Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory

Founded by Gries, Stefan Th. / Stefanowitsch, Anatol

Ed. by Wulff, Stefanie

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.200
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.386

CiteScore 2017: 0.80

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.930

Online
ISSN
1613-7035
See all formats and pricing
More options …

The alternative negative constructions in spoken and written Korean: Logistic regression analysis

Beom-mo Kang
Published Online: 2016-07-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0021

Abstract

Adopting quantitative corpus-based methods, this paper focuses on the alternative negative constructions in Korean, [an V] and [V anhda]. Logistic regression analyses for a mixed-effects model were carried out on data drawn from the Sejong Korean Corpus. Certain features of the verb or adjective in negative constructions significantly affect the use of the two negative constructions. A relevant factor is register/medium (spoken or written), among other significant interactions of factors. Furthermore, the fact that frequency is consistent with other relevant factors, together with certain diachronic facts of Korean, supports the claim that frequency of use plays an important role in linguistic changes. Another finding is that, notwithstanding noticeable differences between spoken and written language, the factors influencing the use of the two negative constructions in Korean are largely similar in the spoken and written registers.

Keywords: Korean negative constructions; the Sejong Korean Corpus; logistic regression analysis; mixed-effects model; frequency and linguistic change

References

  • Arppe, Antii, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert & Arne Zeschel. 2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1). 1–27.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. Harald 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Barlow, Michael & Susan Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage based models of language. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Biber, Doublas. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1). 9–37.Google Scholar

  • Brazil, David. 1995. A grammar of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & R. Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouman, I. Kraemer & J. Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 2007. Diachronic linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 945–987. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan & Clay Beckner. 2010. Usage-based theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 826–855. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dąrbrowska, Ewa & Divjak Divjak (eds.). 2015. Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.). 2007. The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan & Kerstin Fischer (eds.). 2010. Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan, Th. 2012. Corpus linguistics, theoretical linguistics, and cognitive/psycholinguistics: Towards more and more fruitful exchange. In J. Mukherjee & M. Hurber (eds.), Corpus linguistics and variation in English: Theory and description, 41–63. Amsterdam: Rodopy.Google Scholar

  • Grondelaers, Stefan, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2007. Lexical variation and change. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 988–1011. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hilpert, Martin. 2015. Historical linguistics. In E. Dąrbrowska & D. Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 346–366. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Janda, Laura A. (ed.). 2013. Cognitive linguistics: The quantitative turn. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, Keith. 2008. Quantitative methods in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Kang, Beom-mo. 2001. The grammar and use of Korean reflexives. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6(1). 134–150.Google Scholar

  • Kang, Beom-mo. 2014. A statistical analysis of the restrictions on combining the negative element an and verbs/adjectives in written Korean. Eoneo (Language) 39(1). 1–25. [written in Korean]Google Scholar

  • Kang, Beom-mo, Heung-gyu Kim, & Myung-Hoe Huh. 1998. Analysis of Korean text types and styles based on statistical methods. Eeoneohag (Linguistics) 22. 3–57. [written in Korean]Google Scholar

  • Kim, Hung-gyu, Beom-mo Kang & Jungha Hong. 2007. The 21st century Sejong Corpora (to be) completed. Korean Language in America 12. 31–42.Google Scholar

  • Kim, Young-joo. 1997. The acquisition of Korean. In Dan Isaac Slobin (ed.). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 4, 335–444. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Koh, Young-geun. 2010. Middle Korean grammar, 3rd edn. Seoul: Jibmundang. [written in Korean]Google Scholar

  • Koh, Young-geun & Bon-gwan Kuh. 2008. Korean grammar. Seoul: Jipmumdang. [written in Korean]Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Ji-young. 2004. Formation of the negative adverb an and the negative verb anhda. Eomunnonjib (Papers in Linguistics and Literature) 32(3). 165–186. [written in Korean]Google Scholar

  • Lüdeling, Anke & Merja Kytö (eds.). 2009. Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Montague, Richard. 1974. Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague, ed. by R. Thomason. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mun, Sun-deok. 1998. Short negative constructions in Jeju dialects. Eoneohag Yeongu (Studies in Linguistics) 3. 65–80. [written in Korean]Google Scholar

  • Oh, Seon-hwa. 2007. Negative elements in Yenben dialects. Eomun Yeongu (Studies in Linguistics and Literature) 55. 31–50. [written in Korean]Google Scholar

  • Park, Heeheon. 1988. Acquisition of negation in Korean. Korean Linguistics 9. 111–131.Google Scholar

  • Park, Sang-su. 2011. A diachronic analysis of negative elements in Korean ani and aniha. Eoneogwahag Yoengu (Language Science) 58. 71–92. [written in Korean]Google Scholar

  • R Development Core Team. 2015. online. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, v. 3.2. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org.

  • Schilk, Marco, Joybrato Mukherjee, Christopher Nam & Sach Mukherjee. 2013. Complementation of ditransitive verbs in South Asian Englishes: A multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(2). 187–225.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2007. Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 117–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Seo, Jeong–su. 1996. Korean grammar, 2nd edn. Seoul: Hanyang University Press. [written in Korean]Google Scholar

  • Speelman, Dirk. 2014. Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in Corpus Linguistics. In D. Glynn & J.A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 487–533. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Lexical diffusion in syntactic change: Frequency as a determinant of linguistic conservatism in the development of negation in English. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English syntax, 439–467. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Tummers, Jose, Kris Heylen & Dirk Geeraerts. 2005. Usage–based approaches in cognitive linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2). 225–261.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-07-30


Citation Information: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0021.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in