Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T16:03:22.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Honorific mismatches of coordinate subjects in Korean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2023

Jeong-Seok Kim Open the ORCID record for Jeong-Seok Kim [Opens in a new window] ,
Duk-Ho Jung Open the ORCID record for Duk-Ho Jung [Opens in a new window]  and
Jin Hyung Lee Open the ORCID record for Jin Hyung Lee [Opens in a new window]
Jeong-Seok Kim*
Affiliation:
Korea University, Seoul, Korea
Duk-Ho Jung*
Affiliation:
University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
Jin Hyung Lee*
Affiliation:
Korea University, Seoul, Korea
*
uconnkim@korea.ac.kr
dujung@ucsd.edu
jinhlee@korea.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we explore whether hierarchy and linearity conspire to affect agreement. The data come from an experimental study of honorific agreement between verbal si and coordinate subjects in Korean. We focus on computing the mismatch driven by honorifically mixed conjuncts. Unlike South Slavic gender agreement, Korean has neither Resolved Agreement nor First Conjunct Agreement. Only Last Conjunct Agreement is attested in Korean honorification. We show that honorific agreement within coordinate subjects is triggered only when the honorific verbal si appears, which is substantially different from the case with the honorific nominal nim. We also show that acceptability significantly decreases when the last conjunct of coordinate subjects is incongruous with an honorific verb. We thus argue that verbal honorific agreement with Korean coordinate subjects is sensitive to linear order, mimicking South Slavic gender agreement.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article, nous explorons l'hypothèse selon laquelle la hiérarchie et la linéarité conspirent pour affecter l'accord. Les données proviennent d'une étude expérimentale de l'accord des honorifiques entre le verbal si et les sujets coordonnés en coréen. Nous nous concentrons sur le calcul de l'inadéquation induite par les conjoints honorifiquement mixtes. Contrairement à l'accord de genre dans les langues slaves du sud, le coréen n'a ni Accord résolu (‘Resolved Agreement’) ni Accord avec le premier conjoint (‘First Conjunct Agreement’). Seul l'Accord avec le dernier conjoint (‘Last Conjunct Agreement’) est attesté dans l'honorification coréenne. Nous montrons que l'accord honorifique au sein des sujets coordonnés n'est déclenché que lorsque le verbal honorifique si apparaît, ce qui est sensiblement différent d'avec le nominatif honorifique nim. Nous montrons également que l'acceptabilité diminue significativement lorsque la dernière conjonction des sujets coordonnés est incongrue avec un verbe honorifique. Nous soutenons donc que l'accord honorifique verbal avec les sujets coordonnés en coréens est sensible à l'ordre linéaire, imitant l'accord de genre dans les langues slaves du sud.

Keywords

closest conjunct agreementdistributed AgreehonorificationMatchValueaccord conjoint le plus procheaccord distribuéhonorificationcorrespondancevaleur
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , September 2023 , pp. 462 - 485
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2023

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

For the helpful feedback and comments on the material reported here, we would like to thank three anonymous CJL/RCL reviewers and the CJL/RCL editors, as well as audiences at the 2020 Seminar at Korea University and the 2022 Winter Workshop of the Korean Generative Grammar Circle.

References

Arka, I. Wayan. 2005. Speech levels, social predicates and pragmatic structure in Balinese: A lexical approach. Pragmatics 15(2–3): 169–203.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos, and Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Rolf H., Davidson, Douglas J., and Bates, Douglas M.. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4): 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph, and Tily, Harry J.. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3): 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Benjamin M., and Walker, Steven C.. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Walkow, Martin. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(4): 951–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54(3): 354–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2006. Honorification as agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(2): 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Niinuma, Fumikazu. 2004. Conditions on agreement in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(3): 453–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27(3): 455–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choe, Hyon Sook. 1988. Restructuring parameters and complex predicates: A transformational approach. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Choe, Jae-Woong. 2004. Obligatory honorification and the honorific feature. Studies in Generative Grammar 14(4): 545–559.Google Scholar
Choi, Jaehoon, and Harley, Heidi. 2019. Locality domains and morphological rules: Phases, heads, node-sprouting and suppletion in Korean honorification. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37(4): 1319–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Kiyong. 2010. Subject honorification in Korean: In defense of Agr and head-spec agreement. Language Research 46(1): 59–82.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriageraka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goodall, Grant. 2021. Sentence acceptability experiments: What, how, and why. In The Cambridge handbook of experimental syntax, ed. Goodall, Grant, 7–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harada, Shin-Ichi. 1976. Honorifics. In Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar, ed. Shibatani, Masayoshi, 449–561. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In Proceedings of the MIT-Harvard joint conference (HUMIT) 2000, ed. Matushansky, Ora, 67–80. Cambridge: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Ide, Sachikoil. 2005. How and why honorifics can signify dignity and elegance: The indexicality and reflexivity of linguistic rituals. In Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness, ed. Lakoff, Robin T. and Ide, Sachiko, 45–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivana, Adrian, and Sakai, Hiromu. 2007. Honorification and light verbs in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16(3): 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1988. Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding and movement. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong Bok, and Sells, Peter. 2007. Korean honorification: A kind of expressive meaning. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16(4): 303–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2010. Honorific agreement in Japanese. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 55(3): 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2012. Subject honorification and the position of subjects in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21(1): 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kouneli, Maria. 2021. Number-based noun classification: The view from Kipsigis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 39(4): 1195–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff, Per B., and Christensen, Rune H. B.. 2017. LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marušič, Franc, and Nevins, Andrew. 2020. Distributed agreement in participial sandwiched configurations. In Agree to agree: Agreement in the minimalist programme, ed. Smith, Peter W., Mursell, Johannes, and Hartmann, Katharina, 179–198. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Marušič, Franc, Nevins, Andrew, and Badecker, William. 2015. The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18(1): 39–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Andrew, and Puškar, Zorica. 2018. Closest conjunct agreement is an illusion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36(4): 1207–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namai, Kenichi. 2000. Subject honorification in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1): 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, and Weisser, Philipp. 2019. Closest conjunct agreement. Annual Review of Linguistics 5: 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niinuma, Fumikazu. 2003. The syntax of honorification. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Connecticut at Storrs.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher, and Kawahara, Shigeto. 2004. Japanese honorifics as emotive definite descriptions. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 2004, ed. Young, Robert B., 235–254. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Ryu, Dong-Seok. 1993. Korean parametric grammar (written in Korean). Doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T., and Sprouse, Jon. 2013. Judgment data. In Research methods in linguistics, ed. Podesva, Robert J. and Sharma, Devyani, 27–50. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Song, Sanghoun, Choe, Jae-Woong, and Oh, Eunjeong. 2019. An empirical study of honorific mismatches in Korean. Language Sciences 75: 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Messick, Troy, and Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2022. Gender asymmetries in ellipsis: An experimental comparison of markedness and frequency accounts in English. Journal of Linguistics 58(2): 345–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stjepanović, Sandra. 1999. What do second-position clitics, scrambling, and multiple wh-fronting have in common? Doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut at Storrs.Google Scholar
Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline. 1990. Specifier-head agreement in Japanese. In Proceedings of the 9th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Halpern, Aaron L., 535–548. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 2000. Checking theory and grammatical functions in universal grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Jeong-Me. 1990. Verb movement and the structure of IP in Korean. Language Research 26(2): 343–371.Google Scholar
Zehr, Jérémy, and Schwarz, Florian. 2018. PennController for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MD832CrossRefGoogle Scholar