Advertisement

Journal of East Asian Linguistics

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 69–96 | Cite as

Parallel Optimization in Case Systems: Evidence from Case Ellipsis in Korean*

  • Hanjung Lee
Article

Abstract

It is well-known that hierarchies of person, animacy, and definiteness have effects on case marking systems in various languages, where certain classes of subjects and objects are marked, but not others. This paper presents evidence of frequency effects of those hierarchies on case ellipsis in Korean. The two major aims of this paper are the following. First of all, the significance of variable case ellipsis patterns of Korean, as found in the CallFriend Korean corpus (LDC (1996)), will be demonstrated when looked at from a functional-typological perspective: variation in case marking between style levels within a single language reflects variation across languages. In a second step, the findings from a comparative study of Korean and other languages are integrated into a coherent theoretical framework – stochastic Optimality Theory (OT) (Boersma (1998), Boersma and Hayes (2001)). It is shown that quantitative patterning found in Korean case ellipsis can be analyzed within the stochastic OT framework in a way analogous to an account of categorical differential case marking effects proposed by Aissen (2003). In this analysis, categorical differential case marking found in various languages is viewed as conventionalization of the same universal pragmatic tendency to mark disharmonic elements, which is also present in the variable case-marking systems of languages like Japanese and Korean.

Keywords

Optimality Theory Frequency Effect Stochastic Optimality Variable Case Case System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aissen, Judith 1999“Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory17673711Google Scholar
  2. Aissen, Judith 2003“Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21435483Google Scholar
  3. Bach, Emmon 1974Syntactic TheoryHoltRinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar
  4. Battistella Edwin, L. 1990Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of LanguageSUNY PressAlbanyGoogle Scholar
  5. Battistella Edwin, L. 1996The Logic of MarkednessOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckman, Jill 1997“Positional Faithfulness, Positional Neutraliation and Shona Vowel Harmony”Phonology14146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boersma, Paul 1998Functional PhonologyHolland Academic GraphicsThe HagueGoogle Scholar
  8. Boersma, Paul, Bruce, Hayes 2001“Empirical Tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm”Linguistic Inquiry324586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boersma, Paul and David Weenink (2000) Praat computer program (Online), Institute of Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam, http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat, 8.
  10. Bossong, Georg 1985Differentielle Objektmarkierung in der Neuiranischen SprachenGunter Narr VerlagTübingenGoogle Scholar
  11. Bresnan Joan (2001). “Explaining Morphosyntactic Competition,”. Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.), Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 11–44.Google Scholar
  12. Bresnan, Joan and Ashwini Deo (2001) “Grammatical Constraints on Variation: ‘Be’ in the Survey of English Dialects and (Stochastic) Optimality Theory, ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
  13. Bresnan, Joan, Shipra Dingare and Christopher Manning. (2001) “Soft Constraints Mirror Hard Constraints: Voice and Person in English and Lummi,” Proceedings of the LFG 01 Conference, Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), CSLI Publications, http://www-csli.stanford.edu/publications.
  14. Bresnan, Joan and Tatiana Nikitina (2003) “On the Gradience of the Dative Alternation,” ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
  15. Butt, Miriam and Tracy Holloway King (2003) “The Status of Case,” Clause Structure in South Asian Languages, Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahajan (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 153–198.Google Scholar
  16. Carletta, Jean 1996“Assessing Agreement on Classification Tasks: The Kappa Statistic”Computational Linguistics22249245Google Scholar
  17. Cho Young-mee, Yu, Peter, Sells 1995“A lexicalist Account of inflectional suffixes in Korean”Journal of East Asian Linguistics4119174Google Scholar
  18. Clark, Brady (2004) “A Stochastic Optimality Theory Approach to Syntactic Change,” PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  19. Croft, William 1990Typology and UniversalsCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. de Hoop, Helen and Bhuvana Narasimhan (2005) “Differential Case Marking in Hindi,” to appear in Helen de Hoop and Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential Case Marking (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  21. Dingare, Shipra (2001) The Effect of Feature Hierarchies on Frequencies of Passivization in English, master’s thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  22. Dixon, R. M. W. 1972The Dyirbal Language of Northern QueenslandCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Dixon, R. M. W. 1979“Ergativity”Language5559138Google Scholar
  24. Donohue, Cathryn (1999) “Optimizing Fore Case and Word order” ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
  25. Fry, John (2001) Ellipsis and ‘wa’-Marking in Japanese Conversation, PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  26. Gair James, W. 1970Colloquial Sinhalese Clause StructuresMoutonThe HagueGoogle Scholar
  27. Givón, Talmy 1979On Understanding GrammarAcademic PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Goddard, Cliff 1982“Case Systems and Case Markings in Australian Languages: A New Interpretation”Australian Journal of Linguistics2167196Google Scholar
  29. Hinds, John (1983). “Topic Continuity in Japanese” Topic Continuity in Discourse, Talmy Givón (ed.), John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 43–93Google Scholar
  30. Kager, René 1999Optimality TheoryCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Kiparsky, Paul (1999) “Analogy and OT: Morphological change as Emergence of the Unmarked,” paper presented at the 21st annual meeting of the German Linguistics Society (DGFS), Constance, February 1999.Google Scholar
  32. Kiparsky, Paul 2001“Structural Case in Finnish”Lingua111315376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ko, Eon-Suk 2000“A Discourse Analysis of the Realization of Objects in Korean,”CSLI PublicationsStanford195208Japanese/Korean Linguistics 9Google Scholar
  34. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew 2001“A Stochastic OT Approach to Word Order Variation in Korlai Portuguese,”Chicago Linguistic SocietyChicago347361CLS 37Google Scholar
  35. Kortmann, Bernd (1999) “Typology and Dialectology,” Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists, Paris 1997, CD-ROM, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  36. LDC (1996). CallFriend Korean Corpus, Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, http://www.ldc.upenn.edu.
  37. Lee, Duck-Young 2002“The Function of the Zero Particle with Special Reference to Spoken Japanese”Journal of Pragmatics34645682Google Scholar
  38. Lee, Hanjung (2003) “Parallel Optimization in Case Systems,” Nominals: Inside and Out, Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 15–58.Google Scholar
  39. Lee, Hyo Sang, Sandra, Thompson A. 1985“A Discourse Account of the Korean Accusative Marker”Studies in Language13105128Google Scholar
  40. Lee, Kiri 2002“Nominative Case Marker Deletion in Spoken Japanese: An Analysis from the Perspective of Information Structure”Journal of Pragmatics34683709Google Scholar
  41. Masunaga, Kiyoko (1987) Non-thematic Positions and Discourse Anaphora, PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  42. Masunaga, Kiyoko (1988) “Case Deletion and Discourse Context,” Papers from International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, William Poser (ed.), CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 145–156.Google Scholar
  43. Matsuda, Kenjiro (1996) Variable Zero-Marking of (o) in Tokyo Japanese, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  44. McCarthy, John and Alan Prince (1995) “Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity,” Papers in Optimality Theory, Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds.), GLSA, University of Massachusetts, pp. 249–384.Google Scholar
  45. Minashima, Hiroshi 2001“On the Deletion of Accusative Case Markers in Japanese”Studia Linguistica55175190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mohanan, Tara 1994Argument Structure in HindiCSLI PublicationsStanfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Paolillo, John C. 2002Analyzing Linguistic Variation: Statistical Models and MethodsCSLI PublicationsStanfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky (1993) Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar, RuCCS Technical Report #2, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  49. Rooth, Mats (1985) Association With Focus, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  50. Scott, Graham 1978The Fore Language of Papua New GuineaSchool of Pacific StudiesCanberraGoogle Scholar
  51. Silverstein, Michael (1976) “Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity, ” Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 112–171.Google Scholar
  52. Stiebels, Barbara (2000) “Linker Inventories, Linking Splits and Lexical Economy,” Lexicon in Focus, Barbara Stiebels and Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 211–245.Google Scholar
  53. Torrego, Esther 1998The Dependencies of ObjectsMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Tsutsui, Michio (1984) Particle Ellipsis in Japanese, PhD dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  55. Valludí, Enric and Maria Vilkuna (1998) “On Rheme and Kontrast,” The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics 29), Peter Culicover and Louise McNally (eds.), Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 79–108.Google Scholar
  56. Wierzbicka, Anna 1981“Case Marking and Human Nature”Australian Journal of Linguistics14380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Woods, Anthony, Paul, Fletcher, Arthur, Hughes 1986Statistics in Language StudiesCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Woolford, Ellen (2001) “Case patterns” Optimality-theoretic Syntax, Géraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner (eds.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 509–543.Google Scholar
  59. Woolford, Ellen (2004) “Differential Subject Marking at Three Levels: Argument Structure, Syntax and PF,” paper presented at the Pionier Workshop on Differential Case Marking.Google Scholar
  60. Wunderlich, Dieter 1997Cause and the Structure of Verbs”Linguistic Inquiry282768Google Scholar
  61. Wunderlich, Dieter (2001a). “Argument Linking Types—Approached from the Perspective of LDG,” ms., http://web.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~wdl.
  62. Wunderlich, Dieter (2001b) Optimal Case in Hindi,” ms., http://web.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~wdl.
  63. Wunderlich, Dieter (2003) Optimal Case Patterns: German and Icelandic Compared,” New Perspectives on Case Theory, Ellen Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister (eds.), CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 329–365Google Scholar
  64. Wunderlich, Dieter, Renate, Lakämper 2001“On the Interaction of Structural and Semantic Case”Lingua111377418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yang, In-Seok 1972Korean Syntax: Case Marking, Delimiters, Complementation and RelativizationPaek Hap SaSeoulGoogle Scholar
  66. Yatabe, Shuichi (1999) “Particle Ellipsis and Focus Projection in Japanese,” Language, Information, Text, vol. 6, Department of Language and Information Sciences, University of Tokyo, pp. 79–104.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Language and LiteratureSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations