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

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Gast, Volker


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.066

CiteScore 2018: 0.97

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.384
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.409

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 56, Issue 5

Issues

Korean converbs between coordination and subordination

Gerd Jendraschek / Yongmin Shin
Published Online: 2018-07-10 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0018

Abstract

One peculiarity of Korean morphosyntax is the existence of a large set of converbal suffixes. A survey of previous descriptions reveals a lack of consensus in the analysis of these converbs. Too often they have been pressed into a Eurocentric dichotomy of subordination versus coordination, leading to confusion about their typological status. Trying to correct this approach by describing the language on its own terms is therefore the main objective of our paper. We compare the morphosyntactic behavior of four selected suffixes with respect to some relevant criteria for subordination versus coordination, such as the scope of illocutionary operators, shared TAM, subject coreference, constituent order, and the development of dependent verb forms into complex predicates or adpositions. This empirical research feeds back into the theoretical discussion, as it will be shown that the Korean converbs can indeed be described using conventional typological concepts if construed appropriately. Our second objective is therefore to review the criteria involved in describing clause-linkage and to see how relevant terminology can be used more consistently. The conclusion is that the four converb types turn out to be located on a continuum between coordination and subordination, thus constituting an instantiation of syntax-semantics isomorphism.

Keywords: clause linkage; subordination; converbs; isomorphism; Korean

References

  • Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2003. A grammar of Tariana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bleiler, Everett F. 1963. Essential Japanese grammar. Mineola: Dover Publications.Google Scholar

  • Carter, Ronald & McCarthy Michael. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Christian, Matthiessen & Sandra A Thompson. 1988. The structure of discourse and subordination. In John Haiman & Sandra A Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 275–327. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique 2: La phrase. Paris: Lavoisier.Google Scholar

  • Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cristofaro, Sonia. 2008. Asymmetric events, subordination, and grammatical categories. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), Asymmetric events, 151–172. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Cristofaro, Sonia. 2014. Is there really a syntactic category of subordination?. In Jyrki Kalliokoski, Laura Visapää & Helena Sorva (eds.), Contexts of subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives, 73–91. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Culicover, Peter W & Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 195–217.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. The Jarawara language of Southern Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 2006. Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In Alexandra, Y Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Complementation, 1–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Foley, William A. 2010. Clause linkage and nexus in Papuan languages. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy. Syntax and pragmatics (Studies in Language Companion Series 121), 27–50. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Foley, William A & Robert D. Van Valin Jr 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Genetti, Carol. 2005. The participial construction of Dolakhā Newar: Syntactic implications of an Asian converb. Studies in Language 29(1). 35–87.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Genetti, Carol. 2011. The tapestry of Dolakha Newar: Chaining, embedding, and the complexity of sentences. Linguistic Typology 15. 5–24.Google Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, vol. II. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 2015. The diachrony of grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haiman, John & Sandra A Thompson. 1984. ‘Subordination’ in universal grammar. Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of Berkeley linguistics society. 510–523.Google Scholar

  • Hale, Kenneth. 1976. The adjoined relative clause in Australia. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 78–105. New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective, 1–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Coordinating constructions: An overview. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 3–39. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hentschel, Elke & Harald Weydt. 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Grammatik. 3. Auflage. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul J & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz De Urbina (eds). 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K Pullum. 2005. A student’s introduction to English grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ihm, Ho Bin, Kyung Po Hong & Suk In Chang. 2001. Korean grammar for international learners. New edition. Seoul: Yonsei University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jendraschek, Gerd. 2009. Switch-reference constructions in Iatmul: Forms, functions, and development. Lingua. International review of general linguistics. Revue internationale de linguistique générale 119. 1316–1339.Google Scholar

  • Kazenin, Konstantin I & Yakov G Testelets. 2004. Where coordination meets subordination: Converb constructions in Tsakhur. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 227–239. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Kroeger, Paul R. 2005. Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kwon, Nayoung. 2004. Syntactic and semantic mismatches in the Korean ko-construction. In Vineeta Chand, Ann Kelleher, Angelo J Rodríguez & Benjamin Schmeiser (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast conference on formal linguistics, 514–527. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

  • Kwon, Nayoung & Maria Polinsky. 2008. What does coordination look like in a head-final language?. In Barbara Lewandowsky-Tomaszczik (ed.), Asymmetric events, 87–102. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Iksop & Samuel Robert Ramsey. 2000. The Korean language. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen – Theorie seiner Funktionen – Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: G. Narr.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian. 1985. On grammatical relationality. Folia Linguistica 19. 67–109.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra A Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in discourse and grammar (Typological studies in language 18), 181–225. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian. 2013. Nexion – Complex sentences. Erfurt: Universität Erfurt. http://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/lg_system/grammar/nexion/complex_index.html (accessed 12 May 2016).

  • Lehmann, Christian. 2015[1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization, 3rd edn. (Classics in linguistics 1). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian & Yong-Min Shin. 2005. The functional domain of concomitance: A typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. In Christian Lehmann (ed.), Typological studies in participation (Studia Typologica 7), 9–104. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar

  • National Institute of the Korean Language [NIKL]. 2005. Oykwukinul wihan hankwuke mwunpep 2 – Yongpep phyen [Korean grammar for foreigners 2 – Volume on usage]. Seoul: Communication books.Google Scholar

  • Nordlinger, Rachel. 2006. Spearing the emu drinking: Subordination and the adjoined relative clause in Wambaya. Australian Journal of Linguistics 26(1). 5–29.Google Scholar

  • Olson, Michael. 1981. Barai clause junctures: Toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Pak, Dong-Ho. 2013. A study of the Korean clausal connectives ‘-ŏsŏ’ and ‘-ko’ of temporal sequence. Acta Koreana 16(1). 5–21.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Rudnitskaya, Elena L. 1998. Syntactic properties of the Altaic coordination construction in Korean. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51(2). 179–198.Google Scholar

  • Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sohn, Ho-Min. 2007. The semantics of clause linking in Korean. Paper presented at the international workshop 2007 on the semantics of clause linking, La Trobe University, 14 August.Google Scholar

  • Sohn, Ho-Min. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in Korean. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y Aikhenvald (eds.), The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology, 285–317. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Song, Jae Jung. 2005. The Korean language: Structure, use and context. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford & New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Tikkanen, Bertil. 2001. Converbs. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, 1112–1123. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Vajda, Edward (ed.). 2008. Subordination and coordination strategies in North Asian languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Van Valin, Robert D, Jr. 1984. A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society, 542–558. Berkeley: Berkeley linguistics society.Google Scholar

  • Van Valin, Robert D, Jr. & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Yeon, Jaehoon & Lucien Brown. 2011. Korean: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-07-10

Published in Print: 2018-08-28


Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages 1099–1139, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0018.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Soung-U Kim
Lanaguage Research, 2019, Volume 55, Number 2, Page 315

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in