Home Korean converbs between coordination and subordination
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Korean converbs between coordination and subordination

  • Gerd Jendraschek EMAIL logo and Yongmin Shin
Published/Copyright: July 10, 2018

Abstract

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

Abbreviations

acc

accusative

at

attributor

d

deictic (demonstrative)

dat

dative

decl

declarative

hon

honorific

illoc

illocutionary force

imp

imperative

ind

indicative

inf

infinitive

inst

instrumental

int

interrogative

irr

irrealis

loc

locative

nom

nominative

nr

nominalizer

pol

polite

pot

potential

prs

present

pst

past

retr

retrospective

top

topic

References

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

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

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

Christian, Matthiessen & Sandra A Thompson. 1988. The structure of discourse and subordination. In John Haiman & Sandra A Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 275–327. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.18.12matSearch in Google Scholar

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

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

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2008. Asymmetric events, subordination, and grammatical categories. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), Asymmetric events, 151–172. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.11.11criSearch in Google Scholar

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2014. Is there really a syntactic category of subordination?. In Jyrki Kalliokoski, Laura Visapää & Helena Sorva (eds.), Contexts of subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives, 73–91. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.249.03criSearch in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Culicover, Peter W & Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 195–217.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.003.0013Search in Google Scholar

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

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

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

Foley, William A. 2010. Clause linkage and nexus in Papuan languages. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy. Syntax and pragmatics (Studies in Language Companion Series 121), 27–50. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.121.02folSearch in Google Scholar

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

Genetti, Carol. 2005. The participial construction of Dolakhā Newar: Syntactic implications of an Asian converb. Studies in Language 29(1). 35–87.10.1075/sl.29.1.03genSearch in Google Scholar

Genetti, Carol. 2011. The tapestry of Dolakha Newar: Chaining, embedding, and the complexity of sentences. Linguistic Typology 15. 5–24.10.1515/lity.2011.002Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, vol. II. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.syn2Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.146Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2015. The diachrony of grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.192Search in Google Scholar

Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203340769Search in Google Scholar

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

Haiman, John & Sandra A Thompson. 1984. ‘Subordination’ in universal grammar. Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of Berkeley linguistics society. 510–523.10.3765/bls.v10i0.1973Search in Google Scholar

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

Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective, 1–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110884463Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Coordinating constructions: An overview. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 3–39. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.58.03hasSearch in Google Scholar

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

Hopper, Paul J & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525Search in Google Scholar

Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz De Urbina (eds). 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110895285Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K Pullum. 2005. A student’s introduction to English grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815515Search in Google Scholar

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

Jendraschek, Gerd. 2009. Switch-reference constructions in Iatmul: Forms, functions, and development. Lingua. International review of general linguistics. Revue internationale de linguistique générale 119. 1316–1339.10.1016/j.lingua.2009.02.005Search in Google Scholar

Kazenin, Konstantin I & Yakov G Testelets. 2004. Where coordination meets subordination: Converb constructions in Tsakhur. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 227–239. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.58.13kazSearch in Google Scholar

Kroeger, Paul R. 2005. Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801679Search in Google Scholar

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

Kwon, Nayoung & Maria Polinsky. 2008. What does coordination look like in a head-final language?. In Barbara Lewandowsky-Tomaszczik (ed.), Asymmetric events, 87–102. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.11.06kwoSearch in Google Scholar

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

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

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

Lehmann, Christian. 1985. On grammatical relationality. Folia Linguistica 19. 67–109.10.1515/flin.1985.19.1-2.67Search in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra A Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in discourse and grammar (Typological studies in language 18), 181–225. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.18.09lehSearch in Google Scholar

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

Lehmann, Christian. 2015[1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization, 3rd edn. (Classics in linguistics 1). Berlin: Language Science Press.10.26530/OAPEN_603353Search in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian & Yong-Min Shin. 2005. The functional domain of concomitance: A typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. In Christian Lehmann (ed.), Typological studies in participation (Studia Typologica 7), 9–104. Berlin: Akademie.10.1524/9783050080536.9Search in Google Scholar

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

Nordlinger, Rachel. 2006. Spearing the emu drinking: Subordination and the adjoined relative clause in Wambaya. Australian Journal of Linguistics 26(1). 5–29.10.1080/07268600500531610Search in Google Scholar

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

Pak, Dong-Ho. 2013. A study of the Korean clausal connectives ‘-ŏsŏ’ and ‘-ko’ of temporal sequence. Acta Koreana 16(1). 5–21.10.18399/acta.2013.16.1.001Search in Google Scholar

Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805066Search in Google Scholar

Rudnitskaya, Elena L. 1998. Syntactic properties of the Altaic coordination construction in Korean. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51(2). 179–198.10.1524/stuf.1998.51.2.179Search in Google Scholar

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

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

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

Song, Jae Jung. 2005. The Korean language: Structure, use and context. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203390825Search in Google Scholar

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

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

Vajda, Edward (ed.). 2008. Subordination and coordination strategies in North Asian languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.300Search in Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D, Jr. 1984. A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society, 542–558. Berkeley: Berkeley linguistics society.10.3765/bls.v10i0.1975Search in Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D, Jr. & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166799Search in Google Scholar

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

Published Online: 2018-07-10
Published in Print: 2018-08-28

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 12.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2018-0018/html
Scroll to top button