Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067



The main purpose of this paper is to identify the novel type of Korean definiteness marker. Especially I show that Korean KU which originated from the morphological demonstrative ‘that’, instantiates a solid pattern of distribution of definiteness marker. Mainly focusing on the semantico-pragmatic role of KU, the proposal comprises three main parts: (i) Given that Korean employs distinct devices teased apart into uniqueness (i.e. referential use) and familiarity (i.e. anaphoric use) in its definiteness system, I show that the effect of referential use in argument saturating function is achieved by the covert “determiner” in bare nouns, whereas anaphoric use in argument non-saturating function is achieved by the overt KU; (ii) The semantic contribution of KU is analyzed as a domain restrictor (D; Etxeberria & Giannakidou 2010) which supplies an indexical property as an argument (Schwarz 20092013Jenks 2018); (iii) I further show that the D operator is present in the syntax, falling out from the standard D position as an adjunctive modifier in a lower DP layer. The contribution of my work is that the proposed account allows us to widen our view of cross-linguistic variation to cases where the prerequisite of definiteness is based on the dissociation of meaning (i.e. the semantic role of D as encoding familiarity) and form (i.e. the syntactic role of D as an argument-building function).

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Abney, Steven Paul
    1987The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahn, Dorothy
    2017 Definite and demonstrative descriptions: A micro-typology. InErlewine, Michael Yoshitaka (ed.), Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 84), vol.11, 33–48. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barker, Chris
    1998 Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory16(4). 679–717. 10.1023/A:1005917421076
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005917421076 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barwise, Jon & Cooper, Robin
    1981 Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy4(2). 159–219. 10.1007/BF00350139
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00350139 [Google Scholar]
  5. Büring, Daniel
    2003 On d-trees, beans, and b-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy26(5). 511–545. 10.1023/A:1025887707652
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chang, Soo Jung
    2009Nominal structure and interpretation: On the syntax of the Korean determiner phrase. Athens-Clarke: University of Georgia. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen
    2009 On every type of quantificational expression in Chinese. InGiannakidou, Anastasia & Rathert, Monika (eds.), Quantification, definiteness, and nominalization (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 24), 53–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cho, Hye-Sun
    1999 Interpretation and function of the Korean demonstrative ku. Studies in Modern Grammar181. 71–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cho, Jacee
    2017 The acquisition of different types of definite noun phrases in L2-English. International Journal of Bilingualism21(3). 367–382. 10.1177/1367006916629577
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916629577 [Google Scholar]
  10. Choi, Jinyoung
    2007Free choice and negative polarity: A compositional analysis of Korean polarity sensitive items. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Christophersen, Paul
    1939The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chung, Sandra & Ladusaw, William A.
    2003Restriction and saturation. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5927.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5927.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Diessel, Holger
    1999Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  14. Elbourne, Paul
    2005Situations and individuals. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy31(4). 409–466. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9043‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9043-0 [Google Scholar]
  16. Etxeberria, Urtzi
    2005Quantification and domain restriction in Basque. Leioa: University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Etxeberria, Urtzi & Giannakidou, Anastasia
    2010 Contextual domain restriction and the definite determiner. InRecanati, François & Stojanovic, Isidora & Villanueva, Neftalı (eds.), Context-dependence, perspective and relativity (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 6), 93–126. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2014 D-heads, domain restriction and variation: From Greek and Basque to Salish. InEtxeberria, Urtzi & Giannakidou, Anastasia & Schürcks Lilia (eds.), The nominal structure in Slavic and beyond (Studies in Generative Grammar 116), 413–440. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Etxeberria, Urtzi. & Giannakidou, Anastasia
    2019 Definiteness, partitivity and domain restriction: A fresh look at definite reduplication. InAguilar-Guevara, Ana & Pozas Loyo, Julia & Vázquez-Rojas Maldonado, Violeta (eds.), Definiteness across languages (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 25), 419–452. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Giannakidou, Anastasia
    2004 Domain restriction and the arguments of quantificational determiners. InYoung, Robert B. (ed.), SALT 14: Proceedings of the 14th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, 110–126. Ithaca: CLC Publications, Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Giannakidou, Anastasia & Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen
    2006 (In)Definiteness, polarity, and the role of wh-morphology in free choice. Journal of Semantics23(2). 135–183. 10.1093/jos/ffl001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffl001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gillon, Carrie
    2006The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in Skwxwú7mesh. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2009 The semantic core of determiners: Evidence from Skwxwú7mesh. InGhomeshi, Jila & Ileana, Paul & Wiltschko, Martina (eds.), Determiners: Universals and variation (Linguistics Today 147), 177–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.147.06gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.147.06gil [Google Scholar]
  24. Gundel, Jeanette K.
    1988 Universals of topic-comment structure. InHammond, Michael & Moravcsik, Edith A. & Wirth, Jessica (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (Typological Studies in Language 17), 209–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.17.16gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.17.16gun [Google Scholar]
  25. Hawkins, John A.
    1980 Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. Linguistics and Philosophy3(3). 419–427.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1991 On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics27(2). 405–442. 10.1017/S0022226700012731
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012731 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heim, Irene
    1982The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1990 E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy13(2). 137–177. 10.1007/BF00630732
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630732 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ionin, Tania
    2006This is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics14(2). 175–234. 10.1007/s11050‑005‑5255‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-5255-9 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ionin, Tania & Baek, Soondo & Kim, Eunah & Ko, Heejeong & Ken, Wexler
    2011That’s the meaning: Interpretation of definite and demonstrative descriptions in L2-English. InPirvulescu, Mihaela & Cuervo, María Cristina & Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa & Steele, Jeffrey & Strik, Nelleke (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2010), 122–138. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ionin, Tania & Baek, Soondo & Kim, Eunah & Ko, Heejeong & Kenneth Wexler
    2012That’s not so different from the: Definite and demonstrative descriptions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research28(1). 69–101. 10.1177/0267658311432200
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658311432200 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jenks, Peter
    2018 Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry49(3). 501–536. 10.1162/ling_a_00280
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00280 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kadmon, Nirit
    1987On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1990 Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy13(3). 273–324. 10.1007/BF00627710
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627710 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kaneko, Makoto
    2012 Japanese demonstrative so-no as a modifier lacking definiteness. InAguilar-Guevara, Ana & Chernilovskaya, Anna & Nouwen, Rick (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, vol.21, 335–348. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2014 The semantics and syntax of Japanese adnominal demonstratives. InCabredo Hofherr, Patricia & Zribi-Hertz, Anne (eds.), Crosslinguistic studies on noun phrase structure and reference (Syntax and Semantics 39), 239–268. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kang, Arum
    2012 Semantics and pragmatics of definiteness in Korean: The case of ku. InUmut Ozge (ed.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 67: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 8), 187–198. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2015(In)definiteness, disjunction and anti-specificity in Korean: A study in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Chicago: University of Chicago. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2018 Unexpectedness effect: The emphatic determiner with gradable NPs in Korean. The Journal of Studies in Language33(4). 595–615. 10.18627/jslg.33.4.201802.595
    https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.33.4.201802.595 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kang, Beom-Mo
    1994 Plurality and other semantic aspects of common nouns in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics3(1). 1–24. 10.1007/BF01733148
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01733148 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kim, Ilkyu
    2015 Is Korean -(n)un a topic marker? On the nature of -(n)un and its relation to information structure. Lingua1541. 87–109. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.010 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kim, Min-Joo
    2016 Cognitive indexical usage of demonstrative ku in Korean and a split DP analysis. InKim, Tae Sik & Ha, Seungwan (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar (SICOGG 18), Beyond core syntax: A minimalist approach, 175–194. Seoul: The Korean Generative Grammar Circle.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2019The syntax and semantics of noun modifiers and the theory of universal grammar: A Korean perspective (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 96). Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑05886‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05886-9 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kim, Min-Joo & Kaufmann, Stefan
    2007 Domain restriction in freedom of choice: A view from Korean Indet-na items. InMcNally, Louise & Puig-Waldmüller, Estela (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 375–389. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. King, Jeffrey C.
    2001Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1990.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1990.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lee, Chungmin
    1989 (In)Definites, case markers, classifiers and quantifiers in Korean. InKuno, Susumu & Kim, Young-joo & Whitman, John & Kang, Young-Se & Lee, Ik-Hwan & Bak, Sung-Yun (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III: Proceedings of the 1989 Workshop on Korean Linguistics (Harvard WOKL-1989), 469–488. Cambridge: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 1994 Definite/specific and case marking in Korean. InKim-Renaud, Young-Key (ed.), Theoretical issues in Korean linguistics, 325–341. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 1995 A unified account of polarity phenomena. InT’sou, Benjamin K. & Lai, Tom B. Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 10), 281–291. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee, Chungmin & Chung, Daeho & Nam, Seungho
    2000 The semantics of amwu-N-to​/-irato/-ina in Korean: Arbitrary choice and concession. InIkeya, Akira & Kawamori, Masahito (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 14), 413–423. Chiba: PACLIC 14 Organizing Committee.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Link, Godehard
    1983 Logical semantics for natural language. InHempel, Carl G. & Putnam, Hilary & Essler, Wilhelm K. (eds.), Methodology, epistemology, and philosophy of science: Essays in honour of Wolfgang Stegmüller on the occasion of his 60th birthday, June 3rd, 1983, 261–283. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑7676‑5_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7676-5_14 [Google Scholar]
  51. Löbner, Sebastian
    1985 Definites. Journal of Semantics4(4). 279–326. 10.1093/jos/4.4.279
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/4.4.279 [Google Scholar]
  52. Longobardi, Giuseppe
    1994 Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry25(4). 609–665.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lyons, Christopher
    1999Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  54. Martí Martínez, María Luisa
    2003Contextual variables. Storrs: University of Connecticut. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Matthewson, Lisa
    1996Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. (Doctoral dissertation.).
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2001 Quantification and the nature of crosslinguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics9(2). 145–189. 10.1023/A:1012492911285
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012492911285 [Google Scholar]
  57. Nowak, Ethan
    2019 Complex demonstratives, hidden arguments, and presupposition. Synthese (2019) (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-019-02250-5) (Accessed2020-10-22.) 10.1007/s11229‑019‑02250‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02250-5 [Google Scholar]
  58. Oshima, David Y. & McCready, Eric
    2017 Anaphoric demonstratives and mutual knowledge: The cases of Japanese and English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory35(3). 801–837. 10.1007/s11049‑016‑9356‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-016-9356-6 [Google Scholar]
  59. Park, Eun-Hae
    2009(Wh-)indeterminates, free choice, and expressive content in Korean. Chicago: University of Chicago. (Doctoral Dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Prince, Ellen F.
    1981 Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. InCole, Peter (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 1992 The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. InMann, William C. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.16.12pri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.12pri [Google Scholar]
  62. Roberts, Craige
    1996 Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. InYoon, Jae-Hak & Kathol, Andreas (eds.), Papers in semantics (OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49), 91–136. Columbus: Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 2002 Demonstratives as definites. Invan Deemter, Kees & Kibble, Rodger (eds.), Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation (CSLI Lecture Notes Series 143), 89–136. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy26(3). 287–350. 10.1023/A:1024157132393
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393 [Google Scholar]
  65. Russell, Bertrand
    1905 On denoting. Mind14(4). 479–493. 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479 [Google Scholar]
  66. Schwarz, Florian
    2009Two types of definites in natural language. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 2013 Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically. Language and Linguistics Compass7(10). 534–559. 10.1111/lnc3.12048
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12048 [Google Scholar]
  68. Sohn, Ho-min
    2001The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (First published in 1999.)
    [Google Scholar]
  69. . Forthcoming. Korean. 1st edn.London: Routledge. (First published in 1994.)
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    1978 Assertion. InCole, Peter (ed.), Syntax and semantics, volume 9: Pragmatics, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Stanley, Jason
    2002 Nominal restriction. InPreyer, Gerhard & Peter, Georg (eds.), Logical form and language, 365–388. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Stanley, Jason & Szabó, Zoltán Gendler
    2000 On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language15(2–3). 219–261. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00130
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00130 [Google Scholar]
  73. Strawson, Peter F.
    1950 On referring. Mind59(235). 320–344. 10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320 [Google Scholar]
  74. Suh, Eugenia
    2005 The nominal phrase in Korean: The role of D in a “determiner-less” language. InHeffernan, Kevin & Suh, Eugenia (eds.), Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 25: Niagara Linguistics Society 2005 Conference Proceedings, 10–19. Toronto: Linguistics Graduate Course Union, University of Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Szabolcsi, Anna
    1987 Functional categories in the noun phrase. InKenesei, István (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian, volume 2: Theories and analyses, 167–191. Szeged: JATE, University of Szeged.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Von Fintel, Kai
    1994Restrictions on quantifier domains. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 1998 The semantics and pragmatics of quantifier domains. Cambridge: MIT. (Manuscript.) (Notes for Vilem Mathesius Lectures at the Vilem Mathesius Center in Prague.)
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Westerståhl, Dag
    1984 Determiners and context sets. Invan Benthem, Johan & ter Meulen, Alice (eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural language (Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics 4), 45–71. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Wolter, Lynsey Kay
    2006That’s that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): definiteness; demonstratives; domain restriction; DP structure; Korean KU
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error