Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:16:54.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Usage probability and subject–object asymmetries in Korean case ellipsis: Experiments with subject case ellipsis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2015

HANJUNG LEE
HANJUNG LEE*
Affiliation:
Sungkyunkwan University
*
Author’s address: Department of English Language and Literature, 25-2 Sungkyunkwan-ro, Jongro-gu, Seoul 110-745, Korea[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Case ellipsis for subjects and objects in Korean exhibits several clear asymmetries that have not received a unified explanation. This paper provides a new, probability-based analysis of variable case marking that can account for three types of subject–object asymmetries noted in the literature in terms of asymmetries in the usage probability of the properties of argument NPs in their syntactic or discourse context. This account captures the key generalizations underlying the asymmetries that case ellipsis for wh-word subjects, subjects in OSV sentences and non-specific subjects is unacceptable, whereas case ellipsis for objects with similar properties is acceptable; it also explains why sentences with a subject NP not marked for case that have been predicted to be syntactically ill-formed by previous syntactic accounts are judged acceptable when the subject represents expected, predictable information in context. These results provide strong support for the view that native speakers’ knowledge of grammar includes not only some degree of knowledge of probabilistic information but also access to fine-grained predictability and probabilities.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , 01 March 2016 , pp. 70 - 110
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

References

Ahn, Hee-Don. 1999. Notes on case deletion. In Kim, Yong-Wha, Kim, Il-Kon & Park, Jeong-Woon (eds.), Linguistic investigation: In honor of In-Seok Yang, 1–16. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Ahn, Hee-Don & Cho, Sungeun. 2006a. Wh-topics and unpronounced cases on wh-phrases. Studies in Generative Grammar 16, 61–90.Google Scholar
Ahn, Hee-Don & Cho, Sungeun. 2006b. Layered nominal structures: Implications for caseless nominals. Korean Journal of Linguistics 31, 165–185.Google Scholar
Ahn, Hee-Don & Cho, Sungeun. 2007. Subject–object asymmetries of morphological case realization. Language and Information 11, 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, Hee-Don & Cho, Sungeun. 2009. Non-case-marked wh-phrases and left-dislocation. In Grohmann, Kleanthes K. & Panagiotidis, Phoevos (eds.), 2006 Cyprus Syntaxfest, 29–62. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almor, Amit. 1999. Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review 106, 748–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bod, Rens, Jennifer Hay & Stefanie Jannedy (eds.). 2003. Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology. The Hague: Holland Acedemic Graphics.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den Neuitanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan . 2000. Pidgin genesis and Optimality Theory. In Siegel, Jeff (ed.), Processes of language contact: Case studies from Australia and the Pacific, 145–173. Montreal: Les Editions Fides.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Deo, Ashwini & Sharma, Devyani. 2007. Typology in variation: A probabilistic approach to be and n’t in the Survey of English Dialects. English Language and Linguistics 11, 301–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Dingare, Shipra & Manning, Christopher. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Butt, Miriam & Holloway King, Tracy (eds.), LFG01. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/6/lfg01.html.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86, 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Nikitina, Taniana. 2009. The gradience of the dative alternation. In Uyechi, Linda & Wee, Lian-Hee (eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, 161–184. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Hopper, Paul J. (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Hye-Won. 1999. Optimizing structure in context: Scrambling and information structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Choi, Kiyong. 2005. Remarks on structural case markers in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 15, 29–51.Google Scholar
Choi, Kiyong. 2007. Non-occurrence of structural case particles: Morphological non-realization of structual case. Studies in Generative Grammar 17, 199–232. (written in Korean)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Brady. 2004. A stochastic Optimality Theory approach to syntactic change. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Fry, John. 2001. Ellipsis andwa-marking in Japanese conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter, Grosz, Barbara & Gilliom, Laura. 1993. Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science 17, 311–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stephen. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34, 365–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin. 1980. A pragmatic analysis of specificity. In Heny, Frank (ed.), Ambiguity in intensional contexts, 153–190. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Hammond, Michael, Moravecsik, Edith & Wirth, Jessica (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 209–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John, A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, John. 1983. Topic continuity in Japanese. In Givón, Talmy (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse, 43–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, Yong-Cheol. 1994. Incorporation theory and the distribution of case morphemes. Studies in Generative Grammar 4, 1–43. (written in Korean)Google Scholar
Hong, Yong-Cheol. 2004. Omission and absence of case morphemes in Korean. French Language Education 18, 295–314. (written in Korean)Google Scholar
Im, Hong-Pin. 2007. Syntax and semantics of bare NPs in Korean. Studies in Korean Linguistics 49, 69–106. (written in Korean)Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2006. Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61, 23–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kagan, Olga. 2006. Specificity as speaker identifiability. 9th Symposium on Logic and Language, 82–89. Budapest: The Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank & Sorace, Antonella. 2003. Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: An experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics 39, 57–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiaer, Jieun & Shin, Jiyoung. 2012. Prosodic interpretation of object particle omission in Korean. Korean Linguistics 57, 331–355. (written in Korean)Google Scholar
Kim, Dae-Bin. 1993. The specificity/non-specificity distinction and scrambling theory. Seoul: Thaehaksa.Google Scholar
Kim, Mi-Kyung. 2001. Preferred information structure in conversational Korean. Discourse and Cognition 8, 21–41. (written in Korean)Google Scholar
Kim, Taeho. 2008. Subject and object markings in conversational Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Kim, Yong-Ha. 1998a. Overt case and covert case in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 8, 177–240.Google Scholar
Kim, Yong-Ha. 1998b. A Minimalist approach to case and word order in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Keimyung University. (written in Korean)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
Ko, Eon-Suk. 2000. A discourse analysis of the realization of objects in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 9, 195–208. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud & Michaelis, Laura A.. 1998. Sentence accent in information questions: Default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 477–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Duck-Young. 2002. The function of the zero particle with special reference to spoken Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 645–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2006a. Iconicity and variation in the choice of object forms in Korean. Language Research 42, 323–355.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2006b. Parallel optimization in case systems: Evidence from case ellipsis in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2007. Case ellipsis at the grammar/pragmatics interface: A formal analysis from a typological analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 1465–1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2008. Focus types and gradients in Korean case ellipsis. Language and Information 12, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2009. Contrastive focus and variable case marking: A comparison between subjects and objects. Language and Information 13, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2010a. Explaining variation in Korean case ellipsis: Economy versus iconicity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2010b. Usage probability and gradients in Korean case ellipsis. Ms., Sungkyunkwan University.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2011a. Contrastive focus, usage probability and gradients in Korean case ellipsis. Discourse and Cognition 18, 215–240.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2011b. Gradients in Korean case ellipsis: An experimental investigation. Lingua 121, 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2012. Context, non-canonical word order and subject–object asymmetry in Korean case ellipsis. Discourse and Cognition 19, 57–80.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo-Sang & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1985. A discourse account of the Korean accusative marker. Studies in Language 13, 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Sungbom. 2006. A pragmatic analysis of accusative case-marker deletion. Discourse and Cognition 13, 69–89. (written in Korean)Google Scholar
Masunaga, Kiyoko. 1988. Case deletion and discourse context. In Poser, William (ed.), International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, 145–156. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nariyama, Shigeko. 2000. Referent identification for ellipsed arguments in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Thompson, Sandra A. & Suzuki, Ryoko. 2000. The pragmatic nature of the so-called subject marker ga in Japanese: Evidence from conversation. Discourse Studies 2, 55–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Whin situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, Eric & ter Meulen, Alice (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Graham. 1978. The Fore language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: School of Pacific Studies.Google Scholar
Shibamoto, Janet S. 1984. Subject ellipsis and topic in Japanese. In Miyagawa, Shigeru & Kitagawa, Chisato (eds.), Studies in Japanese language use, 239–294. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2005. Argument encoding in Japanese conversation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsányi, Benedikt. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistics Theory 1, 113–149.Google Scholar
Tsutsui, Michio. 1984. Particle ellipsis in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Ueno, Mieko & Polinsky, Maria. 2009. Does headedness affect processing? A new look at the VO–OV contrast. Journal of Linguistics 45, 675–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, Jaeger, Florian T. & Orr, David. 2011. Lexical variation in relativizer frequency. In Wiese, Heike & Simon, Horst (eds.), Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, 175–196. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar