Ahn, Mikyung, and Yap, Foong Ha. 2014. On the development of Korean SAY evidentials and their extended pragmatic functions. Diachronica 31(3): 299–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ahn, Mikyung, and Yap, Foong Ha. 2015. Evidentiality in interaction: A pragmatic analysis of Korean hearsay evidential markers. Studies in Language 39(1): 46–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., ed. 2018. The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

An, Juho. 2003. Inyongmun-kwa inyong phyoci-uy munpephwa-ey tayhan yenkwu [A study on the grammaticalization of quoted sentences and quoting markers]. Discourse and Cognition 10: 1.Google Scholar

An, Pyong-hi. 1961. Cwuchey kyemyang-pep uy cepmisa -“sŏp” ey tayha.ye [On the humilitative suffix -sŏp]. Cintan Hakpo (Seoul) 22: 103–66.Google Scholar

An, Pyong-hi. 1982. Cwungsey kwuke-uy kyem.yang-pep yenkwu-ey tayhan panseng [Reflections on the studies of the Middle Korean humilitative suffix]. Kwukehak 11: 1–24.Google Scholar

Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costa, and Cornillie, Bert, eds.. 2006. Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Benveniste, Emile. 1971. Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics. Translated by Meek, Mary E. and Gables, Coral. Florida: University of Miami Press. Original French publication in 1958.Google Scholar

Brown, P., and Levinson, S.. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W.. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L., and Hopper, P., eds. 2002. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chae, Yunghee. 1998. Tamhwa-ey ssuinun “-ketun”-uy hwayongcek kinung [The pragmatic function of -ketun used in discourse]. Hankwuke Uymihak 3: 159–77.Google Scholar

Cho, Minha. 2011. “-nuntey”-uy congkyel kinung-kwa ekyang-uy yekhal [The ending function of -nuntey and the role of intonation]. Wuli Emun Yenkwu 4.Google Scholar

Choi, Dong-Ju. 1995. Kwuke sisang cheykyey-uy thongsicek pyenhwa-ey kwanhan yenkwu [A study on the diachronic changes of the Korean tense/aspect system]. Ph.D. dissertation in linguistics. Seoul National University.Google Scholar

Choi, Dong-Ju. 2009. Congkyel emi “-lkel”-uy kinung-kwa munpepcek thukseng [The function and grammatical characteristics of the sentence ender -lkel]. Kwukehak 54: 226–50.Google Scholar

Chung, Kyung-Sook. 2005. Space in tense: The interaction of tense, aspect, evidentiality, and speech act in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar

Cuykens, H., Davidse, K., and Vandelanotte, L.. 2010. Introduction. In Davidse, Vandelanotte, and Cuyckens, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., and Cuyckens, H., eds. 2010. Subjectification. Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik, and Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2006. Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 365–92.Google Scholar

Ha, Chigeun. 2003. “tey” ccaimwel-uy munpephwa kwaceng [Grammaticalization processes of tey constructions]. Hangeul 216: 97–121.Google Scholar

Ha, Chigeun. 2006. “-ci” ccaimwel-uy munpephwa hyensang yenkwu [A study on the grammaticalization phenomena of -ci constructions]. Wulimal Yenkwu 18: 27–55.Google Scholar

Han, Dong-wan. 1986. Kwake sicey “-ess”-uy thongsiloncek kochal [A diachronic study of the past tense -ess]. Kwukehak 15: 217–47.Google Scholar

Heo, Jae-young. 2008. Nophim-uy cosa “yo”-uy munpephwa [Grammaticalization of the politeness particle yo]. Hanmal Yenkwu 23: 473–93.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B., eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, I and II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, P. J., and Traugott, E. C.. 2003. Grammaticalization (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huh, Woong. 1972. Cwungsey kwuke yenkwu [A study of Middle Korean]. Seoul: Cengum-sa.Google Scholar

Huh, Woong. 1975. Wuli yeys malpon [A grammar of Early Korean]. Seoul: Kwahak-sa.Google Scholar

Huh, Woong. 1982. Hankwukmal ttaymaykimpep-uy keleon palcachwi (Footsteps of the Korean tense system). Hangeul 178: 3–51.Google Scholar

Huh, Woong. 1984. Kwukehak. Seoul: Saym Munhwasa.Google Scholar

Huh, Woong. 1987. Kwuke ttaymaykimpep-uy pyenchensa [An evolutionary history of the Korean tense system]. Seoul: Saym Munhwasa.Google Scholar

Im, Dong-hun. 2001. “keyss”-uy yongpep-kwa ku yeksacek haysek [Usage of keyss and its historical interpretation]. Kwukwhak 37: 115–47.Google Scholar

Im, Dong-hun. 2008. Hankwuke-uy sepep-kwa yangthay cheykyey [A system of moods and modality in Korean]. Hankwuke Uymihak 26: 211–49.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: W. W. Norton and Company Ltd.Google Scholar

Ju, Hee, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2011. Sequential context of -canh-a(yo): Hearers’ perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20: 1–15.Google Scholar

Kang, Hyun-hwa. 2008. “-ulkel”-uy thukseng-kwa hwuhoy phyohyen-uy yangsang [Properties of -ulkel and expressions of regret]. Bilingual Linguistics 38: 43–68.Google Scholar

Kang, Sujin. 2009. “-keyss”-uy munpephwa-ey tayhan inci uymiloncek selmyeng [A cognitive semantic account of grammaticalization of keyss]. Hankwuke Uymihak 29: 1–27.Google Scholar

Kawanishi, Y., and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1993. The grammaticalization of Korean negation: A semantic-pragmatic analysis of -canh-. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics V: 552–61.Google Scholar

Kim, Hong-bum. 1987. “-tamyense”, “-tako”, “-tani”-uy kwuco-wa uymi [Structures and meanings of -tamyense, -tako, and -tani]. Mal 12: 83–7.Google Scholar

Kim, Mary Shin. 2011. Negotiating epistemic rights to information in Korean conversation: An examination of the Korean evidential marker -tamye. Discourse Studies 13(4): 435–59.Google Scholar

Kim, Minju. 2008. The emergence of the Korean modal -keyss: From causative to epistemic and volitive modal. Discourse and Cognition 15(2): 1–27.Google Scholar

Kim, Nayoung. 2018. Grammaticalized sentence ender -key. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar

Kim, Tae-yop. 1998. kwuke pi-congkyel emi-uy congkyel emihwa-ey tayhaye [On the change of non-final endings to final endings]. Enehak 22: 171–89.Google Scholar

Ko, Kwangmo. 2000. Sangtay nophim-uy cosa “-yo”-wa “-psyo”-uy kiwen-kwa hyengseng [Origin and formation of addressee honorific -yo and -psyo]. Kwukehak 36: 259–82.Google Scholar

Ko, Kwangmo. 2002. “keyss”-uy hyengseng-kwa ku uymi-uy paltal [Genesis of keyss and the evolution of its meanings]. Kwukehak 30: 25–47.Google Scholar

Ko, Young-geun. 2007. Phyocwun cwungsey kwuke munpeplon, kaycengphan [Standard Middle Korean Grammar–revised edition]. Seoul: Cipmuntang.Google Scholar

Koo, Hyun-jung, and Rhee, Seongha. 2001. Coken phyoci-eyse muncang congkyel phyoci-lo-uy munpephwa [Grammaticalization from condition marking to a sentence ender]. Discourse and Cognition 8(1): 1–19.Google Scholar

Kwon, Iksoo. 2012. Viewpoints in the Korean verbal complex: Evidence, perception, assessment, and time. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Kwon, Jaeil. 1998. Hankwuke mwunpepsa [A history of Korean grammar]. Seoul: Pagiceng.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectification, and transparency. In Blank, Andreas and Koch, Peter, eds., Historical Semantics and Cognition. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 147–75.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Deixis and subjectivity. In Brisard, Frank, ed., Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2006. Subjectification, grammaticalization, and conceptual archetypes. In Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costa, and Cornillie, Bert, eds., Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–40.Google Scholar

Lee, Byung-gi. 2006. Hankwuke milayseng phyohyen-uy yeksacek yenkwu [A historical study of futurity expressions in Korean]. Ph.D. dissertation in linguistics, Seoul National University.Google Scholar

Lee, Gum-hee. 2013. Congkyel emi “-(u)nkel”, “-nunkel”-kwa “-(u)lkel”-uy munpephwa kwaceng-kwa uymi thukseng [Grammaticalization processes and semantic features of sentence ender -(u)nkel, -nunkel, and -(u)lkel]. Hankwuke Uymihak 42: 111–39.Google Scholar

Lee, Hidu. 2000. Kwuke conching hyengthay-uy pyenhwa kwaceng yenkwu [A study on the processes of Korean honorific forms]. Seoul: Pokosa.Google Scholar

Lee, Hyo Sang. 1991. Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a typological perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar

Lee, Hyo Sang. 1999. A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal -ci in Korean: A synthetic approach to the form-meaning relation. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 243–75.Google Scholar

Lee, Hyo-Sang. 2014. Modality. In Brown, L. and Yeon, J., eds., The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 249–68.Google Scholar

Lee, Jungmee. 2011. Evidentiality and its interaction with tense: Evidence from Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Lee, Ki-Dong. 1979. Yenkyel emi “-nuntey”-uy hwayongsang-uy kinung [Pragmatic functions of the connective ending -nuntey]. Inmun Kwahak 40/41. Yonse University.Google Scholar

Lee, Kikap. 1987. Miceng-uy ssikkuth -uli-wa -keyss-uy yeksacek kyochey [Historical replacement of the probability suffix -uli by -keyss]. Mal 12: 161–97.Google Scholar

Lee, Seung-uk. 1973. Kwuke munpep cheykyey-uy sacek yenkwu [A historical study of the grammatical system of Korean]. Seoul: Ilcokak.Google Scholar

Lehmann, C. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingual e Stile 20(3): 303–18.Google Scholar

Lehmann, C. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munchen and Newcastle: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Jarvella, R. J. and Klein, W., eds., Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics. Chichester and New York: John Wiley, pp. 101–24.Google Scholar

Min, Hyunsik. 1984. Kayhwaki kwuke kyengepep-ey tayhaye [On Korean honorifics during the enlightenment period]. Kwanak Emunyenkwu 9: 141–3.Google Scholar

Na, Jin Suk. 1953. Milay sisang ekan “li”-wa “keyss”-uy kyochey [Replacement of future tense li by keys]. Kwuke Kwukmunhak 6: 6–8.Google Scholar

Na, Jin Suk. 1971. Wuli mal uy ttaymaykim yenkwu [A Study of Korean Tense]. Seoul: Kwahak-sa.Google Scholar

Nam, Pung-Hyun. 2012. Old Korean. In Tranter, Nicolas, ed., The Languages of Japan and Korea. London: Routledge, pp. 41–72.Google Scholar

Narrog, H., and Heine, B., eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality: Language and Conceptualization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Park, Mee-Jeong, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2002. Discourse, Grammaticalization, and Intonation: An analysis of -ketun in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 306–19.Google Scholar

Park, Jae-yeon. 2006. Hankwuk-e yangthay emi yenkwu [A Study of Korean Modal Endings]. Seoul: Thayhak-sa.Google Scholar

Park, Jin-ho. 2011. Sicey, sang, yangthay [Tense, Aspect, and Modality]. Kwuke-hak 60: 290–322.Google Scholar

Park, Mee-Jeong, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2002. Discourse, grammaticalization, and intonation: An analysis of - ketun in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 306–19.Google Scholar

Park, Yong Yae. 1998. A discourse analysis of the Korean connective -ketun in conversation. Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture 1: 71–89.Google Scholar

Park, Yong Yae. 1999. The Korean connective -nŭnde in conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Park, Youngjun. 1998. Hyengthayso “-ess”-uy thongsicek pyenchen (Diachronic development of the morpheme -ess). Hankwukehak 8: 67–88.Google Scholar

Rhee, Seongha. 2007. Subjectification of reported speech in grammaticalization and lexicalization. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 12: 590–603.Google Scholar

Rhee, Seongha. 2012. Grammaticalization and stance-taking of the sentential ending keya in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 19(2): 39–55.Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 1974. Modals and speaker-hearer perspectives in Korean. Papers in Linguistics (Linguistic Research, Inc., Canada) 7(3/4): 493–520.Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 1975. Retrospection in Korean. Language Research 11(1): 87–103. Also pp. 137–154 of Linguistic Expeditions by Sohn, Ho-min. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 1978. Contractions as a mechanism of polysemic breeding: A device for speaker involvement in Korean. In Kim, Chin-W., ed., Papers in Korean Linguistics. Columbia: Hornbeam Press, pp. 197–205.Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 1986. Intercultural communication in cognitive values: Americans and Koreans. In Sohn, H-m, Linguistic Expeditions. Seoul: Hansin, pp. 438–71.Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 1996. Reanalysis in Korean complex predicate constructions: Causative derivation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5: 37–64.Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 2012. A grammar of po- “see” in Korean: A pan-chronic approach. Language Information 14: 83–117.Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 2013a. An emergent category of interpersonal modals in Korean. The Annual Research Report on Korean Studies 13: 1–22. Kyushyu University, Japan.Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 2013b. Politeness as a cause of linguistic change in Korean. In Sohn, Ho-min, Topics in Korean Language and Linguistics. Seoul: Korea University Press, pp. 164–80.Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 2015. Evolution of Korean honorifics: A grammaticalization perspective. Korean Linguistics 17(2): 167–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 2018. Evidentiality in Korean. In Aikhenvald, A. Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 693–708.Google Scholar

Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1996a. Contraction and restructuring in modern Korean: A case of incipient grammaticalization. Chicago Linguistics Society 30: 391–403.Google Scholar

Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1996b. On the development of sentence-final particles in Korean. In Akatsuka, N., Iwasaki, S., and Strauss, S., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 219–34.Google Scholar

Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2003. On the emergence of intersubjectivity: An analysis of the sentence-final nikka in Korean. In McClure, W., ed., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 52–63.Google Scholar

Song, Kyung An. 2010. Various evidentials in Korean, the Proceedings of PACLIC 24: 895–905.Google Scholar

Stein, Dieter, and Wright, Susan. 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Strauss, Susan. 2005. Cognitive realization markers in Korean: A discourse-pragmatic study of the sentence-ending particles -kwun, -ney, and -tela. Language Sciences 27: 437–48.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y., eds., Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–71.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 57: 33–65.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan, eds., Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 1997. Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf J., eds., Modality in Germanic Languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–210.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjctifiction. In Hickey, Raymond, ed., Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124–39.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Vandelanotte, and Cuyckens, eds., (2010), pp. 29–71.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C., and Dasher, R. B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C., and Heine, B., eds. 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization I and II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Verhage, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anne. 2002. The theory of cultural scripts as a tool of cross-cultural communication. In Korean Linguistics Today and Tomorrow. Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Korean Linguistics. Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar

Yeon, Jaehoon, and Brown, Lucien. 2011. Korean: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Yoo, Hyun-gyung. 2002. Emi “-tako”-uy uymi-wa yongpep [Meaning and usage of the ender -tako]. Paytalmal 31: 101–4.Google Scholar

Yuen, S. A. 2001. Socio-pragmatic functions of Korean interactive sentence enders from politeness perspective. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar

Ahn, Jeong-kun. 1995. Red flag expressions in advertisements [In Korean]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 3(2): 101–22.Google Scholar

Akatsuka, Noriko, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1994. Negative conditionality: The case of Japanese -tewa and Korean -taka. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4: 203–21.Google Scholar

Atkinson, John M., and Heritage, John, eds. 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Connor, Ulla, and Upton, Thomas A.. 2007. Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace, ed. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, Russell, ed., Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–51.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chang, In-Bong. 2011. Discours direct dans le texte journalistique [An analysis of direct quotations in journalistic texts]. Rhetoric 14: 61–100.Google Scholar

de Beaugrande, Robert and Dressler, Wolfgang. 1981. Introduction to Textlinguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Du Bois, John. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4): 805–55.Google Scholar

Du Bois, John, Kumpf, Lorraine E., and Ashby, William J., eds. 2003. Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Du Bois, J., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Cumming, Susanna, and Paolino, Danae. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Edwards, Jane A. and Lampert, Martin D., eds., Talking Data: Transcription and Coding Methods for Language Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 221–60.Google Scholar

Edwards, Jane A., and Lampert, Martin D., eds. 1993. Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Eggins, Suzanne, and Slade, Diana. 1997. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.Google Scholar

Fairclough, Isabela, and Fairclough, Norman. 2013. Political Discourse: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 1995a. Media Discourse. London: Edward ArnoldGoogle Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 1995b. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Boston: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 2014. Critical Language Awareness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, Cecilia and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel, and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–84.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia, Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Ford, Cecilia, Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–38.Google Scholar

Gee, James P., and Handford, Michael, eds. 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy, ed. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985/1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Harris, Zellig. S. 1952. Discourse analysis. Language 28: 1–30.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Friederike, Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993/2003. Grammaticalization (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) 1st/2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hwang, Myong Ok. 1983. Topic continuity/discontinuity in Korean narrative. Korean Linguistics 3: 47–79.Google Scholar

Hwang, Myong Ok. 1986. Deixis in discourse: The choice of demonstratives in Korean written discourse. Korean Linguistics 4: 75–104.Google Scholar

Hwang, Shin Ja J. 1980. The referential structure of a Korean folktale: The story of Shim Chung. Language Research 16: 255–80.Google Scholar

Hwang, Shin Ja J. 1987. Discourse Features of Korean Narration. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Hwang, Shin Ja J. 2015. Korean discourse structure. In Brown, Lucien and Yeon, Jaehoon, eds., The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 287–302.Google Scholar

Hwang, Shin Ja J. 2016. Hankwuk Selhwauy Tamhwa Pwunsek [Discourse Analysis of Korean Folktales]. Seoul: Cipmwuntang.Google Scholar

Jaworski, Adam, and Coupland, Nikolas. 1999. The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jeon, Seongki. 2005. Free indirect speech in Korean. French Language Education 20: 243–77.Google Scholar

Jeong, Yeo-hoon. 2006. Sinmwun ceymokuy ywuhyeng mith ku silhyen yangsang [A study of types of newspaper headlines and their realization]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 14(1): 85–114.Google Scholar

Johnstone, Barbara. 2002. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kawanishi, Yumiko. 1994a. An analysis of non-challengeable modals: Korean -canha(yo) and Japanese -janai. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4: 95–111.Google Scholar

Kawanishi, Yumiko. 1994b. An analysis of interactional markers in Korean: A comparative study of -canh-a(yo) vs. -ci(yo). In Iwasaki, Shoichi, Ono, Tsuyoshi, Tao, Hongyin, and Lee, Hyo Sang, eds., Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 5 (East Asian Linguistics). Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, UCSB, pp. 82–100.Google Scholar

Kawanishi, Yumiko, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1993. The grammaticalization of Korean negation: A semantic-pragmatic analysis of -canh-. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics V. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 552–61.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 1988. A discourse analysis of the conjunctive morpheme -nuntey in Korean spoken narratives. In Baek, Eung-jin, ed., Papers from the Sixth International Conference on Korean Linguistics. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 189–94.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 1989. Nominals in discourse: The introduction of referents and referent-tracking in Korean spoken narratives. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co., pp. 431–44.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 1990. Continuity of action and topic in discourse. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1: 79–96.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 1992. Clause combining in discourse and grammar: An analysis of some Korean clausal connectives in discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 1996. Functions of the verbal affix -nuntey in Korean conversation. Language Research 32(4): 637–63.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 1997. Turn-taking and verbal affixes in Korean conversation. Language Research 33(4): 601–27.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 2002a. Collaborative turn completion in Korean conversation. Language Research 38(4): 1281–316.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 2002b. Co-construction as an interactional achievement in Korean conversation. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 10(2): 181–211.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 2003a. Functions of post-posed adverbial clauses in Korean conversation. Language Research 39(4): 911–32.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 2003b. NP turn extension in Korean conversation. Ene (Korean Journal of Linguistics) 28(4): 585–605.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 2004. Backchannels as achievements of social interaction in Korean conversation. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 12(1): 65–93.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 2005. An overview of studies of conversation in Korean linguistics. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 13(2): 89–126.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 2006. Conversation and grammar: A conversation-analytic approach to Korean conversation. Korean Linguistics 13: 235–61.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 2008. Turn extensions as turn-constructional practice: Word order variability in Korean conversation. In Hudson, Mutsuko Endo, Sells, Peter, and Jun, Sun-Ah, eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 13. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 397–408.Google Scholar

Kim, Haeyeon. 2017. An analysis of reporting constructions in newspaper report texts. Textlinguistics 42: 1–30.Google Scholar

Kim, Hye-Sook. 1999. Sociolinguistic characteristics of linguistic expressions in advertisements. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 7(2): 261–86.Google Scholar

Kim, Jeongeun. 2004. Kwangkoeneey nathanan hyentayinuy uysikmunhwa [Koreans’ attitudes toward advertisement expressions]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 12(1): 37–64.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1990. The Korean topic marker and subject marker: Speaker-relevant focus and event-relevant focus. In Baek, Eung-jin, ed., Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Korean Linguistics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 186–202.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1993a. Topicality in Korean conversation: Conversation analytic perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 2: 33–54.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1993b. Other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation as interactional resources. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3: 3–18.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1999a. Other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation: Types and functions. Discourse and Cognition 6(2): 141–68.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1999b. Organization of classroom discourse: A conversation-analytic perspective. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 7(2): 159–88.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1999c. Phrasal unit boundaries and organization of turns and sequences in Korean conversation. Human Studies 22: 425–46.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2000. An analysis of Korean topic constructions in story-telling contexts with reference to English left-dislocation. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 8(1): 139–66.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2001a. The Korean topic marker nun as a tying device: Grounding referents and actions. Discourse and Cognition 8(1): 139–60.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2001b. Turn-constructional practice in Korean conversation: Organization of turn increments. Language Research 37(4): 885–922.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2001c. Confirming intersubjectivity through retroactive elaboration: Organization of phrasal units in other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation. In Selting, Margret and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 345–72.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2002. Interactive classroom discourse as context of learning and socialization. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 10(2): 213–41.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2003. An analysis of collaborative completion in Korean conversation. Language Research 39(1): 147–82.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2004. A conversation analysis of Korean sentence-final modal suffixes -ney, kwun(a), and -ta: Noticing as a social action. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 12(1): 1–35.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2007. The Korean topic marker nun revisited: nun as a tying device. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 15: 81–92.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun, and Suh, Kyung-Hee. 1994a. The discourse connective -nikka in Korean conversation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4: 113–29.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun, and Suh, Kyung-Hee. 1994b. An interactional account of -nikka in Korean conversation. In Iwasaki, Shoichi, Ono, Tsuyoshi, Tao, Hongyin, and Lee, Hyo Sang, eds., Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 5 (East Asian Linguistics). Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, UCSB, pp. 101–22.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun, and Suh, Kyung-Hee. 1996. Dealing with prior talk: Discourse connectives in Korean conversation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5: 83–100.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun, and Suh, Kyung-Hee. 2002. Demonstratives as prospective indexicals: ku and ce in Korean conversation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 192–205.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyu-hyun, and Suh, Kyung-Hee. 2004. An analysis of Korean sentence-ending suffixes in caregiver-child interaction. Language Research 40(4): 923–50.Google Scholar

Kim, Mary Shin. 2003. Reported speech as an interactive resource: An examination of Korean quotative constructions. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12: 3–15.Google Scholar

Kim, Mary Shin. 2011. The functional polysemy of the Korean discourse marker mak: Variant functions under an invariant meaning. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18: 31–42.Google Scholar

Kim, Mary Shin, and Kim, Jieun. 2013. The Korean adverb kunyang in spoken discourse. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20: 17–30.Google Scholar

Kim, Stephanie Hyeri, and Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2015. Conversation analysis. In Brown, Lucien and Yeon, Jaehoon, eds., The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 271–86.Google Scholar

Kim, Yong-Jin. 1999. A comparative study of Korean and American newspaper editorial texts: Focusing on “evidentiality” expressions. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 7(1): 119–50.Google Scholar

Kim, Yong-Jin. 2003. A sociolinguistic analysis of newspaper editorial titles. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 11(1): 341–54.Google Scholar

Kwon, Woojin. 2002. Sinmun phyoceyeey tayhan sahoyenehakcek yenkwu [A sociolinguistic study of newspaper titles]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 10(2): 25–58.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, Hyo Sang. 1987. Discourse Presupposition and the Discourse Function of the Topic Marker nun in Korean. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Lee, Hyo Sang. 1991. Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a typological perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Lee, Hyo Sang. 1993. Cognitive constraints on expressing newly perceived information, with reference to epistemic modal suffixes in Korean. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2): 135–67.Google Scholar

Lee, Hyo Sang. 1999a. A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal -ci in Korean: A synthetic approach to the form-meaning relation. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 327–58.Google Scholar

Lee, Hyo Sang. 1999b. Discourse-pragmatics of the Korean connective -nunte/(u)nte: A case of grammaticalization of figure-ground relation. Paper presented at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 1, June 16–19, Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar

Lee, Hyo Sang. 2003. Grammaticalization and synchronic variation: A unified account of the discourse-pragmatics of -na in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12: 149–62.Google Scholar

Lee, Hyo Sang. 2015a. Tense and aspect. In Brown, Lucien and Yeon, Jaehoon, eds., The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 232–48.Google Scholar

Lee, Hyo Sang. 2015b. Modality. In Brown, Lucien and Yeon, Jaehoon, eds., The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 249–68.Google Scholar

Lee, Hyo Sang, and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1989. A discourse account of the Korean accusative marker. Studies in Language 13(1): 105–28.Google Scholar

Lee, Keedong. 1993. A Korean Grammar on Semantic-Pragmatic Principles. Seoul: Hankook munhwasa.Google Scholar

Lee, Kee-Gap. 1995. Hankwukeuy tamhwa phyoci “icey” [The Korean discourse marker “icey”]. Discourse and Cognition 1: 261–87.Google Scholar

Lee, Won-Pyo. 1992. Sikan pusa “icey”uy tamhwa kinung [Discourse functions of the temporal adverb “icey”]. Human Sciences 68: 105–37. Seoul: Research Center for Human Sciences, Yonsei University.Google Scholar

Lee, Won-Pyo. 1993. Uyci kamthansa “yey”, “kulssey”, “ani”uy tamhwa punsek [A discourse analytic study of the intention exclamatory markers “yes”, “well”, and “no”]. Human Sciences 68: 105–37. Seoul: Research Center for Human Sciences, Yonsei University.Google Scholar

Lee, Won-Pyo. 1994. Sanghokyolyueyse munpephwalo: Swusacek phyohyen “waynyamyen” kwumunuy kyengwulul cwungsimulo [From interaction to grammaticalization: Focusing on the rhetorical expression waynyamyen]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 2: 21–54.Google Scholar

Lee, Won-Pyo. 1995. A discourse marker: “mweya” in Korean. Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3 (Selected papers from SICOL-1992). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co., pp. 725–39.Google Scholar

Lee, Won-Pyo. 1998. Hanpo chengmunhoyeyseuy cilmun punsek: Ceyto sanghwangkwa hwacauy thayto phyohyen [An analysis of the interrogation in the Hanbo hearings: Institutional settings and representation of stance]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 6(1): 1–52.Google Scholar

Lee, Won-Pyo. 1999. Thokhusyoeyseuy mal kkie tulki: Tamhwa kinungkwa sahoycek yoin [Interventions in talk shows: Discourse functions and social variables]. Discourse and Cognition 6(2): 23–60.Google Scholar

Lee, Won-Pyo. 2005a. Sinmun saseleyseuy phyohyeney tayhan enehakcek punsek: Kwukkapoanpep phyeyciey tayhan noncaynguy kyengwu [A linguistic analysis of representation of ideologies in newspaper editorials: The case of controversy on abolition of the ‘national security laws’]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 13(1): 191–228.Google Scholar

Lee, Won-Pyo. 2005b. Direct quotations in newspaper editorials: An analysis from the perspective of Bakhtin’s dialogicality. Discourse and Cognition 12(2): 117–51.Google Scholar

Li, Charles, and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li, Charles N., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 457–89.Google Scholar

Longacre, Robert. 1985/1996. The Grammar of Discourse, 1st/2nd ed. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Thompson, Sandra A., eds. 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Park, Mee-Jeong, and Sohn, Sung-Ock S.. 2002. Discourse, grammaticalization, and intonation: An analysis of -ketun in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 306–19.Google Scholar

Park, Yong-Yae. 1996. The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5: 131–48.Google Scholar

Park, Yong-Yae. 1997. A cross-linguistic study of the use of contrastive connectives in English, Korean, and Japanese conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Park, Yong-Yae. 1998. Interactive grammar: The turn-final use of nuntey in Korean and kedo in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 8: 45–60.Google Scholar

Park, Yong-Yae. 1999. The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel, and Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel. A., Jefferson, Gail, and Sacks, Harvey. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2): 361–82.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah, and Hamilton, Heidi. 2001. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Selting, Margret, and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds. 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1992. Speaker-oriented and event-oriented causal: A comparative analysis of -nikka and -ese. Korean Linguistics 7: 83–93.Google Scholar

Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1994. Semantic change and restructuring in modern Korean: A case of semi-grammaticalization. In Iwasaki, Shoichi, Ono, Tsuyoshi, Tao, Hongyin, and Lee, Hyo Sang, eds., Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 5 (East Asian Linguistics). Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, UCSB, pp. 193–204.Google Scholar

Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2003. On the emergence of intersubjectivity: An analysis of the sentence-final -nikka in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12: 52–63.Google Scholar

Sohn, Sung-Ock, and Park, Mee-jeong. 2003. Indirect quotations in Korean conversations. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 11: 105–18.Google Scholar

Song, Kyong-Sook. 1993. An Interactional Sociolinguistic Analysis of Argument Strategies in Korean Conversational Discourse: Negotiating Disagreement and Conflict. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, Georgetown.Google Scholar

Song, Kyong-Sook. 1994. An interactional sociolinguistic approach to discourse analysis: A case of conflict management strategies in English and Korean. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 2: 99–128.Google Scholar

Song, Kyong-Sook. 1995. Semantics and pragmatics of argument in Korean conversational discourse: A journey to sociolinguistics. Korean Journal of Linguistics 20(2): 49–78.Google Scholar

Song, Kyong-Sook. 1998. Cey 15tay taythonglyeng hwupo chocheng TV haptong tholonhoy punsek [An analysis of the 15th Korean presidential candidates’ live TV debates]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 6(1): 53–87.Google Scholar

Strauss, Susan, and Ahn, Kyungja. 2007. Cognition through the lens of discourse and interaction: The case of -kwun, -ney, and -tela. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 15: 135–46.Google Scholar

Suh, Jeong-soo. 1996. Hyentay kwuke munpeplon [Contemporary Korean Grammar]. Seoul: Hanyang University Press.Google Scholar

Suh, Kyung-Hee. 2001. Language socialization through sentence-ending modal particles -ci and -cianha in Korean care-giver interaction. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 9(1): 237–58.Google Scholar

Suh, Kyung-Hee. 2003. From unknown to unspeakable: “Mwe” as a stance marker in Korean conversation. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 11(2): 137–60.Google Scholar

Suh, Kyung-Hee. 2004. Interactional functions of way in Korean conversation. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 12(2): 181–204.Google Scholar

Suh, Kyung-Hee, and Hong, Jong-Hwa. 1999. “Ikey palo kukeya”: Wenkun cisieyse thayto cisilo [“This is it”: From spatial to speaker-stance deixis]. Discourse and Cognition 6(2): 1–22.Google Scholar

Suh, Kyung-Hee, and Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1991. The Korean modal markers keyss and (u)lkes: An interactional perspective. Harvard Studies on Korean Linguistics IV: 599–610. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar

Suh, Kyung-Hee, and Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1993. The Korean modal marker keyss as a marker of affect: An interactional perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 2: 98–114.Google Scholar

Suh, Kyung-Hee, and Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1995. “Keyss” kwumunuy tayhan punsek [A conversation analysis of the Korean keyss utterances]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 3(1): 35–54.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., and König, Ekkerhard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd, eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. I. Theoretical and Methodological Issues (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–218.Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun, ed. 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Weber, Elizabeth. 1993. Varieties of Questions in English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Clancey, W. J. 1991. The invention of memory (by Rosenfield, Israel). [Book review]. Artificial Intelligence 50: 241–84.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. 1999. Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In Gibbs, R. and Steen, G., eds., Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 145–66.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. 2006. Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language 21(3): 434–58.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W., and Colston, H. L.. 2006. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. In Geeraerts, D., ed., Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 239–68.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W., and Steen, G. J.. 1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997. London: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goatly, A. 2007. Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Grady, J. 1998. The “conduit” metaphor revisited: A reassessment of metaphors for communication. In Koenig, J-P, ed., Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 205–18.Google Scholar

Grady, J. 1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor. In Gibbs, R. and Steen, G., eds., Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–100.Google Scholar

Han, Y. K. 2016. Haksupyong kipon myengsa yene pinto sacen [Basic noun and collocation frequency dictionary for learning]. Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa.Google Scholar

Hilpert, M. 2005. Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their patterns. In Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. T., eds., Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 123–52.Google Scholar

Hilpert, M. 2007. Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective on body part terms. In Radden, G., Köpcke, K. M., Berg, T., and Siemund, P., eds., Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 77–98.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kellerman, J., Lewis, J., and Laird, J. D.. 1989. Looking and loving: The effects of mutual gaze on feelings of romantic love. Journal of Research in Personality 23: 145–61.Google Scholar

Kim, B. K. 2001. Hankwuke sincheyeuy unyuwa hwanyu [Metaphor and metonymy in Korean: Body terms] (Master’s thesis). Sangmyung University, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar

Kim, H. K. 2004. Sincheyeuy unyuwa hwanyu- hankwuke yengeyeymwunul cwungsimulo [Metaphor and metonymy of body terms in Korean and English discourse] (Master’s thesis). Pusan University of Foreign Studies, Pusan, Korea.Google Scholar

Kleinke, C. L. 1986. Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin 100: 78–100.Google Scholar

Koriat, A., and Goldsmith, M.. 1996. Memory metaphors and the real-life/laboratory controversy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19: 167–228.Google Scholar

Kövecses, Z. 1999. Metaphor: Does it constitute or reflect cultural models? In Gibbs, R. W. and Steen, G. J., eds., Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 167–89.Google Scholar

Kövecses, Z. 2003. Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1990. The invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1): 39–74.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202–51.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1995. Reflections on metaphor and grammar. In Shibatani, M. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics: In Honor of Charles J. Fillmore. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 133–44.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., and Schwartz, A.. 1991. Master metaphor list. Cognitive Linguistics Group, University of California at Berkeley. Available at: http://araw.mede.uic.edu/~alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf [last accessed September 4, 2020].Google Scholar

Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M.. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M.. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenges to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G., and Turner, M.. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, J. W., Ra, G. M., and Lee, I. O.. 2008. Ttus to moluko cacwu ssunun wuli mal swuke 1000 kaci [1,000 words of our idioms]. Seoul: Yedam.Google Scholar

Lee, M. Y. 2001. Sincheyeuy unyuwa hwanyu-kwuke tamhwa pwunsekul cwungsimulo [Metaphor and metonymy of body terms in Korean discourse] (Master’s thesis). Pusan University of Foreign Studies, Pusan, Korea.Google Scholar

Lee, S. O. 1995. Kwuke kwanyongphyohyenuy pwunsekkwa ehwipwu nayeyseuy cheli [An analysis of idiomatic expressions and compounds and their lexical treatment]. Inmwunnonchong [Journal of Humanities] 34: 1–45.Google Scholar

Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B., ed. 2016. Conceptualizations of Time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lim, J. R. 2016. Sincheyeuy uymi hwakcang yangsangkwa haysek [The aspects and construals of semantic extension of body-part terms]. Paytalmal [Korean Language] 59: 1–43.Google Scholar

Lobmaier, J. S., Hartmann, M., Volz, A. J., and Mast, F. W.. 2013. Emotional expression affects the accuracy of gaze perception. Motivation and Emotion 37: 194–201.Google Scholar

Lobmaier, J. S., Tiddeman, B. P., and Perrett, D. I.. 2008. Emotional expression modulates perceived gaze direction. Emotion 8: 573–7.Google Scholar

Maalej, Z., and Yu, N., eds. 2011. Embodiment via Body Parts: Studies from Various Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nummenmaa, L. and Calder, A. J.. 2009. Neural mechanisms of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Science 13: 135–43.Google Scholar

Panther, K., and Radden, G.. 1999. Introduction. In Panther, K. and Radden, G., eds., Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

Park, K. B., and Elliot, M.. 2013. Dictionary of Korean Idioms. Seoul: Moonyelim.Google Scholar

Pyun, D. O. 2018. 500 Common Korean Idioms. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Rayson, P. 2008. From key words to semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 519–49.Google Scholar

Roediger, H. L. 1980. Memory metaphors in cognitive psychology. Memory & Cognition 8(3): 231–46.Google Scholar

Schulze, L., Lobmaier, J. S., Arnold, M., and Renneberg, B.. 2013. All eyes on me?! Social anxiety and self-directed perception of eye gaze. Cognition & Emotion 27: 1305–13.Google Scholar

Seo, H. M. 2012. Semantic extension of body-part terms in terms of metaphor and metonymy: With reference to English and Korean (Master’s thesis). Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.Google Scholar

Seo, S. K. 2014. Hankwuke kwue pinto sacen 1–2 [Spoken Korean frequency dictionary 1–2]. Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa.Google Scholar

Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., and Niemeier, S.. 2008. Culture and language: Looking for the “mind” inside the body. In Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., and Niemeier, S., eds., Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar

Türker, E. 2013. Corpus-based approach to emotion metaphors in Korean: A case study of anger, happiness and sadness. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11(1): 73–144.Google Scholar

Ureña, J. M., and Faber, P.. 2010. Reviewing imagery in resemblance and non-resemblance metaphors. Cognitive Linguistics 21(1): 123–49.Google Scholar

Yamanashi, M. 2010. Metaphorical modes of perception and scanning. In Burkhardt, A. and Nerlich, B., eds., Tropical Truth(s): The Epistemology of Metaphor and Other Tropes. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 157–75.Google Scholar

Yu, N. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Yu, N. 1999. The spatial conceptualization of time in Chinese. In Hiraga, M. K., Sinha, C., and Wilcox, S., eds., Cultural, Psychological and Typological Issues in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–84.Google Scholar

Yu, N. 2004. The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 663–86.Google Scholar

Yu, N. 2008. Metaphor from body and culture. In Gibbs, R. W. Jr., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–61.Google Scholar

Aldridge, Edith. 2007. Wh-indefinites and their relation to wh-in-situ. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 43: 139–53.Google Scholar

Baek, Judy Yoo-Kyung. 1998. Negation and object shift in early child Korean. In Sauerland, Uli and Percus, Orin, eds., The Interpretive Tract. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar

Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara. 2004. Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2007. Wh-in-Situ does not correlate with wh-Indefinites or question particles. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 139–66.Google Scholar

Chang, Suk-Jin. 1973. A generative study of discourse: pragmatic aspects of Korean with reference to English. Ehak yenkwu [Language Research] 9(2): (supplement).Google Scholar

Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Cho, Choon-Hak. 1975. The scope of negation in Korean. In Sohn, Ho-min, ed., The Korean Language: Its Structure and Social Projection. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Center for Korean Studies, pp. 121–32.Google Scholar

Cho, Young-mee Yu. 1990. Syntax and phrasing in Korean. In Inkelas, Sharon and Zec, Draga, eds., The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 47–62.Google Scholar

Choe, Jae-Woong. 1985. Pitch-accent and q/wh words in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 1: 113–23.Google Scholar

Choi, Jinyoung. 2007. Free choice and negative polarity: A compositional analysis of Korean polarity sensitive items. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Chung, Dae-Ho. 1996. On the representation and licensing of Q and Q-dependency. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar

Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.Google Scholar

Fodor, Janet Dean, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–98.Google Scholar

Ha, Seungwan. 2004. The existential reading of wh-words and their scope relations. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 40: 83–95.Google Scholar

Hagstrom, Paul. 2000. Phrasal movement in Korean negation. In Veselinova, Ljuba, Robinson, Susan, and Antieau, Lamont, eds., Proceedings of the 9th Student Conference in Linguistics (SCIL 9), pp. 127–42.Google Scholar

Han, Chung-hye, Lidz, Jeffrey, and Musolino, Julien. 2007. V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 1–47.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. Diachronic sources of “all” and “every”. In Elke, Bach, Eloise, Jelinek, Angelika, Kratzer, and Barbara, H. Partee, eds., Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 363–82.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns: Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Hur, Woong. 1991. Kwukeumwunhak [Korean Phonology]. Seoul: Saym Mwunhwasa.Google Scholar

Hwang, Hyun Kyung. 2011. Scope, prosody, and pitch accent: The prosodic marking of wh-scope in two varieties of Japanese and South Kyeongsang Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Im, Hong-Bin. 1998. An In-Depth Analysis of Korean Grammar 3 [in Korean]. Seoul: Payhaksa.Google Scholar

Jun, Sun-Ah. 1993. The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Jun, Sun-Ah, and Mira, Oh. 1996. A prosodic analysis of three types of wh-phrases in Korean. Language and Speech 39: 37–61.Google Scholar

Kadmon, Nirit, and Landman, Fred. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(4): 353–422.Google Scholar

Kang, Arum. 2015. (In)definiteness, disjunction and anti-specificity in Korean: A study in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1988. Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding and movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Kim, Ae-Ryung. 2000. A derivational quantification of “wh-phrase”. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar

Kim, Chung-Hyo. 2000. A Study of Interrogatives and Indefinites in Korean [in Korean]. Seoul: Pakicheng.Google Scholar

Kim, Jong-Bok. 2000. The Grammar of Negation: A Constraint-Based Approach. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar

Kim, Min-Joo, and Kaufmann, Stefan. 2006. Domain restriction in freedom of choice: Korean “INDET-NA” items. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11: 375–89.Google Scholar

Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 2005. Wh-scope puzzles. Proceedings from the 35th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS 35).Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Rothstein, Susan, ed., Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 163–96.Google Scholar

Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Kwon, Jae-Il. 2002. Korean interrogative sentences in spoken discourse [in Korean]. Hangeul 257: 167–200.Google Scholar

Lee, Chungmin, Chung, Daeho, and Nam, Seungho. 2000. The semantics of amwu N-to/-irato/-ina in Korean – Arbitrary choice and concession. Language and Information 4(2): 107–23.Google Scholar

Lee, Ho-Young. 1990. Kwukewunyullon [Korean Prosody]: Seoul: Hankwukyenkwuwen [Korean Study Institute].Google Scholar

Lee, Hye-Sook. 2008. Pitch accent and its interaction with intonation: Experimental studies of North Kyeongsang Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Lee, Iksop, and Robert Ramsey, S.. 2000. The Korean Language: New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Lee, Ki Moon, Kim, Chin-Wu, and Lee, Sang Oak. 1984. Kwukeumwunlon [Korean Phonology]. Seoul: Hakyensa.Google Scholar

Lee, So-Young, and Yun, Jiwon. 2018. Influence of intonation, morphology and syntax on the semantic scope of wh-phrases in Kyeongsang Korean. Language and Information 22(3): 23–43.Google Scholar

Martin, Samuel E. 1951. Korean phonemics. Language 27:519–33.Google Scholar

Matthewson, Lisa. 1999. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7: 79–134.Google Scholar

Mok, Jung-soo. 2001. The function of {jom} and its grammaticalization. Eoneohag: Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea 28: 77–100.Google Scholar

Park, Duk-Soo. 2010. A pitch analysis of two types of wh-clauses in Korean. In Lee, S-O, ed., Contemporary Korean Linguistics: International Perspectives. Seoul: Thaehaksa Publishing Co., pp. 252–70.Google Scholar

Park, Hee-Heon. 1998. Acquisition of negation in Korean. Korean Linguistics 9: 111–31.Google Scholar

Park, Jin-Ho. 2007. The pronominal system of Korean viewed from a typological perspective [in Korean]. Journal of Korean Linguistics 50: 115–47.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet Breckenridge. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet Breckenridge, and Beckman, Mary. 1988. Japanese Tone Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Postma, Gertjan. 1994. The indefinite reading of wh. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1994: 187–98.Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–97.Google Scholar

Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering Trees. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Sells, Peter. 2001. Three aspects of negation in Korean. Journal of Linguistic Studies 6: 1–15.Google Scholar

Shimoyama, Junko. 2006. Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14: 139–73.Google Scholar

Song, Seok Choong. 1982. On interpreting the scope of negation in Korean. Language Research 18: 197–215.Google Scholar

Suh, Cheong-Soo. 1989. Interrogatives and indefinite words in Korean: With reference to Japanese. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3: 329–40.Google Scholar

Suh, Chung-Mok. 1987. Study of Questions in Korean [in Korean]. Seoul: Tap Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Suh, Chung-Mok. 1989. Wh-constructions in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3: 517–26.Google Scholar

Suh, Jinhee. 1989. Scope interaction in negation. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3: 527–36.Google Scholar

Underwood, Horace Grant. 1890. An Introduction to the Korean Spoken Language. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar

Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467.Google Scholar

Yi, Sun-Woong. 2000. On the indefinite expression of “interrogative pronoun+(i)+-nka” [in Korean]. Hankwukehak [Korean Linguistics] 36: 191–219.Google Scholar

Yoon, Jeong-Me. 2005. Two historical changes in wh-constructions in Korean and their implications. Studies in Generative Grammar 15: 457–87.Google Scholar

Yun, Jiwon. 2011. On the meaning of wh-(N)-ina and wh-(N)-itun in Korean. Language Research 47: 191–218.Google Scholar

Yun, Jiwon. 2013. Wh-indefinites: Meaning and prosody. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Yun, Jiwon. 2014. Wh-indefinites and their licensing conditions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 47: 361–72.Google Scholar

Yun, Jiwon. 2015. The influence of sentence-final intonation and phonological phrasing on the interpretation of wh-indeterminates. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 76: 25–34.Google Scholar

Yun, Jiwon. 2019. Meaning and prosody of wh-indeterminates in Korean. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3): 630–47.Google Scholar

Yun, Jiwon, and Lee, Hye-Sook (manuscript). Prosodic disambiguation of questions in Korean: Theory and processing. Korean Linguistics.Google Scholar

Abels, K. 2002. Expletive (?) negation. In Bloomington, J. T., ed., Proceedings of FASL 10. Michigan: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Abels, K. 2005. “Expletive negation” in Russian: A conspiracy theory. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 13: 5–74.Google Scholar

Brown, S. 1999. The Syntax of Negation in Russian: A Minimalist Approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Brown, S., and Franks, S.. 1995. Asymmetries in the scope of Russian Negation. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 3: 239–87.Google Scholar

Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Donati, C. 2000. A note on negation in comparison. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica – Università di Firenze 10: 55–68.Google Scholar

Eilam, A., and Scheffler, T.. 2006. Until and Expletive negation in Modern Hebrew. Swarthmore Workshop on Negation and Polarity, April 14–15.Google Scholar

Ernst, T. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27(3): 497–544.Google Scholar

Espinal, M. T. 1997. Non-negative negation and wh-exclamatives. In Forget, D., Hirschbühler, P., Martineau, F., and Rivero, M. L., eds., Negation and Polarity. Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 75–93.Google Scholar

Espinal, M. T. 2000. Expletive negation, negative concord and feature checking. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 47–69.Google Scholar

Farkas, D. F. 1992a. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In Hirschbűhler, P. et al., eds., Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 69–104.Google Scholar

Farkas, D. F. 1992b. Mood choice in complement clauses. In Kenesei, I. and Pleh, E., eds., Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 4: The Structure of Hungarian. Szeged: JATE, pp. 77–103.Google Scholar

Fischer, O. 1992. Syntax. In Blake, N., eds., The Cambridge History of the English Language II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1066–476.Google Scholar

Gaatone, D. 1971. Étude descriptive du système de la negation en français contemporain. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A. 1994. The semantic licensing of NPIs and the Modern Greek subjunctive. Language and Cognition 4: 55–68.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non) Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A. 2009. The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua 119(12): 1883–1908.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A., and Stavrou, M.. 2008. Metalinguistic comparatives and negation in Greek. In Hill, D., ed., MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 57.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A., and Yoon, S.. 2011. The subjective mode of comparison: Metalinguistic comparatives in Greek and Korean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9(3): 621–55.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A., and Yoon, S.. 2010. No NPI licensing in clausal comparatives. In Grinsell, T., Baker, A., Thomas, J., Baglini, R., Keane, J., eds., Proceedings of the 46th Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 46). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A., and Yoon, S.. 2009. Metalinguistic comparatives in Greek and Korean: Attitude semantics, expressive content, and negative polarity items. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13: 141–56. Online Publikationsverbund der Universität Stuttgart (OPUS).Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A., and Zwarts, F.. 1999. Aspectual properties of temporal connectives. In Mozer, A., ed., Greek Linguistics ’97: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Athens: Ellinika Grammata, pp. 104–13.Google Scholar

Grévisse, M. 1986. Le bon usage. Paris: Éditions Duculot.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Heim, I. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.Google Scholar

Jabłónska, P. 2003. Quirky n-words in Polish: NPIs, Negative Quantifiers or neither? In Dahl, A., Bentzen, K., and Svenonius, P., eds., Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 31(1).Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Host.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Larrivée, P. 2005. Variation diachronique, variation synchronique et réseaux de polysémie: à propos des certaines régularités apparentes dans le changement sémantique. Verbum 25(4): 431–42.Google Scholar

Lasersohn, P. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–86.Google Scholar

Lasersohn, P. 2008. Quantification and perspective in relativist semantics. University of Chicago Compositionality Workshop, May 9.Google Scholar

Lasersohn, P. 2009. Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese 166: 359–74.Google Scholar

Löbner, S. 2002. Understanding Semantics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Manzotti, E. 1982. Fenomeni di negazione espletiva in italiano. Studi di Gramatica Italiana 9: 273–338.Google Scholar

Manzotti, E., and Rigamonti, A.. 1991. La negazione. In Renzi, L. and Salvi, G., eds., Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 2: I sintagmi verbale, aggettivale, avverbiale; la subordinazione. Bologna: Il Mulino, pp. 245–317.Google Scholar

Meibauer, J. 1990. Sentence mood, lexical category filling, and non-propositional nicht in German. Linguistische Berichte 130: 441–63.Google Scholar

Muller, C. 1991. La négation en français: syntaxe, sémantique et elements de comparaison avec les quatres langues romanes. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar

Portner, P., and Zanuttini, R.. 1999. The force of negation in wh exclamatives and interrogatives. In Horn, R. L., and Kato, Y., eds., Negation and Polarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 193–231.Google Scholar

Portner, P., and Zanuttini, R.. 2000. The characterization of exclamative clauses in Paduan. Language 76(1): 123–32.Google Scholar

Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Potts, C. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–98.Google Scholar

Quer, J. 1998. Mood at the interface. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar

Restan, Per A. 1960. The objective case in negative clauses in Russian: The genitive or the accusative? Scando-Slavica VI: 92–112.Google Scholar

Sadock, J. M. 1971. Queclaratives. In Adams, D., Cambell, M. A., Cohen, V., Levins, J., Maxwell, E., Nygren, C., and Reighard, J., eds., Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 223–32.Google Scholar

Sadock, J. M. 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York, San Francisco, and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Sawada, O. 2010. Pragmatic aspects of scalar modifiers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Tovena, L. M. 1996. An expletive negation which is not so redundant. Grammatical Theory and Romance Languages 4: 263–74. Selected Papers from the 25th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XXV).Google Scholar

Tovena, L. M. 1998. The Fine Structure of Polarity Sensitivity. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Van der Wouden, T. 1997. Polarity and “illogical negation”. In Kanazawa, M. and Pinon, C. J., eds., Dymanics, Polarity, and Quantification. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 17–45.Google Scholar

Van der Wouden, T., and Zwarts, F.. 1993. A semantic analysis of negative concord. SALT III: 202–19. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar

Van der Wurff, W. 1999. On EN with adversative predicates in the history of English. In van Ostade, I. T-B., Tottie, G., and Van der Wurff, W., eds., Negation in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Van Helten, W. L. 1883. Vondel’s taal. Grammatica van het Nederlandsch der zeven-tiende eeuw. Syntaxis. Groningen: J. B. Wolters.Google Scholar

Villalta, E. 2006. Context dependence in the interpretation of questions and subjunctives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tubingen.Google Scholar

Villalta, E. 2008. Mood and gradability: An investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 467–522.Google Scholar

Yoon, J-H. 1993. Different semantics for different syntax: Relative clauses in Korean. OSUWPL 42: 199–226.Google Scholar

Yoon, S. 2011. Not in the mood: The syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of evaluative negation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Yoon, S. 2013. Parametric variation in subordinate evaluative negation: Japanese/Korean vs. Others. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 22(2): 133–66.Google Scholar

An, Duk-Ho. 2014. Genitive case in Korean and its implications for noun phrase structure. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23: 361–92.Google Scholar

Anttila, Arto, and Kim, Jong-Bok. 2011. On structural case in Finnish and Korean. Lingua 121: 100–27.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chang, Lisa. 1997. Wh-in-situ phenomena in French. MA thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Choe, Hyun-Sook. 1995. Focus and topic movement in Korean and licensing. In Kiss, K. E., ed., Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michae, D., and Uriagereka, J., eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 1–28.Google Scholar

Chung, Han Byul. 2012. i/ka marks focus. Paper presented at Japanese/Korean Linguistics 22, Tokyo.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In Pustejovsky, J., ed., Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar

Diesing, Molly. 1988. Bare plural subjects and stage/individual contrast. In Krifka, Manfred, ed., Genericity in Natural Language. Tübingen: University of Tübingen, pp. 107–54.Google Scholar

Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68: 553–95.Google Scholar

Gerdts, Donna. B., and Youn, Cheong. 1988. Korean psych constructions: Advancement or retreat? In MacLeod, L., Larson, G., and Brentari, D., eds., Papers from the 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 155–75.Google Scholar

Gerdts, Donna. B., and Youn, Cheong. 1999. Case stacking and focus in Korean. In Kuno, S. et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics VIII. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 325–39.Google Scholar

Harley, H. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2: 29–68.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Language Typology and Language Universals. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hong, Ki-Sun. 1991. Argument selection and case marking in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul, and Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–99.Google Scholar

Huang, C. T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Jo, Jung-Min. 2001. Case-particles in Korean are not focus-markers: A minimalist approach to the focus interpretation of case-marked NPs. Presented at the 11th Japanese/Korean linguistics conference, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar

Jun, Sun-Ah. 2000. K-ToBI (Korean ToBI) labelling conventions: Version 3. Speech Sciences 7: 143–69. [Version 3.1 is published in UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 99.]Google Scholar

Kim, Kyumin. 2015. A unified analysis of existentials and psych-constructions in Korean as pseudo-transitives. Studia Linguistica 1–36.Google Scholar

Kim, Young-Joo. 1990. The syntax and semantics of Korean case: The interaction between lexical and syntactic levels of representation. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Kiss, Katalin. 1995. Discourse configurational languages: Introduction. In Kiss, K. ed., Discourse Configurational Languages. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–27.Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Individual-level and stage-level predicates. In Carlson, Gregory N. and Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, eds., The Generic Book. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 125–75.Google Scholar

Kwon, Song-Nim, and Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2008. Differential function marking, case, and information structure: Evidence from Korean. Language 84: 258–99.Google Scholar

Landau, Idan. 2010. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lee, Iksop, and Ramsey, Robert. 2000. The Korean Language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Lee, Chung-Min. 1996. Generic sentences are topic constructions. In Fretheim, T. and Gundel, J. K., eds., Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 213–22.Google Scholar

Lee, EunHee. 2017. Case alternation and stacking on non-nominative subjects in Korean: A new information structural analysis. In Funakoshi, Kenshi, Kawahara, Shigeto, and Tancredi, Christopher D., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 24. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Lee, Hanjung. 2006. Parallel optimization in case systems: Evidence from case ellipsis in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 69–96.Google Scholar

Lee, Hanjung. 2010. Explaining variation in Korean case ellipsis: Economy versus iconicity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19: 291–318.Google Scholar