Scholar
Yang, D. W. 1987. Theory of barriers and relativization. Language Research 23: 1–37.Google Scholar
Yang, H. K. 1990. Categories and barriers in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.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.

  • Morphology and Syntax
  • Edited by Sungdai Cho, Binghamton University, State University of New York, John Whitman, Cornell University, New York
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics
  • Online publication: 30 September 2022
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.

  • Morphology and Syntax
  • Edited by Sungdai Cho, Binghamton University, State University of New York, John Whitman, Cornell University, New York
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics
  • Online publication: 30 September 2022
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.

  • Morphology and Syntax
  • Edited by Sungdai Cho, Binghamton University, State University of New York, John Whitman, Cornell University, New York
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics
  • Online publication: 30 September 2022
Available formats
×