1887
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article aims to develop a Cognitive Grammar (CG) analysis of three grammatical constructions in Korean, all of which employ the bound noun . The data under examination includes the Factive, Internally Headed Relative Clause (IHRC), and Cleft constructions. We propose a uniform treatment of the three types of by arguing that it denotes a schematic noun that profiles a (noun) and has some role in the process of the adnominal clause. Different interpretations of these constructions arise due to different types of conceptualizations involved in each instance. In so doing, we point out that previous proposals that deal with are neither general enough to capture the commonalities observed in all three constructions nor can account for the new observations we present.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00130.par
2023-01-30
2024-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bach, K.
    (2008) On referring and not referring. InJ. K. Gundel & N. Hedberg (Eds.), Reference: Interdisciplinary perspective (pp.13–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331639.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331639.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  2. Berez-Kroeker, A. L., Andreassen, H. N., Gawne, L., Holton, G., Kung, S. S., Pulsifer, P., & Collister, L. B.
    (2018) The data citation and attribution in Linguistics Group, and the Linguistics Data Interest Group. The Austin Principles of Data Citation in Linguistics. Version 1.0. https://site.uit.no/linguisticsdatacitation/austinprinciples/Accessed [June 7, 2021]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Choi, K.
    (2011) kes in the Korean cleft construction: kes filling in an empty NP. Studies in Generative Grammar, 21(1), 21–47 [Written in Korean]. 10.15860/sigg.21.1.201102.21
    https://doi.org/10.15860/sigg.21.1.201102.21 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cinque, G.
    (2020) The syntax of relative clauses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108856195
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108856195 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chung, C., & Kim, J.-B.
    (2003) Differences between externally and internally headed relative clause construction. InJ.-B. Kim & S. Wechsler (Eds.), The proceedings of the 9th international conference on HPSG (pp.43–65). 10.21248/hpsg.2002.3
    https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2002.3 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chung, D.
    (1999) A complement analysis of the head internal relative clauses. Language and Information, 31, 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Croft, W.
    (1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–370. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335 [Google Scholar]
  8. den Dikken, M., A. Meinunger, & C. Wilder
    (2000) Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica, 541, 41–89. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00050
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00050 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dixon, R. M. W.
    (2010) Basic linguistic theory: Grammatical topics, Vol.21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Geeraerts, D., & Peirsman, Y.
    (2011) Zones, facets, and prototype-based metonymy. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.89–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.05gee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.05gee [Google Scholar]
  11. Grosu, A.
    (2010) The status of the internally-headed relatives of Japanese/Korean within the typology of definite relatives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 91, 231–274. 10.1007/s10831‑010‑9061‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-010-9061-0 [Google Scholar]
  12. Grosu, A., & Landman, F.
    (2012) A quantificational disclosure approach to Japanese and Korean internally headed relatives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 211, 159–196. 10.1007/s10831‑011‑9086‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-011-9086-z [Google Scholar]
  13. Grosu, A., & Hoshi, K.
    (2016) Japanese internally headed relatives: Their distinctness from potentially homophonous constructions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 321, 1–31. 10.5334/gjgl.104
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.104 [Google Scholar]
  14. Grosu, A. & Hoshi, K.
    (2018) On the unified analysis of three types of relative clause construction in Japanese and on the salient reading of the internally headed type. A reply to Erlewine & Gould (2016). Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 341, 1–16. 10.5334/gjgl.577
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.577 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2019) Japanese internally-headed and doubly-headed relative constructions, and a comparison of two approaches. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 1281, 1–23. 10.5334/gjgl.1035
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1035 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heycock, C., & Kroch, A.
    (2002) Topic, focus, and syntactic representations. InL. Mikkelson & C. Potts (Eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics211 (pp.101–125). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Higgins, R. F.
    (1979) The Pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Horie, K.
    (1993) Internally headed relative clauses in Korean and Japanese: Where do the differences come from?InS. Kuno (Eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean LinguisticsV1 (pp.449–458). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hoshi, K.
    (1995) Structural and interpretive aspects of head-internal and head-external relative clauses. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester dissertation.
  20. Jhang, S.-E.
    (1991) Internally headed relative clauses in Korean. InS. Kuno (Eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean LinguisticsVI1 (pp.235–248). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kang, B.
    (2006) Some peculiarities of Korean kes cleft constructions. Studia Linguistica, 601, 251–281. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2006.00126.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2006.00126.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Kim, J.-B.
    (2016) The syntactic structures of Korean: A construction grammar perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316217405
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316217405 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kim, J.-B. & Sells, P.
    (2007) Some remarks on Korean nominalizer kes and information structure. Studies in Generative Grammar, 171, 479–494. 10.15860/sigg.17.4.200711.479
    https://doi.org/10.15860/sigg.17.4.200711.479 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2013) Interactions between (pseudo-) cleft and copular construction sin Korean. Language Research, 30(1), 93–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim, M.-J.
    (2007) Formal linking in internally headed relatives. Natural Language Semantics, 151, 279–315. 10.1007/s11050‑007‑9020‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9020-0 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2009) E-type anaphora and three types of kes-construction in Korean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 271, 345–377. 10.1007/s11049‑009‑9065‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9065-5 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kim, Y.-B.
    (2002) Relevancy in internally headed relative clauses in Korean. Lingua, 1121, 541–559. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(01)00060‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(01)00060-2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kitagawa, C.
    (2019) The pro-head analysis of the Japanese internally-headed relative clause. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 621, 1–31. 10.5334/gjgl.857
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.857 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kumashiro, T.
    (2016) A Cognitive Grammar of Japanese clause structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.53 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuroda, S.-Y.
    (1976) Headed relative clauses in Modern Japanese and the relevancy condition. Berkeley, CA: Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics SocietyII1 (pp.269–279). Retrieved fromhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/41v9f24f
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Landman, F.
    (2016) Japanese internally headed relatives: A hybrid analysis with Kuroda functions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 361, 1–35. 10.5334/gjgl.153
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.153 [Google Scholar]
  32. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites, Vol.11. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (1995) Raising and transparency. Language, 71(1), 1–62. 10.2307/415962
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415962 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2000) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee, C.-H.
    (2020) The syntax of the dependent noun ‘kes’ in Korean Internally Headed Relative Clause constructions and clefts. Han-Geul, 81(1), 45–81 [Written in Korean]. 10.22557/HG.2020.3.81.1.45
    https://doi.org/10.22557/HG.2020.3.81.1.45 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lee, J.-E.
    (2020) A study of Internally Headed RC and its resemblant constructions marked by ‘-un kesi’ and ‘-un kesul’. Kwuehak ‘Journal of Korean Linguistics’, 951, 167–210 [Written in Korean].
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lee, M.
    (2004) Focus-induced constraints in head-internal relatives. InS. Kuno (Eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean LinguisticsX1 (pp.568–581). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Mikkelson, L.
    (2005) Copular Clauses: Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.85
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.85 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2011) Copular clauses. InK. von Heusinger (Eds.), Semantics (pp.1805–1829). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Moon, S.-Y.
    (2012) A study on Korean relative clauses in typological perspective. Kaysinemwunyenkwu, 351, 31–68 [Written in Korean].
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2017) ‘kes’ clausal nominalization in the Korean language from a typological perspective. Journal of Korean Linguistics841, 33–88 [Written in Korean]. 10.15811/jkl.2017..84.002
    https://doi.org/10.15811/jkl.2017..84.002 [Google Scholar]
  44. Nomura, M.
    (2000) The internally-headed relative clause construction in Japanese: A cognitive grammar approach. San Diego, CA: University of California dissertation.
  45. Paradis, C.
    (2004) Where does metonymy stop?: Senses, facets, and active zone. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264. 10.1207/s15327868ms1904_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1904_1 [Google Scholar]
  46. Park, C.
    (2019) Reference point and case: A cognitive grammar exploration of case. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.68
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.68 [Google Scholar]
  47. Park, H.-J.
    (2019) The syntax and semantics of Internally-Headed relative clauses in Korean. Pankyoemwunyenkwu, 521, 88–118 [Written in Korean].
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Park, J.
    (2016) Syntactic applications of metonymy. Proceedings of the Linguistics Society of Korea Conference 2016, 318–396 [Written in Korean].
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Ross, J. R.
    (1972) Act. InD. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp.70–126). Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2557‑7_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_4 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
    (2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Toward a consensus view (pp.103–123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.06rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui [Google Scholar]
  51. Schlenker, P.
    (2003) Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 211, 157–214. 10.1023/A:1021843427276
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021843427276 [Google Scholar]
  52. Shimoyama, J.
    (1999) Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 81, 147–182. 10.1023/A:1008338020411
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008338020411 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2001) Wh-constructions in Japanese. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
  54. Strawson, P. F.
    (1950) On referring. Mind, 591, 320–344. 10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320 [Google Scholar]
  55. Tonosaki, S.
    (1996) Change of state head-internal relative clauses in Japanese. Gengokagaku Kenkyu, 21, 31–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (1998) Change-relatives in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics, 161, 143–160. 10.1515/jjl‑1998‑0107
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jjl-1998-0107 [Google Scholar]
  57. Yeom, J.-I.
    (2014) The syntax of the dependent noun kes in Korean internally headed relative clause constructions and clefts. Language and Information, 18(2), 103–122 [Written in Korean]. 10.29403/LI.18.2.5
    https://doi.org/10.29403/LI.18.2.5 [Google Scholar]
  58. Yoon, J. H.
    (2003) What the Korean copula reveals about the interaction of morphology and syntax. InP. M. Clancy (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol.111 (pp.34–49). CSLI, Stanford University Association.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00130.par
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00130.par
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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