Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T08:10:50.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Suppletive verbal morphology in Korean and the mechanism of vocabulary insertion1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2009

INKIE CHUNG
INKIE CHUNG*
Affiliation:
University of Seoul
*
Author's address: University of Seoul, Department of General English, 13 Shiripdae-gil Rd., Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-743, South Korea[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper provides a Distributed Morphology analysis of the paradoxical interaction of the two cases of verbal suppletion in Korean, and argues that the two suppletion types are characterized by two different types of morphological operations. The two roots found with short-form negation and honorification suggest different morphological structures: [[Neg-V] Hon] for al- ‘know’, molu- ‘not.know’, a-si- ‘know-hon’, molu-si- (not *an(i) a-si-) ‘neg know-hon’; and [Neg [V-Hon]] for iss- ‘exist’, eps- ‘not.exist’, kyey-si- ‘exist-hon’, an(i) kyey-si- (not *eps-(u)-si-) ‘neg exist-hon’. Predicate repetition constructions support the [[Neg-V] Hon] structure. In this structure, however, the negative suppletion (analyzed as fusion of negation and the root) is blocked by the honorific suffix structurally more peripheral to the root. C-command is the only requirement for context allomorphy in Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993). Since the [+hon] feature c-commands the root, the root can show honorific suppletive allomorphy in the first cycle with negation intervening between the root and [+hon]. Negation fusion occurs in the second cycle after vocabulary insertion of the root. Fusion, then, should refer to vocabulary items, not abstract features, and will be interleaved with vocabulary insertion. If the output of the root is /kyey/ due to the honorific feature, negative suppletion will not apply and the correct form an(i) kyey-si- will be derived. Therefore, both of the distinct morphological operations for suppletion, i.e., fusion and contextual allomorphy, are necessary. The revised formulation of fusion shows that certain morphological operations follow vocabulary insertion. This derivational approach to the suppletion interaction provides support for separation of phonological and nonphonological features and for late insertion of phonological features.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , November 2009 , pp. 533 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

This work is an expansion of an excerpt from my University of Connecticut Ph.D. dissertation (I. Chung 2007b). Portions of this work were presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Michigan Linguistics Society (Oakland University, Rochester, MI, October 2006), the Ninth Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar (Kwangwoon University, Seoul, August 2007), the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (Chicago, IL, January 2008), and the 18ème Congrès International des Linguistes (Korea University, Seoul, July 2008). I sincerely thank Duk-Ho An, Jonathan Bobaljik, Andrea Calabrese, Kiyong Choi, M. Esther Chung, Y. Irene Chung, Nigel Fabb, Orin Genster, Hong-Pin Im, Ji-young Kim, Sun-Woong Kim, Chungmin Lee, Jeong-Shik Lee, Diane Lillo-Martin, Myung-Kwan Park, Serkan Sener, Yael Sharvit, Sang Wan Shim, William Snyder, Susi Wurmbrand, anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees and external readers, and the audiences of the aforementioned gatherings. All errors and misrepresentations, if any, are solely mine.

References

REFERENCES

Ahn, Hee-Don. 1991. Light verbs, VP-movement, negation and clausal architecture in Korean and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
Ahn, Hee-Don & Yoon, Hang-Jin. 1989. Functional categories in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3, 79–88.Google Scholar
Ahn, Sung-Ho. 2002. Honorification and AgrP. Presented at the Linguistic Society of Korea Winter 2002 Meeting, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Allen, Margaret. 1978. Morphological investigations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Aoyagi, Hiroshi. 2006. On predicate focus constructions in Korean and Japanese. In Kuno, Susumu, Lee, Ik-hwan, Whitman, John, Maling, Joan, Kang, Young-Se, Sells, Peter & Sohn, Hyang-Sook (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 11, 359–372.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In Grohmann, Kleanthes K. & Struijke, Caro (eds.), The 1999 Maryland Mayfest on Morphology (University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10), 35–71. College Park, MD: Department of Linguistics, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2007. On comparative suppletion. Ms., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2008. Where's Phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Adger, David, Béjar, Susana & Harbour, Daniel (eds.), Phi-theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. & Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1998. Two heads aren't always better than one. Syntax 1, 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2008. When are negative imperatives banned? Ms., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea. 2008. On absolute and contextual syncretism: Remarks on the structure of paradigms and on how to derive it. In Nevins, Andrew & Bachrach, Asef (eds.), The bases of inflectional identity, 156–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi & Bures, Tony (eds.). 1994. Papers in phonology and morphology (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21). Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Chang, Suk-Jin. 1996. Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, Euy-Yeon. 1994. Kwuke cwue contayilchiuy twu hyengsikkwa hwayongcek thukcing [Two forms and their pragmatic properties of subject honorification agreement in Korean]. Korean Journal of Linguistics 19, 599–620.Google Scholar
Cho, Sae-Youn, Kim, Jong-Bok & Sells, Peter. 2004. Contrastive verb constructions in Korean. 10th Harvard International Symposium on Korean Linguistics, 360–371. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Choe, Hyun-Sook. 1988. Restructuring parameters and complex predicates: A transformational approach. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Choe, Jae-Woong. 2004. Obligatory honorification and the honorific feature. Studies in Generative Grammar 14, 545–559.Google Scholar
Choi, Kiyong. 2003. Hankwukeuy hayk itong: Congkyelhyengul cwungsimulo [Head movement in Korean finite clauses]. Studies in Generative Grammar 13, 119–142.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. Bare phrase structure. In Webelhuth, Gert (ed.), Government and Binding theory and the Minimalist program, 383–439. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Inkie. 2007a. Suppletive negation in Korean and distributed morphology. Lingua 117, 95–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Inkie. 2007b. Ecology of PF: A study of Korean phonology and morphology in a derivational approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Chung, Taegoo. 1994. Argument structure and serial verbs in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2007. Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical representation of syntactic relations. In Hale, & Keyser, (eds.), 53–109.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.). 1993a. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Bruening, Benjamin, Kang, Yoonjung & McGinnis, Martha (eds.), PF: Papers at the Interface (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30), 425–449. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, & Keyser, (eds.), 111–176.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. In Carnie, et al. (eds.), 275–288.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye & Lee, Chungmin. 2007. On negative imperatives in Korean. Linguistic Inquiry 38.2, 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-hye, Jeffrey, Lidz & Musolino, Julien. 2007. Verb-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Hak-Sung. 1987. The configurational structure of the Korean language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf. 1999. State-of-the-art article: Distributed morphology. GLOT International 4.4, 3–9.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf. 2000. Formal versus encyclopedic properties of vocabulary: Evidence from nominalizations. In Peeters, Bert (ed.), The lexicon–encyclopedia interface, 349–374. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, Yong-Tcheol. 1992. Théorie de l'incorporation et théorie du cas: Leurs implications sur la structure phrastique et sur la structure du syntagme nominal en coréen. Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Kandybowicz, Jason. 2007. Fusion and PF architecture. In Scheffler, Tatjana, Tauberer, Joshua, Eilam, Aviad & Mayol, Laia (eds.), 30th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13.1), 85–98. Philadelphia, PA: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1988. Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding, and movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 1999. On the prefixhood and scope of short form negation. In Kuno, Susumu, Lee, Ik-Hwan, Whitman, John, Maling, Joan, Kang, Young-Se & Kim, Young-joo (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 8, 403–418.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Sells, Peter. 2007. Korean honorification: A kind of expressive meaning. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16, 303–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Sun-Woong. 1996. Hankwuke cwukyek mokceke yenkwu [Nominative objects in Korean]. Korean Journal of Linguistics 21, 241–262.Google Scholar
Lee, Jeong-Shik. 1995. A study on predicate clefting. Studies in Generative Grammar 5, 531–584.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa & Williams, Alexander (eds.), 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium 1997 (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2), 201–225. Philadelphia, PA: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2001. Words. Presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 20).Google Scholar
Niinuma, Fumukazu. 2003. The syntax of honorification. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
No, Yongkyoon. 1988. Negative morphemes in Korean: Evidence for a derivational treatment. In Baek, Eung-Jin (ed.), 6th International Conference of Korean Linguistics, 556–567. Toronto: Department of East Asian Studies, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Pak, Miok Debby. 2006. Jussive clauses and agreement of sentence-final particles in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14, 295–306.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 1994. Serbo-Croatian second position clitic placement and the phonology–syntax interface. In Carnie, et al. (eds.), 373–473.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 2001. Three aspects of negation in Korean. Journal of Linguistic Studies 6, 1–15.Google Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy. 1977. The adjacency condition and the theory of morphology. The North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 8, 189–197.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane & Withgott, Meg. 1986. Pronominal clitic clusters and templates. In Borer, Hagit (ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics, 149–174. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen. 1999. Morphology consuming syntax's resources: Generation and parsing in a minimalist version of Distributed Morphology. Ms., Universität Potsdam.Google Scholar
Yang, Dong-Whee. 1996. The Korean case structure in the Minimalist program. Korean Journal of Linguistics 21, 139–189.Google Scholar
Yoon, Jong-Yurl. 1990. Korean syntax and generalized X-bar theory. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar