6 - Complex Clauses
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 December 2018
Summary
Chapter 6 concerns complex clause-generating mechanisms where a finite clause is connected to other clauses through embedding, nominalization, relativization, coordination and subordination.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Korean Syntax and Semantics , pp. 223 - 262Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Primary Sources
Ahn, Mikyung, and Yap, Foong-Ha. 2014. On the development of Korean say evidentials and their extended pragmatic functions. Diachronica 31, 299–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceong, Hailey Hyekyeong. 2016. Korean hearsay constructions and speech act phrases. In Hracs, Lindsay (ed.), Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Ottawa: Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Kang, Bosook. 2006. Some peculiarities of Korean kes construction. Studia Linguistica 60, 251–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Min-Joo. 2009. E-type anaphora and three types of kes-construction in Korean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27, 345–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madigan, Sean. 2008. Obligatory split control into exhortative complements in Korean. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock, and Park, Mee-Jeong. (2003). Indirect quotations in Korean conversations. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 11, 105–118.Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Grosu, Alexander. 2010. The status of the internally-headed relatives of Japanese/Korean within the typology of definite relatives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 231–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosu, Alexander, and Landman, Fred. 2012. A quantificational disclosure approach to Japanese and Korean internally headed relatives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21, 159–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-hye, and Kim, Jong-Bok. 2004. Are there “double relative clauses” in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry 35, 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Min-Joo. 2007. Formal linking in Internally Headed Relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 279–315.Google Scholar
Kim, Yong-Beom. 2002. Relevancy in internally headed relative clauses in Korean. Lingua 112, 541–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, Nayoung, Gordon, Peter C., Lee, Yoonhyung, Kluender, Robert, and Polinsky, Maria. 2010. Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean. Language 86, 546–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, Nayoung, Kluender, Robert, Kutas, Marta, and Polinsky, Maria. 2013. Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data. Language 89, 537–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, Daeho. 2005. What does bare -ko coordination say about post-verbal morphology in Korean? Lingua 115, 549–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-hye. 2006. Variation in form–meaning mapping between Korean and English counterfactuals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15, 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubota, Yuseke, and Lee, Jungmee. 2015. The coordinate structure constraint as a discourse-oriented principle: Further evidence from Japanese and Korean. Language 91, 642–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noh, Eun-Ju. 2009. The Korean conditional markers myen and tamyen: Epistemicity vs. modes of language use. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar