Korean Relative Clauses: Metonymy, Zone Activation, and Reference Point

• Chongwon Park ^[1]
  1. [1] University of Minnesota

     University of Minnesota

     City of Minneapolis, Estados Unidos

     
• Localización: Studia linguistica: A journal of general linguistics, ISSN 0039-3193, Vol. 76, Nº 2, 2022, págs. 275-314
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.1111/stul.12172
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • This article develops an analysis of three types of Korean Relative Clauses (RCs) from a Cognitive Grammar perspective. The three types under examination are the Internally Headed RC Construction (IHRCC), the Externally Headed RC Construction (EHRCC), and the Double RC Construction (DRCC) which is a subtype of the EHRCC. It is demonstrated that the notion of metonymy helps us properly tease out the nature and provide a uniform account of the hitherto neglected Korean RC constructions. The “mismatch” observed between the syntactic object and the semantic head in the IHRCC is nothing but a case of the active-zone/profile discrepancy. The putative island constraint or subjacency violations in the EHRC and the DRCC are not an issue because the head nominals in those examples are associated with reference points that are exocentrically-created and thus exist outside of the inner RCs.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Chung, C. & Kim, J.-B. 2003. Differences between externally and internally headed relative clause construction. The proceedings of the...
  • Cinque, G. 2020. The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Croft, W. 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4(4): 335– 370.
  • Culicover, P. & Jackendoff, R. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: The Oxford University Press.
  • Evans, G. 1977. Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 18: 297– 332.
  • Evans, G. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2): 337– 362.
  • Evans, V. 2019. Cognitive Linguistics: A Complete Guide, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Fodor, J. D. 1983. Phrase structure parsing and the island constraints. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 163– 223.
  • Frazier, L. & C. Clifton Jr. 1989. Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes 4: 93– 126.
  • Geeraerts, D. & Peirsman, Y. 2011. Zones, facets, and prototype-based metonymy. Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a...
  • Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Grosu, A. 2010. The status of the internally-headed relatives of Japanese/Korean within the typology of definite relatives. Journal of East...
  • Grosu, A. & Landman, F. 2012. A quantificational disclosure approach to Japanese and Korean internally headed relatives. Journal of East...
  • Grosu, A. & Hoshi, K. 2016. Japanese internally headed relatives: Their distinctness from potentially homophonous constructions. Glossa:...
  • Grosu, A. & Hoshi, K. 2018. On the unified analysis of three types of relative clause construction in Japanese and on the salient reading...
  • Grosu, A. & Hoshi, K. 2019. Japanese internally-headed and doubly-headed relative constructions, and a comparison of two approaches. Glossa:...
  • Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86(2): 366– 415.
  • Haig, J. H. 1996. Subjacency and Japanese grammar: A functional account. Studies in Language 20(1): 53– 92.
  • Han, C. & Kim, J.-B. 2004. Are there “double relative clauses” in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry 35(2): 315– 337.
  • Hoshi, K. 1995. Structural and interpretive aspects of head-internal and head-external relative clauses. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester...
  • Izutani, M. 1995. Against a Subjacency Account of Movement and Empty Categories in Japanese. Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii Ph.D. Dissertation.
  • Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychology Review 99:...
  • Kitagawa, Chisato. 2019. The pro-head analysis of the Japanese internally-headed relative clause. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics...
  • Kim, I. 2013. Rethinking “island effects” in Korean relativization. Language Sciences 38: 59– 82.
  • Kim, I. 2016. An experimental study on island effects in Korean relativization. Language Research 52(1): 33– 55.
  • Kim, J.-B. 2016. The Syntactic Structures of Korean: A Construction Grammar Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kim, M.-J. 2007. Formal linking in internally headed relatives. Natural Language Semantics 15: 279– 315.
  • Kim, M.-J. 2009. E-type anaphora and three types of kes-constructions in Korean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 345– 377.
  • Kim, Y.-B. 2002. Relevancy in internally headed relative clauses in Korean. Lingua 112: 541– 559.
  • Kluender, R. 1992. Deriving island constraints. Island Constraint. eds. H. Goodluck & M. S. Rochemont, 222– 258. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic...
  • Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. 1993. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 573– 633.
  • Kumashiro, T. & Langacker, R. W. 2003. Double-subject and complex predicate constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 14(1): 1– 45.
  • Kuno, S. 1976. Subject, theme, and the speaker’s empathy—A reexamination of relativization phenomena. Subject and Topic. ed. C. N. Li, 417–...
  • Kuno, S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Landman, F. 2016. Japanese internally headed relatives: A hybrid analysis with Kuroda functions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics...
  • Langacker, R. W. 1995. Raising and transparency. Language 71(1): 1– 62.
  • Langacker, R. W. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Langacker, R. W. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Langacker, R. W. 2012. Interactive cognition: Toward a unified account of structure, processing, and discourse. International Journal of Cognitive...
  • Littlemore, J. 2015. Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought, and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Maling, J. & Zaenen, A. 1982. A phrase structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena. The Nature of Syntactic Representation....
  • Na, Y. & Huck, G. J. 1993. On the status of certain island violations in Korean. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 181– 229.
  • Nomura, M. 2000. The internally-headed Relative Clause Construction in Japanese. San Diego: University of California Ph.D. Dissertation.
  • Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L. 2017. Motivation and Inference: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language...
  • Paradis, C. 2004. Where does metonymy stop?: Senses, facets, and active zone. Metaphor and Symbol 19.4.: 245– 264.
  • Park, B.-S. 1999. Relative clause constructions with possessive specifier gaps: A constraint-based approach. Proceedings of the 13th Pacific...
  • Park, C. 2011. The role of metonymy in the interpretation of Korean multiple subject constructions. Language Sciences 33(1): 206– 228.
  • Park, C. 2013. Metonymy in grammar: Korean multiple object constructions. Functions of Language 20(1): 1– 63.
  • Park, C. 2019. Reference point and Case: A Cognitive Grammar Exploration of Korean. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing...
  • Radford, A. 2019. Relative Clauses: Structure and Variation in Everyday English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. Dissertation.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 2011. Metonymy and cognitive operations. Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Toward a Consensus View....
  • Sag, I. A., Hofmeister, P. & Snider, N. 2007. Processing complexity in subjacency violations: The complex noun phrase constraint. Proceedings...
  • Shimojo, M. 2002. Functional theories of island phenomena. Studies in Language 26(1): 67– 123.
  • Shimoyama, J. 1999. Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 147– 182.
  • Shimoyama, J. 2001. Wh-constructions in Japanese. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst Ph.D. Dissertation.
  • Truswell, R. 2007. Locality of Wh-movement and the individuation of events. London, UK: University of College London Ph.D. Dissertation.
  • Yeon, J.-H. 2012. yuhyenglong-cek kwancem-uy hankwuke kwankyecel yenkwu [A functional-typological study on Korean relative clauses]. Journal...
  • Yoon, J.-M. 2015. Constructions sharing similar restrictions with MSCs in Korean and the processing approach to island effects. Studies in...
  • Yoon, J.-M. 2016. Double relativization of different grammatical functions in Korean. Language Research 52(2): 247– 282.