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-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:30:32.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part IV - Semantics and Pragmatics

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. 487 - 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

References

Ahn, Mikyung, and Yap, Foong Ha. 2014. On the development of Korean SAY evidentials and their extended pragmatic functions. Diachronica 31(3): 299–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, Mikyung, and Yap, Foong Ha. 2015. Evidentiality in interaction: A pragmatic analysis of Korean hearsay evidential markers. Studies in Language 39(1): 46–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., ed. 2018. The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
An, Juho. 2003. Inyongmun-kwa inyong phyoci-uy munpephwa-ey tayhan yenkwu [A study on the grammaticalization of quoted sentences and quoting markers]. Discourse and Cognition 10: 1.Google Scholar
An, Pyong-hi. 1961. Cwuchey kyemyang-pep uy cepmisa -“sŏp” ey tayha.ye [On the humilitative suffix -sŏp]. Cintan Hakpo (Seoul) 22: 103–66.Google Scholar
An, Pyong-hi. 1982. Cwungsey kwuke-uy kyem.yang-pep yenkwu-ey tayhan panseng [Reflections on the studies of the Middle Korean humilitative suffix]. Kwukehak 11: 1–24.Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costa, and Cornillie, Bert, eds.. 2006. Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1971. Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics. Translated by Meek, Mary E. and Gables, Coral. Florida: University of Miami Press. Original French publication in 1958.Google Scholar
Brown, P., and Levinson, S.. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W.. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., and Hopper, P., eds. 2002. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chae, Yunghee. 1998. Tamhwa-ey ssuinun “-ketun”-uy hwayongcek kinung [The pragmatic function of -ketun used in discourse]. Hankwuke Uymihak 3: 159–77.Google Scholar
Cho, Minha. 2011. “-nuntey”-uy congkyel kinung-kwa ekyang-uy yekhal [The ending function of -nuntey and the role of intonation]. Wuli Emun Yenkwu 4.Google Scholar
Choi, Dong-Ju. 1995. Kwuke sisang cheykyey-uy thongsicek pyenhwa-ey kwanhan yenkwu [A study on the diachronic changes of the Korean tense/aspect system]. Ph.D. dissertation in linguistics. Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Choi, Dong-Ju. 2009. Congkyel emi “-lkel”-uy kinung-kwa munpepcek thukseng [The function and grammatical characteristics of the sentence ender -lkel]. Kwukehak 54: 226–50.Google Scholar
Chung, Kyung-Sook. 2005. Space in tense: The interaction of tense, aspect, evidentiality, and speech act in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Cuykens, H., Davidse, K., and Vandelanotte, L.. 2010. Introduction. In Davidse, Vandelanotte, and Cuyckens, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., and Cuyckens, H., eds. 2010. Subjectification. Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, and Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2006. Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 365–92.Google Scholar
Ha, Chigeun. 2003. “tey” ccaimwel-uy munpephwa kwaceng [Grammaticalization processes of tey constructions]. Hangeul 216: 97–121.Google Scholar
Ha, Chigeun. 2006. “-ci” ccaimwel-uy munpephwa hyensang yenkwu [A study on the grammaticalization phenomena of -ci constructions]. Wulimal Yenkwu 18: 27–55.Google Scholar
Han, Dong-wan. 1986. Kwake sicey “-ess”-uy thongsiloncek kochal [A diachronic study of the past tense -ess]. Kwukehak 15: 217–47.Google Scholar
Heo, Jae-young. 2008. Nophim-uy cosa “yo”-uy munpephwa [Grammaticalization of the politeness particle yo]. Hanmal Yenkwu 23: 473–93.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B., eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, I and II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., and Traugott, E. C.. 2003. Grammaticalization (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huh, Woong. 1972. Cwungsey kwuke yenkwu [A study of Middle Korean]. Seoul: Cengum-sa.Google Scholar
Huh, Woong. 1975. Wuli yeys malpon [A grammar of Early Korean]. Seoul: Kwahak-sa.Google Scholar
Huh, Woong. 1982. Hankwukmal ttaymaykimpep-uy keleon palcachwi (Footsteps of the Korean tense system). Hangeul 178: 3–51.Google Scholar
Huh, Woong. 1984. Kwukehak. Seoul: Saym Munhwasa.Google Scholar
Huh, Woong. 1987. Kwuke ttaymaykimpep-uy pyenchensa [An evolutionary history of the Korean tense system]. Seoul: Saym Munhwasa.Google Scholar
Im, Dong-hun. 2001. “keyss”-uy yongpep-kwa ku yeksacek haysek [Usage of keyss and its historical interpretation]. Kwukwhak 37: 115–47.Google Scholar
Im, Dong-hun. 2008. Hankwuke-uy sepep-kwa yangthay cheykyey [A system of moods and modality in Korean]. Hankwuke Uymihak 26: 211–49.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: W. W. Norton and Company Ltd.Google Scholar
Ju, Hee, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2011. Sequential context of -canh-a(yo): Hearers’ perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20: 1–15.Google Scholar
Kang, Hyun-hwa. 2008. “-ulkel”-uy thukseng-kwa hwuhoy phyohyen-uy yangsang [Properties of -ulkel and expressions of regret]. Bilingual Linguistics 38: 43–68.Google Scholar
Kang, Sujin. 2009. “-keyss”-uy munpephwa-ey tayhan inci uymiloncek selmyeng [A cognitive semantic account of grammaticalization of keyss]. Hankwuke Uymihak 29: 1–27.Google Scholar
Kawanishi, Y., and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1993. The grammaticalization of Korean negation: A semantic-pragmatic analysis of -canh-. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics V: 552–61.Google Scholar
Kim, Hong-bum. 1987. “-tamyense”, “-tako”, “-tani”-uy kwuco-wa uymi [Structures and meanings of -tamyense, -tako, and -tani]. Mal 12: 83–7.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin. 2011. Negotiating epistemic rights to information in Korean conversation: An examination of the Korean evidential marker -tamye. Discourse Studies 13(4): 435–59.Google Scholar
Kim, Minju. 2008. The emergence of the Korean modal -keyss: From causative to epistemic and volitive modal. Discourse and Cognition 15(2): 1–27.Google Scholar
Kim, Nayoung. 2018. Grammaticalized sentence ender -key. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Kim, Tae-yop. 1998. kwuke pi-congkyel emi-uy congkyel emihwa-ey tayhaye [On the change of non-final endings to final endings]. Enehak 22: 171–89.Google Scholar
Ko, Kwangmo. 2000. Sangtay nophim-uy cosa “-yo”-wa “-psyo”-uy kiwen-kwa hyengseng [Origin and formation of addressee honorific -yo and -psyo]. Kwukehak 36: 259–82.Google Scholar
Ko, Kwangmo. 2002. “keyss”-uy hyengseng-kwa ku uymi-uy paltal [Genesis of keyss and the evolution of its meanings]. Kwukehak 30: 25–47.Google Scholar
Ko, Young-geun. 2007. Phyocwun cwungsey kwuke munpeplon, kaycengphan [Standard Middle Korean Grammar–revised edition]. Seoul: Cipmuntang.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun-jung, and Rhee, Seongha. 2001. Coken phyoci-eyse muncang congkyel phyoci-lo-uy munpephwa [Grammaticalization from condition marking to a sentence ender]. Discourse and Cognition 8(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Kwon, Iksoo. 2012. Viewpoints in the Korean verbal complex: Evidence, perception, assessment, and time. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kwon, Jaeil. 1998. Hankwuke mwunpepsa [A history of Korean grammar]. Seoul: Pagiceng.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectification, and transparency. In Blank, Andreas and Koch, Peter, eds., Historical Semantics and Cognition. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 147–75.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Deixis and subjectivity. In Brisard, Frank, ed., Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2006. Subjectification, grammaticalization, and conceptual archetypes. In Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costa, and Cornillie, Bert, eds., Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–40.Google Scholar
Lee, Byung-gi. 2006. Hankwuke milayseng phyohyen-uy yeksacek yenkwu [A historical study of futurity expressions in Korean]. Ph.D. dissertation in linguistics, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Lee, Gum-hee. 2013. Congkyel emi “-(u)nkel”, “-nunkel”-kwa “-(u)lkel”-uy munpephwa kwaceng-kwa uymi thukseng [Grammaticalization processes and semantic features of sentence ender -(u)nkel, -nunkel, and -(u)lkel]. Hankwuke Uymihak 42: 111–39.Google Scholar
Lee, Hidu. 2000. Kwuke conching hyengthay-uy pyenhwa kwaceng yenkwu [A study on the processes of Korean honorific forms]. Seoul: Pokosa.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1991. Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a typological perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1999. A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal -ci in Korean: A synthetic approach to the form-meaning relation. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 243–75.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo-Sang. 2014. Modality. In Brown, L. and Yeon, J., eds., The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 249–68.Google Scholar
Lee, Jungmee. 2011. Evidentiality and its interaction with tense: Evidence from Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Lee, Ki-Dong. 1979. Yenkyel emi “-nuntey”-uy hwayongsang-uy kinung [Pragmatic functions of the connective ending -nuntey]. Inmun Kwahak 40/41. Yonse University.Google Scholar
Lee, Kikap. 1987. Miceng-uy ssikkuth -uli-wa -keyss-uy yeksacek kyochey [Historical replacement of the probability suffix -uli by -keyss]. Mal 12: 161–97.Google Scholar
Lee, Seung-uk. 1973. Kwuke munpep cheykyey-uy sacek yenkwu [A historical study of the grammatical system of Korean]. Seoul: Ilcokak.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingual e Stile 20(3): 303–18.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munchen and Newcastle: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Jarvella, R. J. and Klein, W., eds., Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics. Chichester and New York: John Wiley, pp. 101–24.Google Scholar
Min, Hyunsik. 1984. Kayhwaki kwuke kyengepep-ey tayhaye [On Korean honorifics during the enlightenment period]. Kwanak Emunyenkwu 9: 141–3.Google Scholar
Na, Jin Suk. 1953. Milay sisang ekan “li”-wa “keyss”-uy kyochey [Replacement of future tense li by keys]. Kwuke Kwukmunhak 6: 6–8.Google Scholar
Na, Jin Suk. 1971. Wuli mal uy ttaymaykim yenkwu [A Study of Korean Tense]. Seoul: Kwahak-sa.Google Scholar
Nam, Pung-Hyun. 2012. Old Korean. In Tranter, Nicolas, ed., The Languages of Japan and Korea. London: Routledge, pp. 41–72.Google Scholar
Narrog, H., and Heine, B., eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality: Language and Conceptualization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Park, Mee-Jeong, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2002. Discourse, Grammaticalization, and Intonation: An analysis of -ketun in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 306–19.Google Scholar
Park, Jae-yeon. 2006. Hankwuk-e yangthay emi yenkwu [A Study of Korean Modal Endings]. Seoul: Thayhak-sa.Google Scholar
Park, Jin-ho. 2011. Sicey, sang, yangthay [Tense, Aspect, and Modality]. Kwuke-hak 60: 290–322.Google Scholar
Park, Mee-Jeong, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2002. Discourse, grammaticalization, and intonation: An analysis of - ketun in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 306–19.Google Scholar
Park, Yong Yae. 1998. A discourse analysis of the Korean connective -ketun in conversation. Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture 1: 71–89.Google Scholar
Park, Yong Yae. 1999. The Korean connective -nŭnde in conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Youngjun. 1998. Hyengthayso “-ess”-uy thongsicek pyenchen (Diachronic development of the morpheme -ess). Hankwukehak 8: 67–88.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 2007. Subjectification of reported speech in grammaticalization and lexicalization. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 12: 590–603.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 2012. Grammaticalization and stance-taking of the sentential ending keya in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 19(2): 39–55.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1974. Modals and speaker-hearer perspectives in Korean. Papers in Linguistics (Linguistic Research, Inc., Canada) 7(3/4): 493–520.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1975. Retrospection in Korean. Language Research 11(1): 87–103. Also pp. 137–154 of Linguistic Expeditions by Sohn, Ho-min. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1978. Contractions as a mechanism of polysemic breeding: A device for speaker involvement in Korean. In Kim, Chin-W., ed., Papers in Korean Linguistics. Columbia: Hornbeam Press, pp. 197–205.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1986. Intercultural communication in cognitive values: Americans and Koreans. In Sohn, H-m, Linguistic Expeditions. Seoul: Hansin, pp. 438–71.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1996. Reanalysis in Korean complex predicate constructions: Causative derivation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5: 37–64.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 2012. A grammar of po- “see” in Korean: A pan-chronic approach. Language Information 14: 83–117.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 2013a. An emergent category of interpersonal modals in Korean. The Annual Research Report on Korean Studies 13: 1–22. Kyushyu University, Japan.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 2013b. Politeness as a cause of linguistic change in Korean. In Sohn, Ho-min, Topics in Korean Language and Linguistics. Seoul: Korea University Press, pp. 164–80.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 2015. Evolution of Korean honorifics: A grammaticalization perspective. Korean Linguistics 17(2): 167–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 2018. Evidentiality in Korean. In Aikhenvald, A. Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 693–708.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1996a. Contraction and restructuring in modern Korean: A case of incipient grammaticalization. Chicago Linguistics Society 30: 391–403.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1996b. On the development of sentence-final particles in Korean. In Akatsuka, N., Iwasaki, S., and Strauss, S., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 219–34.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2003. On the emergence of intersubjectivity: An analysis of the sentence-final nikka in Korean. In McClure, W., ed., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 52–63.Google Scholar
Song, Kyung An. 2010. Various evidentials in Korean, the Proceedings of PACLIC 24: 895–905.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter, and Wright, Susan. 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, Susan. 2005. Cognitive realization markers in Korean: A discourse-pragmatic study of the sentence-ending particles -kwun, -ney, and -tela. Language Sciences 27: 437–48.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y., eds., Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–71.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 57: 33–65.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan, eds., Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1997. Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf J., eds., Modality in Germanic Languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–210.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjctifiction. In Hickey, Raymond, ed., Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124–39.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Vandelanotte, and Cuyckens, eds., (2010), pp. 29–71.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Dasher, R. B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Heine, B., eds. 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization I and II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verhage, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anne. 2002. The theory of cultural scripts as a tool of cross-cultural communication. In Korean Linguistics Today and Tomorrow. Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Korean Linguistics. Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon, and Brown, Lucien. 2011. Korean: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yoo, Hyun-gyung. 2002. Emi “-tako”-uy uymi-wa yongpep [Meaning and usage of the ender -tako]. Paytalmal 31: 101–4.Google Scholar
Yuen, S. A. 2001. Socio-pragmatic functions of Korean interactive sentence enders from politeness perspective. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar

References

Ahn, Jeong-kun. 1995. Red flag expressions in advertisements [In Korean]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 3(2): 101–22.Google Scholar
Akatsuka, Noriko, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1994. Negative conditionality: The case of Japanese -tewa and Korean -taka. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4: 203–21.Google Scholar
Atkinson, John M., and Heritage, John, eds. 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Connor, Ulla, and Upton, Thomas A.. 2007. Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace, ed. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, Russell, ed., Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–51.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chang, In-Bong. 2011. Discours direct dans le texte journalistique [An analysis of direct quotations in journalistic texts]. Rhetoric 14: 61–100.Google Scholar
de Beaugrande, Robert and Dressler, Wolfgang. 1981. Introduction to Textlinguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4): 805–55.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John, Kumpf, Lorraine E., and Ashby, William J., eds. 2003. Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Cumming, Susanna, and Paolino, Danae. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Edwards, Jane A. and Lampert, Martin D., eds., Talking Data: Transcription and Coding Methods for Language Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 221–60.Google Scholar
Edwards, Jane A., and Lampert, Martin D., eds. 1993. Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne, and Slade, Diana. 1997. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Isabela, and Fairclough, Norman. 2013. Political Discourse: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995a. Media Discourse. London: Edward ArnoldGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995b. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Boston: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2014. Critical Language Awareness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel, and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–84.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia, Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Ford, Cecilia, Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–38.Google Scholar
Gee, James P., and Handford, Michael, eds. 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy, ed. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985/1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig. S. 1952. Discourse analysis. Language 28: 1–30.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Friederike, Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993/2003. Grammaticalization (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) 1st/2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hwang, Myong Ok. 1983. Topic continuity/discontinuity in Korean narrative. Korean Linguistics 3: 47–79.Google Scholar
Hwang, Myong Ok. 1986. Deixis in discourse: The choice of demonstratives in Korean written discourse. Korean Linguistics 4: 75–104.Google Scholar
Hwang, Shin Ja J. 1980. The referential structure of a Korean folktale: The story of Shim Chung. Language Research 16: 255–80.Google Scholar
Hwang, Shin Ja J. 1987. Discourse Features of Korean Narration. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hwang, Shin Ja J. 2015. Korean discourse structure. In Brown, Lucien and Yeon, Jaehoon, eds., The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 287–302.Google Scholar
Hwang, Shin Ja J. 2016. Hankwuk Selhwauy Tamhwa Pwunsek [Discourse Analysis of Korean Folktales]. Seoul: Cipmwuntang.Google Scholar
Jaworski, Adam, and Coupland, Nikolas. 1999. The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jeon, Seongki. 2005. Free indirect speech in Korean. French Language Education 20: 243–77.Google Scholar
Jeong, Yeo-hoon. 2006. Sinmwun ceymokuy ywuhyeng mith ku silhyen yangsang [A study of types of newspaper headlines and their realization]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 14(1): 85–114.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 2002. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kawanishi, Yumiko. 1994a. An analysis of non-challengeable modals: Korean -canha(yo) and Japanese -janai. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4: 95–111.Google Scholar
Kawanishi, Yumiko. 1994b. An analysis of interactional markers in Korean: A comparative study of -canh-a(yo) vs. -ci(yo). In Iwasaki, Shoichi, Ono, Tsuyoshi, Tao, Hongyin, and Lee, Hyo Sang, eds., Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 5 (East Asian Linguistics). Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, UCSB, pp. 82–100.Google Scholar
Kawanishi, Yumiko, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1993. The grammaticalization of Korean negation: A semantic-pragmatic analysis of -canh-. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics V. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 552–61.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 1988. A discourse analysis of the conjunctive morpheme -nuntey in Korean spoken narratives. In Baek, Eung-jin, ed., Papers from the Sixth International Conference on Korean Linguistics. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 189–94.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 1989. Nominals in discourse: The introduction of referents and referent-tracking in Korean spoken narratives. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co., pp. 431–44.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 1990. Continuity of action and topic in discourse. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1: 79–96.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 1992. Clause combining in discourse and grammar: An analysis of some Korean clausal connectives in discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 1996. Functions of the verbal affix -nuntey in Korean conversation. Language Research 32(4): 637–63.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 1997. Turn-taking and verbal affixes in Korean conversation. Language Research 33(4): 601–27.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 2002a. Collaborative turn completion in Korean conversation. Language Research 38(4): 1281–316.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 2002b. Co-construction as an interactional achievement in Korean conversation. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 10(2): 181–211.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 2003a. Functions of post-posed adverbial clauses in Korean conversation. Language Research 39(4): 911–32.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 2003b. NP turn extension in Korean conversation. Ene (Korean Journal of Linguistics) 28(4): 585–605.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 2004. Backchannels as achievements of social interaction in Korean conversation. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 12(1): 65–93.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 2005. An overview of studies of conversation in Korean linguistics. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 13(2): 89–126.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 2006. Conversation and grammar: A conversation-analytic approach to Korean conversation. Korean Linguistics 13: 235–61.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 2008. Turn extensions as turn-constructional practice: Word order variability in Korean conversation. In Hudson, Mutsuko Endo, Sells, Peter, and Jun, Sun-Ah, eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 13. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 397–408.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 2017. An analysis of reporting constructions in newspaper report texts. Textlinguistics 42: 1–30.Google Scholar
Kim, Hye-Sook. 1999. Sociolinguistic characteristics of linguistic expressions in advertisements. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 7(2): 261–86.Google Scholar
Kim, Jeongeun. 2004. Kwangkoeneey nathanan hyentayinuy uysikmunhwa [Koreans’ attitudes toward advertisement expressions]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 12(1): 37–64.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1990. The Korean topic marker and subject marker: Speaker-relevant focus and event-relevant focus. In Baek, Eung-jin, ed., Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Korean Linguistics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 186–202.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1993a. Topicality in Korean conversation: Conversation analytic perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 2: 33–54.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1993b. Other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation as interactional resources. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3: 3–18.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1999a. Other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation: Types and functions. Discourse and Cognition 6(2): 141–68.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1999b. Organization of classroom discourse: A conversation-analytic perspective. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 7(2): 159–88.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1999c. Phrasal unit boundaries and organization of turns and sequences in Korean conversation. Human Studies 22: 425–46.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2000. An analysis of Korean topic constructions in story-telling contexts with reference to English left-dislocation. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 8(1): 139–66.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2001a. The Korean topic marker nun as a tying device: Grounding referents and actions. Discourse and Cognition 8(1): 139–60.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2001b. Turn-constructional practice in Korean conversation: Organization of turn increments. Language Research 37(4): 885–922.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2001c. Confirming intersubjectivity through retroactive elaboration: Organization of phrasal units in other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation. In Selting, Margret and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 345–72.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2002. Interactive classroom discourse as context of learning and socialization. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 10(2): 213–41.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2003. An analysis of collaborative completion in Korean conversation. Language Research 39(1): 147–82.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2004. A conversation analysis of Korean sentence-final modal suffixes -ney, kwun(a), and -ta: Noticing as a social action. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 12(1): 1–35.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2007. The Korean topic marker nun revisited: nun as a tying device. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 15: 81–92.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun, and Suh, Kyung-Hee. 1994a. The discourse connective -nikka in Korean conversation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4: 113–29.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun, and Suh, Kyung-Hee. 1994b. An interactional account of -nikka in Korean conversation. In Iwasaki, Shoichi, Ono, Tsuyoshi, Tao, Hongyin, and Lee, Hyo Sang, eds., Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 5 (East Asian Linguistics). Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, UCSB, pp. 101–22.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun, and Suh, Kyung-Hee. 1996. Dealing with prior talk: Discourse connectives in Korean conversation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5: 83–100.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun, and Suh, Kyung-Hee. 2002. Demonstratives as prospective indexicals: ku and ce in Korean conversation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 192–205.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun, and Suh, Kyung-Hee. 2004. An analysis of Korean sentence-ending suffixes in caregiver-child interaction. Language Research 40(4): 923–50.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin. 2003. Reported speech as an interactive resource: An examination of Korean quotative constructions. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12: 3–15.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin. 2011. The functional polysemy of the Korean discourse marker mak: Variant functions under an invariant meaning. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18: 31–42.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin, and Kim, Jieun. 2013. The Korean adverb kunyang in spoken discourse. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20: 17–30.Google Scholar
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri, and Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2015. Conversation analysis. In Brown, Lucien and Yeon, Jaehoon, eds., The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 271–86.Google Scholar
Kim, Yong-Jin. 1999. A comparative study of Korean and American newspaper editorial texts: Focusing on “evidentiality” expressions. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 7(1): 119–50.Google Scholar
Kim, Yong-Jin. 2003. A sociolinguistic analysis of newspaper editorial titles. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 11(1): 341–54.Google Scholar
Kwon, Woojin. 2002. Sinmun phyoceyeey tayhan sahoyenehakcek yenkwu [A sociolinguistic study of newspaper titles]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 10(2): 25–58.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1987. Discourse Presupposition and the Discourse Function of the Topic Marker nun in Korean. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1991. Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a typological perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1993. Cognitive constraints on expressing newly perceived information, with reference to epistemic modal suffixes in Korean. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2): 135–67.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1999a. A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal -ci in Korean: A synthetic approach to the form-meaning relation. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 327–58.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1999b. Discourse-pragmatics of the Korean connective -nunte/(u)nte: A case of grammaticalization of figure-ground relation. Paper presented at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 1, June 16–19, Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 2003. Grammaticalization and synchronic variation: A unified account of the discourse-pragmatics of -na in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12: 149–62.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 2015a. Tense and aspect. In Brown, Lucien and Yeon, Jaehoon, eds., The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 232–48.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 2015b. Modality. In Brown, Lucien and Yeon, Jaehoon, eds., The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 249–68.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang, and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1989. A discourse account of the Korean accusative marker. Studies in Language 13(1): 105–28.Google Scholar
Lee, Keedong. 1993. A Korean Grammar on Semantic-Pragmatic Principles. Seoul: Hankook munhwasa.Google Scholar
Lee, Kee-Gap. 1995. Hankwukeuy tamhwa phyoci “icey” [The Korean discourse marker “icey”]. Discourse and Cognition 1: 261–87.Google Scholar
Lee, Won-Pyo. 1992. Sikan pusa “icey”uy tamhwa kinung [Discourse functions of the temporal adverb “icey”]. Human Sciences 68: 105–37. Seoul: Research Center for Human Sciences, Yonsei University.Google Scholar
Lee, Won-Pyo. 1993. Uyci kamthansa “yey”, “kulssey”, “ani”uy tamhwa punsek [A discourse analytic study of the intention exclamatory markers “yes”, “well”, and “no”]. Human Sciences 68: 105–37. Seoul: Research Center for Human Sciences, Yonsei University.Google Scholar
Lee, Won-Pyo. 1994. Sanghokyolyueyse munpephwalo: Swusacek phyohyen “waynyamyen” kwumunuy kyengwulul cwungsimulo [From interaction to grammaticalization: Focusing on the rhetorical expression waynyamyen]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 2: 21–54.Google Scholar
Lee, Won-Pyo. 1995. A discourse marker: “mweya” in Korean. Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3 (Selected papers from SICOL-1992). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co., pp. 725–39.Google Scholar
Lee, Won-Pyo. 1998. Hanpo chengmunhoyeyseuy cilmun punsek: Ceyto sanghwangkwa hwacauy thayto phyohyen [An analysis of the interrogation in the Hanbo hearings: Institutional settings and representation of stance]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 6(1): 1–52.Google Scholar
Lee, Won-Pyo. 1999. Thokhusyoeyseuy mal kkie tulki: Tamhwa kinungkwa sahoycek yoin [Interventions in talk shows: Discourse functions and social variables]. Discourse and Cognition 6(2): 23–60.Google Scholar
Lee, Won-Pyo. 2005a. Sinmun saseleyseuy phyohyeney tayhan enehakcek punsek: Kwukkapoanpep phyeyciey tayhan noncaynguy kyengwu [A linguistic analysis of representation of ideologies in newspaper editorials: The case of controversy on abolition of the ‘national security laws’]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 13(1): 191–228.Google Scholar
Lee, Won-Pyo. 2005b. Direct quotations in newspaper editorials: An analysis from the perspective of Bakhtin’s dialogicality. Discourse and Cognition 12(2): 117–51.Google Scholar
Li, Charles, and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li, Charles N., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 457–89.Google Scholar
Longacre, Robert. 1985/1996. The Grammar of Discourse, 1st/2nd ed. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Thompson, Sandra A., eds. 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Park, Mee-Jeong, and Sohn, Sung-Ock S.. 2002. Discourse, grammaticalization, and intonation: An analysis of -ketun in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 306–19.Google Scholar
Park, Yong-Yae. 1996. The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5: 131–48.Google Scholar
Park, Yong-Yae. 1997. A cross-linguistic study of the use of contrastive connectives in English, Korean, and Japanese conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Park, Yong-Yae. 1998. Interactive grammar: The turn-final use of nuntey in Korean and kedo in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 8: 45–60.Google Scholar
Park, Yong-Yae. 1999. The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel, and Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. A., Jefferson, Gail, and Sacks, Harvey. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2): 361–82.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah, and Hamilton, Heidi. 2001. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds. 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1992. Speaker-oriented and event-oriented causal: A comparative analysis of -nikka and -ese. Korean Linguistics 7: 83–93.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1994. Semantic change and restructuring in modern Korean: A case of semi-grammaticalization. In Iwasaki, Shoichi, Ono, Tsuyoshi, Tao, Hongyin, and Lee, Hyo Sang, eds., Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 5 (East Asian Linguistics). Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, UCSB, pp. 193–204.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2003. On the emergence of intersubjectivity: An analysis of the sentence-final -nikka in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12: 52–63.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock, and Park, Mee-jeong. 2003. Indirect quotations in Korean conversations. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 11: 105–18.Google Scholar
Song, Kyong-Sook. 1993. An Interactional Sociolinguistic Analysis of Argument Strategies in Korean Conversational Discourse: Negotiating Disagreement and Conflict. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, Georgetown.Google Scholar
Song, Kyong-Sook. 1994. An interactional sociolinguistic approach to discourse analysis: A case of conflict management strategies in English and Korean. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 2: 99–128.Google Scholar
Song, Kyong-Sook. 1995. Semantics and pragmatics of argument in Korean conversational discourse: A journey to sociolinguistics. Korean Journal of Linguistics 20(2): 49–78.Google Scholar
Song, Kyong-Sook. 1998. Cey 15tay taythonglyeng hwupo chocheng TV haptong tholonhoy punsek [An analysis of the 15th Korean presidential candidates’ live TV debates]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 6(1): 53–87.Google Scholar
Strauss, Susan, and Ahn, Kyungja. 2007. Cognition through the lens of discourse and interaction: The case of -kwun, -ney, and -tela. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 15: 135–46.Google Scholar
Suh, Jeong-soo. 1996. Hyentay kwuke munpeplon [Contemporary Korean Grammar]. Seoul: Hanyang University Press.Google Scholar
Suh, Kyung-Hee. 2001. Language socialization through sentence-ending modal particles -ci and -cianha in Korean care-giver interaction. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 9(1): 237–58.Google Scholar
Suh, Kyung-Hee. 2003. From unknown to unspeakable: “Mwe” as a stance marker in Korean conversation. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 11(2): 137–60.Google Scholar
Suh, Kyung-Hee. 2004. Interactional functions of way in Korean conversation. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 12(2): 181–204.Google Scholar
Suh, Kyung-Hee, and Hong, Jong-Hwa. 1999. “Ikey palo kukeya”: Wenkun cisieyse thayto cisilo [“This is it”: From spatial to speaker-stance deixis]. Discourse and Cognition 6(2): 1–22.Google Scholar
Suh, Kyung-Hee, and Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1991. The Korean modal markers keyss and (u)lkes: An interactional perspective. Harvard Studies on Korean Linguistics IV: 599–610. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Suh, Kyung-Hee, and Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1993. The Korean modal marker keyss as a marker of affect: An interactional perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 2: 98–114.Google Scholar
Suh, Kyung-Hee, and Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1995. “Keyss” kwumunuy tayhan punsek [A conversation analysis of the Korean keyss utterances]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 3(1): 35–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and König, Ekkerhard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd, eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. I. Theoretical and Methodological Issues (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–218.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun, ed. 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Elizabeth. 1993. Varieties of Questions in English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

References

Clancey, W. J. 1991. The invention of memory (by Rosenfield, Israel). [Book review]. Artificial Intelligence 50: 241–84.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. 1999. Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In Gibbs, R. and Steen, G., eds., Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 145–66.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. 2006. Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language 21(3): 434–58.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., and Colston, H. L.. 2006. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. In Geeraerts, D., ed., Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 239–68.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., and Steen, G. J.. 1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997. London: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goatly, A. 2007. Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grady, J. 1998. The “conduit” metaphor revisited: A reassessment of metaphors for communication. In Koenig, J-P, ed., Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 205–18.Google Scholar
Grady, J. 1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor. In Gibbs, R. and Steen, G., eds., Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–100.Google Scholar
Han, Y. K. 2016. Haksupyong kipon myengsa yene pinto sacen [Basic noun and collocation frequency dictionary for learning]. Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2005. Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their patterns. In Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. T., eds., Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 123–52.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2007. Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective on body part terms. In Radden, G., Köpcke, K. M., Berg, T., and Siemund, P., eds., Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 77–98.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kellerman, J., Lewis, J., and Laird, J. D.. 1989. Looking and loving: The effects of mutual gaze on feelings of romantic love. Journal of Research in Personality 23: 145–61.Google Scholar
Kim, B. K. 2001. Hankwuke sincheyeuy unyuwa hwanyu [Metaphor and metonymy in Korean: Body terms] (Master’s thesis). Sangmyung University, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
Kim, H. K. 2004. Sincheyeuy unyuwa hwanyu- hankwuke yengeyeymwunul cwungsimulo [Metaphor and metonymy of body terms in Korean and English discourse] (Master’s thesis). Pusan University of Foreign Studies, Pusan, Korea.Google Scholar
Kleinke, C. L. 1986. Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin 100: 78–100.Google Scholar
Koriat, A., and Goldsmith, M.. 1996. Memory metaphors and the real-life/laboratory controversy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19: 167–228.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. 1999. Metaphor: Does it constitute or reflect cultural models? In Gibbs, R. W. and Steen, G. J., eds., Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 167–89.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. 2003. Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1990. The invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1): 39–74.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202–51.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1995. Reflections on metaphor and grammar. In Shibatani, M. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics: In Honor of Charles J. Fillmore. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 133–44.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., and Schwartz, A.. 1991. Master metaphor list. Cognitive Linguistics Group, University of California at Berkeley. Available at: http://araw.mede.uic.edu/~alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf [last accessed September 4, 2020].Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M.. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M.. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenges to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Turner, M.. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. W., Ra, G. M., and Lee, I. O.. 2008. Ttus to moluko cacwu ssunun wuli mal swuke 1000 kaci [1,000 words of our idioms]. Seoul: Yedam.Google Scholar
Lee, M. Y. 2001. Sincheyeuy unyuwa hwanyu-kwuke tamhwa pwunsekul cwungsimulo [Metaphor and metonymy of body terms in Korean discourse] (Master’s thesis). Pusan University of Foreign Studies, Pusan, Korea.Google Scholar
Lee, S. O. 1995. Kwuke kwanyongphyohyenuy pwunsekkwa ehwipwu nayeyseuy cheli [An analysis of idiomatic expressions and compounds and their lexical treatment]. Inmwunnonchong [Journal of Humanities] 34: 1–45.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B., ed. 2016. Conceptualizations of Time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lim, J. R. 2016. Sincheyeuy uymi hwakcang yangsangkwa haysek [The aspects and construals of semantic extension of body-part terms]. Paytalmal [Korean Language] 59: 1–43.Google Scholar
Lobmaier, J. S., Hartmann, M., Volz, A. J., and Mast, F. W.. 2013. Emotional expression affects the accuracy of gaze perception. Motivation and Emotion 37: 194–201.Google Scholar
Lobmaier, J. S., Tiddeman, B. P., and Perrett, D. I.. 2008. Emotional expression modulates perceived gaze direction. Emotion 8: 573–7.Google Scholar
Maalej, Z., and Yu, N., eds. 2011. Embodiment via Body Parts: Studies from Various Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nummenmaa, L. and Calder, A. J.. 2009. Neural mechanisms of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Science 13: 135–43.Google Scholar
Panther, K., and Radden, G.. 1999. Introduction. In Panther, K. and Radden, G., eds., Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Park, K. B., and Elliot, M.. 2013. Dictionary of Korean Idioms. Seoul: Moonyelim.Google Scholar
Pyun, D. O. 2018. 500 Common Korean Idioms. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rayson, P. 2008. From key words to semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 519–49.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. 1980. Memory metaphors in cognitive psychology. Memory & Cognition 8(3): 231–46.Google Scholar
Schulze, L., Lobmaier, J. S., Arnold, M., and Renneberg, B.. 2013. All eyes on me?! Social anxiety and self-directed perception of eye gaze. Cognition & Emotion 27: 1305–13.Google Scholar
Seo, H. M. 2012. Semantic extension of body-part terms in terms of metaphor and metonymy: With reference to English and Korean (Master’s thesis). Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.Google Scholar
Seo, S. K. 2014. Hankwuke kwue pinto sacen 1–2 [Spoken Korean frequency dictionary 1–2]. Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., and Niemeier, S.. 2008. Culture and language: Looking for the “mind” inside the body. In Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., and Niemeier, S., eds., Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Türker, E. 2013. Corpus-based approach to emotion metaphors in Korean: A case study of anger, happiness and sadness. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11(1): 73–144.Google Scholar
Ureña, J. M., and Faber, P.. 2010. Reviewing imagery in resemblance and non-resemblance metaphors. Cognitive Linguistics 21(1): 123–49.Google Scholar
Yamanashi, M. 2010. Metaphorical modes of perception and scanning. In Burkhardt, A. and Nerlich, B., eds., Tropical Truth(s): The Epistemology of Metaphor and Other Tropes. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 157–75.Google Scholar
Yu, N. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yu, N. 1999. The spatial conceptualization of time in Chinese. In Hiraga, M. K., Sinha, C., and Wilcox, S., eds., Cultural, Psychological and Typological Issues in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–84.Google Scholar
Yu, N. 2004. The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 663–86.Google Scholar
Yu, N. 2008. Metaphor from body and culture. In Gibbs, R. W. Jr., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–61.Google Scholar

References

Aldridge, Edith. 2007. Wh-indefinites and their relation to wh-in-situ. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 43: 139–53.Google Scholar
Baek, Judy Yoo-Kyung. 1998. Negation and object shift in early child Korean. In Sauerland, Uli and Percus, Orin, eds., The Interpretive Tract. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara. 2004. Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2007. Wh-in-Situ does not correlate with wh-Indefinites or question particles. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 139–66.Google Scholar
Chang, Suk-Jin. 1973. A generative study of discourse: pragmatic aspects of Korean with reference to English. Ehak yenkwu [Language Research] 9(2): (supplement).Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Cho, Choon-Hak. 1975. The scope of negation in Korean. In Sohn, Ho-min, ed., The Korean Language: Its Structure and Social Projection. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Center for Korean Studies, pp. 121–32.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee Yu. 1990. Syntax and phrasing in Korean. In Inkelas, Sharon and Zec, Draga, eds., The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 47–62.Google Scholar
Choe, Jae-Woong. 1985. Pitch-accent and q/wh words in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 1: 113–23.Google Scholar
Choi, Jinyoung. 2007. Free choice and negative polarity: A compositional analysis of Korean polarity sensitive items. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Chung, Dae-Ho. 1996. On the representation and licensing of Q and Q-dependency. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–98.Google Scholar
Ha, Seungwan. 2004. The existential reading of wh-words and their scope relations. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 40: 83–95.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul. 2000. Phrasal movement in Korean negation. In Veselinova, Ljuba, Robinson, Susan, and Antieau, Lamont, eds., Proceedings of the 9th Student Conference in Linguistics (SCIL 9), pp. 127–42.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye, Lidz, Jeffrey, and Musolino, Julien. 2007. V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 1–47.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. Diachronic sources of “all” and “every”. In Elke, Bach, Eloise, Jelinek, Angelika, Kratzer, and Barbara, H. Partee, eds., Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 363–82.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns: Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hur, Woong. 1991. Kwukeumwunhak [Korean Phonology]. Seoul: Saym Mwunhwasa.Google Scholar
Hwang, Hyun Kyung. 2011. Scope, prosody, and pitch accent: The prosodic marking of wh-scope in two varieties of Japanese and South Kyeongsang Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Im, Hong-Bin. 1998. An In-Depth Analysis of Korean Grammar 3 [in Korean]. Seoul: Payhaksa.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 1993. The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah, and Mira, Oh. 1996. A prosodic analysis of three types of wh-phrases in Korean. Language and Speech 39: 37–61.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit, and Landman, Fred. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(4): 353–422.Google Scholar
Kang, Arum. 2015. (In)definiteness, disjunction and anti-specificity in Korean: A study in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1988. Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding and movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kim, Ae-Ryung. 2000. A derivational quantification of “wh-phrase”. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Kim, Chung-Hyo. 2000. A Study of Interrogatives and Indefinites in Korean [in Korean]. Seoul: Pakicheng.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2000. The Grammar of Negation: A Constraint-Based Approach. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kim, Min-Joo, and Kaufmann, Stefan. 2006. Domain restriction in freedom of choice: Korean “INDET-NA” items. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11: 375–89.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 2005. Wh-scope puzzles. Proceedings from the 35th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS 35).Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Rothstein, Susan, ed., Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 163–96.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kwon, Jae-Il. 2002. Korean interrogative sentences in spoken discourse [in Korean]. Hangeul 257: 167–200.Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin, Chung, Daeho, and Nam, Seungho. 2000. The semantics of amwu N-to/-irato/-ina in Korean – Arbitrary choice and concession. Language and Information 4(2): 107–23.Google Scholar
Lee, Ho-Young. 1990. Kwukewunyullon [Korean Prosody]: Seoul: Hankwukyenkwuwen [Korean Study Institute].Google Scholar
Lee, Hye-Sook. 2008. Pitch accent and its interaction with intonation: Experimental studies of North Kyeongsang Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Lee, Iksop, and Robert Ramsey, S.. 2000. The Korean Language: New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Ki Moon, Kim, Chin-Wu, and Lee, Sang Oak. 1984. Kwukeumwunlon [Korean Phonology]. Seoul: Hakyensa.Google Scholar
Lee, So-Young, and Yun, Jiwon. 2018. Influence of intonation, morphology and syntax on the semantic scope of wh-phrases in Kyeongsang Korean. Language and Information 22(3): 23–43.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1951. Korean phonemics. Language 27:519–33.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1999. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7: 79–134.Google Scholar
Mok, Jung-soo. 2001. The function of {jom} and its grammaticalization. Eoneohag: Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea 28: 77–100.Google Scholar
Park, Duk-Soo. 2010. A pitch analysis of two types of wh-clauses in Korean. In Lee, S-O, ed., Contemporary Korean Linguistics: International Perspectives. Seoul: Thaehaksa Publishing Co., pp. 252–70.Google Scholar
Park, Hee-Heon. 1998. Acquisition of negation in Korean. Korean Linguistics 9: 111–31.Google Scholar
Park, Jin-Ho. 2007. The pronominal system of Korean viewed from a typological perspective [in Korean]. Journal of Korean Linguistics 50: 115–47.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet Breckenridge. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet Breckenridge, and Beckman, Mary. 1988. Japanese Tone Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postma, Gertjan. 1994. The indefinite reading of wh. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1994: 187–98.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–97.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering Trees. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 2001. Three aspects of negation in Korean. Journal of Linguistic Studies 6: 1–15.Google Scholar
Shimoyama, Junko. 2006. Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14: 139–73.Google Scholar
Song, Seok Choong. 1982. On interpreting the scope of negation in Korean. Language Research 18: 197–215.Google Scholar
Suh, Cheong-Soo. 1989. Interrogatives and indefinite words in Korean: With reference to Japanese. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3: 329–40.Google Scholar
Suh, Chung-Mok. 1987. Study of Questions in Korean [in Korean]. Seoul: Tap Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Suh, Chung-Mok. 1989. Wh-constructions in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3: 517–26.Google Scholar
Suh, Jinhee. 1989. Scope interaction in negation. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3: 527–36.Google Scholar
Underwood, Horace Grant. 1890. An Introduction to the Korean Spoken Language. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467.Google Scholar
Yi, Sun-Woong. 2000. On the indefinite expression of “interrogative pronoun+(i)+-nka” [in Korean]. Hankwukehak [Korean Linguistics] 36: 191–219.Google Scholar
Yoon, Jeong-Me. 2005. Two historical changes in wh-constructions in Korean and their implications. Studies in Generative Grammar 15: 457–87.Google Scholar
Yun, Jiwon. 2011. On the meaning of wh-(N)-ina and wh-(N)-itun in Korean. Language Research 47: 191–218.Google Scholar
Yun, Jiwon. 2013. Wh-indefinites: Meaning and prosody. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Yun, Jiwon. 2014. Wh-indefinites and their licensing conditions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 47: 361–72.Google Scholar
Yun, Jiwon. 2015. The influence of sentence-final intonation and phonological phrasing on the interpretation of wh-indeterminates. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 76: 25–34.Google Scholar
Yun, Jiwon. 2019. Meaning and prosody of wh-indeterminates in Korean. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3): 630–47.Google Scholar
Yun, Jiwon, and Lee, Hye-Sook (manuscript). Prosodic disambiguation of questions in Korean: Theory and processing. Korean Linguistics.Google Scholar

References

Abels, K. 2002. Expletive (?) negation. In Bloomington, J. T., ed., Proceedings of FASL 10. Michigan: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Abels, K. 2005. “Expletive negation” in Russian: A conspiracy theory. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 13: 5–74.Google Scholar
Brown, S. 1999. The Syntax of Negation in Russian: A Minimalist Approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Brown, S., and Franks, S.. 1995. Asymmetries in the scope of Russian Negation. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 3: 239–87.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donati, C. 2000. A note on negation in comparison. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica – Università di Firenze 10: 55–68.Google Scholar
Eilam, A., and Scheffler, T.. 2006. Until and Expletive negation in Modern Hebrew. Swarthmore Workshop on Negation and Polarity, April 14–15.Google Scholar
Ernst, T. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27(3): 497–544.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T. 1997. Non-negative negation and wh-exclamatives. In Forget, D., Hirschbühler, P., Martineau, F., and Rivero, M. L., eds., Negation and Polarity. Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 75–93.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T. 2000. Expletive negation, negative concord and feature checking. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 47–69.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. F. 1992a. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In Hirschbűhler, P. et al., eds., Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 69–104.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. F. 1992b. Mood choice in complement clauses. In Kenesei, I. and Pleh, E., eds., Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 4: The Structure of Hungarian. Szeged: JATE, pp. 77–103.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1992. Syntax. In Blake, N., eds., The Cambridge History of the English Language II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1066–476.Google Scholar
Gaatone, D. 1971. Étude descriptive du système de la negation en français contemporain. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 1994. The semantic licensing of NPIs and the Modern Greek subjunctive. Language and Cognition 4: 55–68.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non) Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 2009. The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua 119(12): 1883–1908.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Stavrou, M.. 2008. Metalinguistic comparatives and negation in Greek. In Hill, D., ed., MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 57.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Yoon, S.. 2011. The subjective mode of comparison: Metalinguistic comparatives in Greek and Korean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9(3): 621–55.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Yoon, S.. 2010. No NPI licensing in clausal comparatives. In Grinsell, T., Baker, A., Thomas, J., Baglini, R., Keane, J., eds., Proceedings of the 46th Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 46). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Yoon, S.. 2009. Metalinguistic comparatives in Greek and Korean: Attitude semantics, expressive content, and negative polarity items. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13: 141–56. Online Publikationsverbund der Universität Stuttgart (OPUS).Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Zwarts, F.. 1999. Aspectual properties of temporal connectives. In Mozer, A., ed., Greek Linguistics ’97: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Athens: Ellinika Grammata, pp. 104–13.Google Scholar
Grévisse, M. 1986. Le bon usage. Paris: Éditions Duculot.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.Google Scholar
Jabłónska, P. 2003. Quirky n-words in Polish: NPIs, Negative Quantifiers or neither? In Dahl, A., Bentzen, K., and Svenonius, P., eds., Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 31(1).Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Host.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Larrivée, P. 2005. Variation diachronique, variation synchronique et réseaux de polysémie: à propos des certaines régularités apparentes dans le changement sémantique. Verbum 25(4): 431–42.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–86.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. 2008. Quantification and perspective in relativist semantics. University of Chicago Compositionality Workshop, May 9.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. 2009. Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese 166: 359–74.Google Scholar
Löbner, S. 2002. Understanding Semantics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Manzotti, E. 1982. Fenomeni di negazione espletiva in italiano. Studi di Gramatica Italiana 9: 273–338.Google Scholar
Manzotti, E., and Rigamonti, A.. 1991. La negazione. In Renzi, L. and Salvi, G., eds., Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 2: I sintagmi verbale, aggettivale, avverbiale; la subordinazione. Bologna: Il Mulino, pp. 245–317.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J. 1990. Sentence mood, lexical category filling, and non-propositional nicht in German. Linguistische Berichte 130: 441–63.Google Scholar
Muller, C. 1991. La négation en français: syntaxe, sémantique et elements de comparaison avec les quatres langues romanes. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Portner, P., and Zanuttini, R.. 1999. The force of negation in wh exclamatives and interrogatives. In Horn, R. L., and Kato, Y., eds., Negation and Polarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 193–231.Google Scholar
Portner, P., and Zanuttini, R.. 2000. The characterization of exclamative clauses in Paduan. Language 76(1): 123–32.Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–98.Google Scholar
Quer, J. 1998. Mood at the interface. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Restan, Per A. 1960. The objective case in negative clauses in Russian: The genitive or the accusative? Scando-Slavica VI: 92–112.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. 1971. Queclaratives. In Adams, D., Cambell, M. A., Cohen, V., Levins, J., Maxwell, E., Nygren, C., and Reighard, J., eds., Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 223–32.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York, San Francisco, and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sawada, O. 2010. Pragmatic aspects of scalar modifiers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tovena, L. M. 1996. An expletive negation which is not so redundant. Grammatical Theory and Romance Languages 4: 263–74. Selected Papers from the 25th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XXV).Google Scholar
Tovena, L. M. 1998. The Fine Structure of Polarity Sensitivity. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Van der Wouden, T. 1997. Polarity and “illogical negation”. In Kanazawa, M. and Pinon, C. J., eds., Dymanics, Polarity, and Quantification. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 17–45.Google Scholar
Van der Wouden, T., and Zwarts, F.. 1993. A semantic analysis of negative concord. SALT III: 202–19. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Van der Wurff, W. 1999. On EN with adversative predicates in the history of English. In van Ostade, I. T-B., Tottie, G., and Van der Wurff, W., eds., Negation in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Helten, W. L. 1883. Vondel’s taal. Grammatica van het Nederlandsch der zeven-tiende eeuw. Syntaxis. Groningen: J. B. Wolters.Google Scholar
Villalta, E. 2006. Context dependence in the interpretation of questions and subjunctives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tubingen.Google Scholar
Villalta, E. 2008. Mood and gradability: An investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 467–522.Google Scholar
Yoon, J-H. 1993. Different semantics for different syntax: Relative clauses in Korean. OSUWPL 42: 199–226.Google Scholar
Yoon, S. 2011. Not in the mood: The syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of evaluative negation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Yoon, S. 2013. Parametric variation in subordinate evaluative negation: Japanese/Korean vs. Others. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 22(2): 133–66.Google Scholar

References

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
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.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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
×