Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Successive-cyclic case assignment: Korean nominative-nominative case-stacking

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent literature, a debate has arisen between two theories of the calculation and realization of morphological case. The more commonly held Agree model states that all case features are assigned to nominals by nearby functional heads. Given a designated case-assigning functional head F, and a nominal α that is c-commanded by F, the case-marking associated with F will be assigned to α (Chomsky 2000, 2001). An alternative view, the Dependent Case model, holds that case is assigned to nominals given their structural relationship to one another. The case a nominal bears is dependent on the presence of other nominals within a defined domain (e.g. Yip et al. 1987; Marantz 1991; Bittner and Hale 1996). In this paper, I bring the phenomenon of Korean nominative-nominative case-stacking to bear on the current debate over Agree versus Dependent Case models. I argue that nominative-nominative stacking is incompatible with an Agree model of case-assignment. However, an emended Dependent Case model is well-suited to capture nominative-nominative case-stacking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As Jung and Miyagawa (2004) observe, ‘give’ is one of the few ditransitive predicates that permits dat-acc stacking. I follow them in assuming that ‘give’ and related predicates have a distinct syntactic structure from other ditransitives which permits this stacking. Additional predicates that behave like cwu- ‘give’ are kaluchi- ‘teach’, and cipwul- ‘pay’.

  2. Sells (1995) notes that such stacks require the focus-marker -man ‘only’ to intervene between the two nominals. Four of my informants found nominative-nominative stacks completely well-formed without an intervening -man. Two others found it acceptable but degraded. Examples of nominative-nominative stacking without intervening -man are marked with a percent sign (%) to reflect this difference in informants’ judgments. See Sect. 5 for an account of this restriction.

  3. It is commonly assumed that only one of these accounts is correct. Baker and Vinokurova (2010) attempt to reconcile the two within a single language, though Levin and Preminger (2015) argue that this reconciliation is unwarranted. See also Baker (2015) for arguments that the choice between case assignment models may be a macro-parameter.

  4. Both case assignment operations in (6) may apply simultaneously yielding tripartite case systems (e.g. Deal 2013; Baker 2015), while languages with no overt case-morphology may employ neither operation in (6) (Baker 2012).

  5. Marantz suggests a fourth kind of case—default case. Default case was proposed as a means of assigning case to fragment answers and other stand-alone nominals to which lexical, dependent, and unmarked case cannot be assigned. For a discussion of default case, see Schütze (2001b).

  6. Even if the nominal can serve as a target of subsequent ϕ-probing by higher functional heads bearing unvalued ϕ-features, additional Case-valuation is unexpected as the nominal’s sole Case-feature has already been valued.

  7. If dependent case assignment is a feature valuation process (e.g. Preminger 2011, 2014), case-stacking is barred for the same reason as in the Agree model. Once a nominal’s Case-feature is valued, subsequent valuation is impossible.

  8. See Preminger (2011, 2014) for an attempt to derive the order of the Case Disjunctive Hierarchy. I leave it for future work to determine if such a derivation is possible for Korean case-stacking.

  9. Another possibility would be to treat dative case as a dependent case. Under such a proposal, dative case is assigned upward to a c-commanding nominal within the VP/ApplP (Bobaljik and Branigan 2006; Baker and Vinokurova 2010; Baker 2015). Treating dative as a dependent case introduces its own complexities. On a feature-valuation analysis of dependent case (Preminger 2011, 2014), a valued indirect object could act as a defective intervener, blocking the dependent case relation between the subject and direct object. Furthermore, it requires adoption of two distinct case assignment domains—VP and vP. It is not clear if both are phases (but see Ko 2005). I thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful discussion on this point.

  10. I thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful discussion concerning this point.

  11. This proposal does not result in subjects licensing accusative case on their selves. The rule for dependent case assignment in (7b) makes reference to distinct nominals. Copies of a single nominal are not distinct. Therefore, two copies of a nominal in a c-command relation do not meet the structural requirements for dependent case assignment.

  12. An anonymous reviewer questions why dative-accusative stacking is unavailable when the direct object moves to c-command the indirect object, as in (23).

    1. (i)
      figure q

    This is because the conditions on dependent case assignment (7b) are not satisfied. In (22), the direct object moves into the CP phase, but the indirect object remains in situ. If the indirect object does not move into the CP phase, it can only be evaluated for case once. In the vP phase, the indirect object receives lexical, dative case (7a), as such it is ineligible for accusative case (7b).

  13. As Ishihara (2007) observes, it is crucial that neutral intonation be used in these examples. The inverse scope interpretation goes away if the subject and negated verb occupy distinct major phrases.

  14. One of the reasons Miyagawa’s observation may not have been reproduced in Korean is that there is notorious disagreement among native speakers/researchers regarding the base line judgments (e.g. Cho 1975, 1994; Suh 1989; Sohn 1995; Hagstrom 1997). See especially Han et al. (2007) for discussion of these disagreements, and a possible explanation. Discussing scopal interaction between negation and object QPs, they demonstrate that there are two populations of Korean speakers. In one population, the verb (and short form negation) raises to T0. In the other, V0-raising does not occur. This split arises because there is a poverty of data available to the acquirer as to whether Korean has V0-raising or not. If this position is correct, speakers that do not find a contrast in (26) can be said to lack of V0-raising. If V0 and short form negation do not raise above the subject’s base-position, no ambiguity is expected in (26). Crucially, this does not invalidate the present argument. These speakers may still have A- and Ā-scrambling as described by Miyagawa. However, in the absence of V0-raising, the distinction cannot be diagnosed by interactions between subject QPs and verbal negation.

  15. An anonymous reviewer wonders if the contrastive focus associated with case-stacking introduces a confound in these judgments. It could be the semantics of contrastive focus, not structural position, which yields unambiguous interpretations. However, contrastive focus does not force a subject QP to scope over negation in English.

    1. (i)
      1. a.

        All the boys didn’t take the test. (Only some of them did.)

      2. b.

        [All the boys] F didn’t take the test. (Only some of them did, but the girls are all done.)

    The licit continuations to (28a, b) in parentheses demonstrate the availability of narrow scope for the subject QP, even with contrastive focus. Something more must be at play in the Korean examples, namely structural position.

  16. An anonymous reviewer observes a possible confound in the data. As has been observed in previous literature, and in the reviewer’s own judgment, -man ‘only’ is required to co-occur with nominative-nominative stacking. Crucially, only is itself a scope bearing element (or indicates the presence of a scope bearing element via agreement e.g. Lee 2004). Even in English, the addition of only yields the attested judgment.

    1. (i)
      1. a.

        Every teacher didn’t take that test.    [∀>¬; ¬>∀]

      2. b.

        Only every teacher didn’t take that test.    [∀>¬; *¬>∀]

    However, for those informants that do permit nominative-nominative stacking without the co-occurrence of -man, the judgment is informative.

  17. I thank the anonymous reviewers for raising this point.

  18. This is not to say that a single functional head cannot probe more than one goal. It has been suggested that a functional head can probe multiple targets in an attempt to value its unvalued features. The operations of Multiple Agree (e.g. Hiraiwa 2001, 2005), where a functional head agrees with multiple nominals simultaneously, and Cyclic Agree (Béjar and Rezac 2009), where a functional head agrees with nominals successively, are two such cases. However, in these cases, the same goal is not probed twice by the same functional head.

  19. David Pesetsky (p.c.) observes another alternative would be to suggest that honorific nominative is a structural case, assigned by a functional head other than T0. This alternative avoids the problematic scenario of a single nominal entering two ϕ-agreement relationships with the same functional head. While this alternative effectively sidesteps the issue of redundant probing, it introduces unwanted complexity. It requires a second functional head to assign the second instance of nominative case to the subject. It is not clear if this functional head would have any additional function, and I am unaware of any independent evidence for such a head.

  20. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for helpful discussion regarding these points.

  21. See Ura (1999) for a similar effect in Japanese. Some authors do report instances where an honorific nominative object can control agreement (cf. Shibatani 1999 for relevant Japanese and Nepali data; Kim 2001 for Korean).

  22. See Bobaljik (2008) and Preminger (2011, 2014) for accounts of how ϕ-agreement is conditioned by case.

  23. Adjuncts permit case-stacking, but do not permit case alternation (e.g. Schütze 2001a).

    1. (i)
      figure ak

    Failure to realize -pwuth(e) ‘since’ on the nominal in (41) results in ungrammaticality. I follow many previous authors (e.g. Kim and Maling 1998; Kim 2001; Yoon 2004; Maling 2009; Baker 2015; see also Sect. 3.3.3) in treating case assignment to adjuncts as a distinct process from case assignment to arguments. Assuming such a distinction, adjuncts are not expected to serve as case competitors.

  24. An anonymous reviewer objects to the claim that nominative-marked subjects which alternate with dative-marked subjects must be interpreted as specific. They claim that a non-specific interpretation is available in (45):

    1. (i)
      figure ao

    The reviewer suggests that this may indicate that dative case need not be assigned to dyadic unaccusative subjects in Spec-VP. Such a proposal is adopted by Yoon (2004). While this possibility would lose the correlation between dative-nominative stacking and alternation, it is nevertheless consistent with the central claim of this paper that, unlike the Dependent Case model, the Agree model is incompatible with the full range of Korean case-stacking data.

  25. Lee (2010, 2011) and Lee and Choi (2010) demonstrate that case elision is tolerated on focused direct objects.

  26. This behavior is reminiscent of the role focus plays is VP-ellipsis where MaxElide (Takahashi and Fox 2005) is sensitive to focused elements.

  27. In general, morphological templates are cross-linguistically rare (Rice 2000). It is commonly thought that morphological ordering reflects syntactic ordering (Baker 1985), and attempts have been made to completely eliminate instances of templatic morphology. The most well-known example of templatic morphology is the Bantu CARP template (e.g. Hyman 2003) which, to my knowledge, has resisted reduction to a Mirror Principle account. Yoon (2005) attempts such a reduction for Korean nominal morphology, but this attempt faces some issues, particularly in regard to the proper treatment of honorific nominative case. I leave it to future research to determine if other attempts to derive (64) might be more fruitful.

  28. Noting that idiomatic readings are not retained in Korean passives, Yoon (2005) questions whether Korean passives involve a derived subject at all. If the subjects of these passives are base-generated high in the clause then the point is moot. However, the failure to retain idiomatic readings in the passive may not argue in favor of a base-generation account of passive subjects. Certain Japanese passives also do not permit idiomatic interpretations, but there is evidence that the subjects of these constructions are derived (e.g. Fukuda 2006). Also, case-stacking in passivization (18–19) suggests that passive subjects are derived.

  29. Yoon (2005) does not consider such examples, but notes that negative copulas and become constructions, which canonically mark both arguments with nominative case, disallow -kkeyse on the internal argument.

    1. (i)
      figure bj

    On the surface the dichotomy between (69) and (68) is surprising. Why should some objects permit -kkeyse while other do not? An anonymous reviewer suggests that honorific-marking is tied to reference, and since predicates are non-referential they cannot bear honorific nominative. It would remain to be explained why predicates should be case-marked at all.

  30. Most of my informants preferred case-matching, but found mismatches acceptable.

  31. There are some environments in which my informants agree that -kkeyse is unacceptable in place of -i/-ka. Honorific nominative is unavailable in tough-movement (71) and ablative subject constructions (71).

    1. (i)
      figure bm
    1. (ii)
      figure bn

    I leave explanation of these facts for future research, but contend that the preponderance of evidence in favor of a structural case account of -kkeyse should not be ignored, even in light of (69) and (70).

  32. An anonymous reviewer observes that the diagnostics discussed may distinguish arguments from adjuncts not PPs from DPs. On this view -kkeyse might still be viewed as an argument PP which patterns like other arguments and unlike the unambiguous PPs which are all adjuncts. The Q-float data can adjudicate between these two positions. As Jung and Miyagawa (2004) observe, inanimate goal arguments disallow accusative case, even when the verb cwu- ‘give’, one of the roots that permit dat-acc stacking/alternation, is utilized.

    1. (i)
      figure bx

    A similar observation holds for Japanese (e.g. Miyagawa and Tsujioka 2004). Furthermore, in both languages inanimate goals resist Q-float even while animate ones permit it (cf. (73a)). Speakers attest that Q-float from dative-marked inanimates is significantly degraded.

    1. (ii)
      figure by

    Miyagawa and Tsujioka suggest that the dichotomies presented above can arise if Korean (and Japanese) have both double object constructions (DOC) an to-ditransitives. Crucially, DOCs only permit animate DP goals. To-ditransitives always take argument PP goals. If this characterization is correct, we can be sure that the Q-float diagnostic distinguishes between DPs and PPs—not arguments and adjuncts.

  33. An anonymous reviewer comments that there are instances where seemingly non-focused elements appear with stacked case. For example, in the question and answer pair below (85):

    1. (i)
      figure ce

    This may suggest that the characterization that stacked case is limited to focus contexts is insufficient. However, it should be noted that Korean is a multiple foci language (e.g. Choe 1995). Therefore, in (84), both the indirect object Sue and the wh-word and its answer may be simultaneously focused.

  34. I thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out the relevance of Chung’s work.

  35. Schütze notes that his informants found Q-float for nominals bearing stacked-case degraded. My informants found similar examples well-formed. Furthermore, Schütze observes interactions between the various cases a nominal host can bear and those that its floated quantifier can bear. I direct the interested reader to his work for details.

References

  • Andrews, Avery D. 1982. The representation of case in modern Icelandic. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 427–503. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Mark C. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Mark C. 2012. Types of crosslinguistic variation in case assignment. Ms., Rutgers University.

  • Baker, Mark C. 2015. Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Mark C., and Nadya Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment case in Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 593–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belletti, Adriana, and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and theta theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, Maria, and Kenneth Hale. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi theory: Phi-features across interfaces and modules, eds. Daniel Harbour et al., 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Phil Branigan. 2006. Eccentric agreement and multiple case checking. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, eds. Alana Johns et al.. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Susi Wurmbrand. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 809–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börjars, Kersti, and Nigel Vincent. 1997. Double case and the ‘wimpiness’ of morphology. Paper presented at Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG97), San Diego.

  • Bošković, Željko. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 27–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chae, Hee-Rahk. 1991. The morphological status of nominal ‘particles’ in Korean. In Korean syntax and semantics: Linguistic Society of America (LSA) institute workshop, eds. Chungmin Lee and John Whitman. Thaehaksa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Choon-hak. 1975. The scope of negation in Korean. In The Korean language, ed. Ho-Min Sohn. Honolulu: Center for Korean Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Dong-in. 1994. Functional projections and verb movement. In Theoretical issues in Korean linguistics, ed. Young-Key Kim-Renaud. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Young-mee Y., and Peter Sells. 1995. A lexical account of inflectional suffixes in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4: 119–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choe, Hyon-sook. 1987a. Syntactic adjunction, A-chain and the ECP: Multiple identical case constructions in Korean. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS), eds. Joyce McDonough and Bernadette Plunkett. Vol. 17, 100–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choe, Hyon-sook. 1987b. Successive-cyclic rightward movement in Korean. In Harvard studies in Korean linguistics, ed. Susumu Kuno. Vol. II, 40–56. Seoul: Hanshin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choe, Hyon-sook. 1995. Focus and topic movement in Korean and licensing. In Discourse configurational languages, ed. Katalin É. Kiss, 269–334. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Jaeyoung. 2008. Economy in rightward movement: Evidence from Korean. Master’s thesis, Seoul National University.

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Holland: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin et al., 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael J. Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, Han Byul. 2012. i/ka marks focus. Paper presented at Japanese/Korean Linguistics 22, Tokyo.

  • Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. Ergativity, 2nd edn. In International handbook on syntactic contemporary research, eds. Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dikken, Marcel den. 2007. Phase extension: Contours of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuda, Shin. 2006. Japanese passives, external arguments, and structural case. San Diego Linguistics Papers 2: 86–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerdts, Donna B. 1991. Outline of a relational theory of case. In Simon Fraser working papers in linguistics, ed. Paul McFetridge. Vol. 1, 25–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerdts, Donna B., and Cheong Youn. 1988. Korean psych constructions: Advancement or retreat? In Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 24, eds. Lynn MacLeod et al., 155–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerdts, Donna B., and Cheong Youn. 1990. Non-nominative subjects in Korean. In Harvard studies in Korean linguistics, eds. Susumu Kuno et al. Vol. III, 235–248. Seoul: Hanshin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerdts, Donna B., and Cheong Youn. 1999. Case stacking and focus in Korean. In Harvard studies in Korean linguistics, eds. Susumu Kuno et al. Vol. VIII, 325–339. Seoul: Hanshin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2000. Prolific peripheries: A radical view from the left. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.

  • Hagstrom, Paul. 1997. Scope interactions and phrasal movement in Korean negation. In Harvard studies in Korean linguistics, Vol. VII. Seoul: Hanshin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, Chung-hye, Jeffrey Lidz, and Julien Musolino. 2007. V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Jeonghan. 1999. Morphosyntactic coding of information structure in Korean (multiple case marking, light verb construction, quantifier float): A Role and Reference Grammar account. Doctoral dissertation, SUNY Buffalo.

  • Harbert, Wayne E., and Almeida J. Toribio. 1991. Nominative objects. In Cornell working papers in linguistics, eds. Almeida J. Toribio and Wayne E. Harbert. Vol. 9, 127–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In MIT–Harvard joint conference (HUMIT) 2000, eds. Ora Matushansky et al., 67–80. Cambridge: MITWPL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Hong, Ki-Sun. 1991. Argument selection and case marking in Korean. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

  • Horvath, Julia. 1995. Structural focus, structural case, and the notion of feature-assignment. In Discourse configurational languages, ed. Katalin É. Kiss, 28–64. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, Larry M. 2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. Yearbook of Morphology 2002: 245–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out. The Linguistic Review 24: 137–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, Jung-Min. 2001. Case-particles in Korean are not focus-markers: A minimalist approach to the focus interpretation of case-marked NPs. Presented at the 11th Japanese/Korean linguistics conference, University of California, Santa Barbara.

  • Jung, Yeun-jin, and Shigeru Miyagawa. 2004. Decomposing ditransitive verbs. In Proceedings of SICGG, 101–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Kyumin. 2013. Non-locative syntax of locative experiencers. Ms., University of Calgary.

  • Kim, Min-Joo 2001. Accusative adverbials in Korean: Delimiting phrase and case. Presented at the 23rd meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, New York.

  • Kim, Soowon, and Joan Maling. 1998. Case assignment in the siphta-construction. In Description and explanation in Korean linguistics, ed. R. King, 133–168. Ithaca: East Asia Program, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, Eon-suk. 2000. A discourse analysis of the realization of objects in Korean. In Japanese/Korean linguistics, Vol. 9, 195–208. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, Heejong. 2005. Syntactic edges and linearization. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Ko, Heejeong. 2007. Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 49–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornfilt, Jaklin, and Omer Preminger. 2015. Nominative as no case at all: An argument from raising-to-ACC in Sakha. In 9th workshop on Altaic formal linguistics, eds. Andrew Joseph and Esra Predolac, 109–120. Cambridge: MITWPL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landau, Idan. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Duck-young. 2002. The function of the zero particle with special reference to spoken Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 645–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Hanjung. 2010. Explaining variation in Korean case ellipsis: Economy versus iconicity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19: 291–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Hanjung. 2011. Gradients in Korean case ellipsis: An experimental investigation. Lingua 121: 20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Hanjung, and Haejeong Choi. 2010. Focus types and subject-object asymmetry in Korean case ellipsis: A new look at focus effects. In Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information, and Computation (PACLIC) 24, 213–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Youngjoo. 2004. The syntax and semantics of focus particles. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Legate, Julie Anne. 2004. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 506–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 55–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Theodore, and Omer Preminger. 2015. Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 231–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Maling, Joan. 2009. The case tier: A hierarchical approach to morphological case. In The Oxford handbook of case, eds. Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 72–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL), eds. Germán Westphal et al. Vol. 8, 234–253. Ithaca: CLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Samuel. 1992. A reference grammar of Korean. Rutland: Charles E. Tuttle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masunaga, Kiyoko. 1988. Case deletion and discourse context. In Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, ed. William J. Poser, 124–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John. 2006. Morphology: Optimality theory. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, ed. Keith Brown, 308–316. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael J. Kenstowicz, 293–338. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move: Unifying agreement-based and discourse configurational languages. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyagawa, Shigeru, and Takae Tsujioka. 2004. Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, Wataru. 1996. Case spreading/stacking in Korean: Evidence for the macrorole tier. Presented at Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG96), Grenoble.

  • Neeleman, Ad, and Hans van de Koot. 2006. Syntactic haplology. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 685–710. Malden: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Grady, William. 1991. Categories and case: The sentence structure of Korean. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Park, Myung-Kwan. 1991. Experiencer movement and anaphor binding in causative psych-verbs in Korean. In Harvard studies in Korean linguistics II, eds. Susumu Kuno et al., 381–393. Department of Linguistics, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, Ki-seoung. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of case marking in Korean: A Role and Reference Grammar account. Doctoral dissertation, SUNY Buffalo.

  • Pesetsky, David. 2014. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Argument introducers. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Norvin. 2013. Lardil “case stacking” and the timing of case assignment. Syntax 16: 42–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 69–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, Carson T. 1996. Korean “case stacking” isn’t: Unifying noncase uses of case particles. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS), ed. K. Kusumoto. Vol. 26, 351–365. Amherst: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, Carson T. 2001a. On Korean ‘case stacking’: The varied functions of the particles -ka and -lul. The Linguistic Review 18: 193–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, Carson T. 2001b. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4: 205–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sells, Peter. 1995. Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexical perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 277–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sells, Peter. 1997. Positional constraints and faithfulness in morphology. In Harvard studies in Korean linguistics, Vol. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1977. Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language 53: 789–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1999. Dative subject constructions twenty two years later. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29: 46–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.

  • Sohn, Keun-won. 1995. Negative polarity items, scope, and economy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

  • Suh, Jinhee. 1989. Scope interaction in negation. In Harvard studies in Korean linguistics, eds. Susumu Kuno et al. Vol. III. Seoul: Hanshin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh, Sungki. 1992. The distribution of topic- and nominative-marked phrases in Korean: The universality of IP structure. In Papers from the Fourth Student Conference on Linguistics, eds. Andrea Kathol and Jill Beckman, 207–221. Cambridge: MITWPL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenonius, Peter. 2004. On the edge. In Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects, eds. David Adger et al., 261–287. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi, Shoichi, and Danny Fox. 2005. MaxElide and the re-binding problem. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsutsui, Michio. 1984. Particle ellipsis in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

  • Ura, Hiroyuki. 1996. Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function-splitting. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Ura, Hiroyuki. 1999. Checking theory and dative subject constructions in Japanese and Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 223–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urushibara, Saeko. 1991. Ey/eykey: A postposition or a case marker?

  • Van Valin, Robert D. 2009. Case in role and reference grammar. In The Oxford handbook of case, eds. Andrej Machulkov and Andrew Spencer, 102–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 679–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Dong-whee. 1999. Case features and case particles. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), eds. Sonya Bird et al. Vol. 18, 626–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yatabe, Shoichiro. 1999. Particle ellipsis and focus projection in Japanese. Language, Information, Text, Vol. 6, 79–104. Department of Language and Information Sciences, University of Tokyo.

  • Yip, Moira, Joan Maling, and Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63: 217–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, James Hye-Suk. 1996. Ambiguity of government and the chain condition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 105–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, James Hye-Suk. 2004. Non-nominative (major) subjects and case stacking in Korean. In Non-nominative subjects, eds. P. Bhoskaravao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao. Vol. 2, 265–314. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, James Hye-suk. 2005. Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean. In Clitic and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives, eds. Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordonez, 239–282. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, James Hye-suk. 2007. Raising of major arguments in Korean and Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 615–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, James Hye-suk, and Jeongme Yoon. 1991. Chain condition, ambiguity of government and derivational grammars. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS), ed. Tim Sherer. Vol. 21, 415–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, Jong-Yurl. 1989. On the multiple ka and lul constructions in Korean.

  • Youn, Cheong. 1990. A relational analysis of Korean multiple nominative constructions. Seoul: Hanshin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youn, Cheong. 1995. A relational analysis of case stacking. Hyentaynwunpepyenkwu 6: 121–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youn, Cheong. 1998. Case stacking revisited. Studies in Modern Grammar 14: 125–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yun, Suyeon. 2013. Post-verbal arguments in Korean: Syntax, prosody, and information structure. Ms., MIT.

  • Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Mark Baker, Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, Shigeru Miyagawa, David Pesetsky, Maria Polinsky, Omer Preminger, Norvin Richards, Coppe van Urk, and Suyeon Yun, to audiences at Japanese/Korean Linguistics 22 and at the 2013 annual meeting of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL9), and to three anonymous reviewers, for helpful discussion and comments. All errors are my own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maryland, 1401 Marie Mount Hall, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

    Theodore Levin

Authors
  1. Theodore Levin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theodore Levin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levin, T. Successive-cyclic case assignment: Korean nominative-nominative case-stacking. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 35, 447–498 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-016-9342-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-016-9342-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation