Advertisement

Locality domains and morphological rules

Phases, heads, node-sprouting and suppletion in Korean honorification
  • Jaehoon Choi
  • Heidi HarleyEmail author
Article

Abstract

Korean subject honorification and Korean negation have both affixal and suppletive exponents. In addition, Korean negation has a periphrastic realization involving an auxiliary verb. By examining their interaction, we motivate several hypotheses concerning locality constraints on the conditioning of suppletion and the insertion of dissociated morphemes (‘node-sprouting’). At the same time, we come to a better understanding of the nature of Korean subject honorification. We show that Korean honorific morphemes are ‘dissociated’ or ‘sprouted,’ i.e., introduced by morphosyntactic rule in accordance with morphological well-formedness constraints, like many other agreement morphemes. We argue that the conditioning domain for node-sprouting is the syntactic phase. In contrast, our data suggest that the conditioning domain for suppletion is the complex X0, as proposed by Bobaljik (2012). We show that the ‘spanning’ hypotheses concerning exponence (Merchant 2015; Svenonius 2012), the ‘linear adjacency’ hypotheses (Embick 2010), and ‘accessibility domain’ hypothesis (Moskal 2014, 2015a, 2015b; Moskal and Smith 2016) make incorrect predictions for Korean suppletion. Finally, we argue that competition between honorific and negative suppletive exponents reveals a root-outwards effect in allomorphic conditioning, supporting the idea that insertion of vocabulary items proceeds root-outwards (Bobaljik 2000).

Keywords

Morphologically conditioned allomorphy Suppletion Dissociated morphemes Locality Phase Honorification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to audiences at the 25th Colloquium on Generative Grammar at the Center for the Study of the Basque Language and its Texts (UMR 5478), May 2015; the 10th International Workshop on Theoretical East Asian Linguistics at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, June 2015; the Linguistics Colloquium Series at the University of Connecticut, April 2016; the 91st Annual Meeting of Linguistic Society of America, in Austin, Texas, January 2017; the 11th Generative Linguistics in the Old World in Asia at the National University of Singapore, February 2017; the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics at the University of Calgary, April 2017; Roots V at University College London and University of London/Queen Mary, June 2017; and the 19th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar at Seoul National University, August 2017 for helpful discussion and feedback. We would also like to thank our NLLT referees and editor, Jason Merchant, for their careful and thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Finally, we extend our gratitude to our consultants for their patience and care in answering repeated questions about very subtle distinctions in form and meaning, and Chungmin Lee for sharing his knowledge on Korean negation marker and his works. This research was supported in part by a Daegu University Research Grant, 2016.

References

  1. Abeillé, Anne, and Daniele Godard. 1997. The syntax of French negative adverbs. In Negation and polarity: Syntax and semantics, eds. Danielle Forget et al., 1–27. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  2. Ahn, Hee-Don. 1991. Light verbs, VP-movement, negation and clausal architecture in Korean and English. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin. Google Scholar
  3. Ahn, Hee-Don, and Hang-Jin Yoon. 1989. Functional categories in Korean, Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3: 79–88. Google Scholar
  4. Ahn, Sung-Ho. 2002. Honorification and AgrP. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of Korea Winter 2002 Meeting, Seoul National University. Google Scholar
  5. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2008. Structuring participles. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 26, 33–41. Google Scholar
  6. An, Duk-Ho. 2014. Genitive case in Korean and its implications for noun phrase structure. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23: 361–392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 717–778. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  9. Baker, C. Lee. 1991. The syntax of English “not”: The limits of core grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 387–430. Google Scholar
  10. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1994. What does adjacency do? In The morphology-syntax connection (MITWPL) 32, 1–32. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  11. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In The 1999 Maryland Mayfest on Morphology (University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10), eds. Kleanthes K. Grohmann and Caro Struijke, 35–71. College Park: University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  12. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s Phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi-theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, eds. David Adger, Susana Béjar, and Daniel Harbour, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  13. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Andrew Carnie. 1996. A minimalist approach to some problems of Irish word order. In The syntax of the Celtic languages, eds. Robert Borsley and Ian Roberts. 223–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Heidi Harley. 2017. Suppletion is local: Evidence from Hiaki. In The structure of words at the interfaces, eds. Heather Newell, Máire Noonan, Glyne Piggott, and Lisa Travis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  16. Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Diane Jonas. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195–236. Google Scholar
  17. Boeckx, Cedric. 2006. Honorification as agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 385–398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Boeckx, Cedric, and Fumikazu Niinuma. 2004. Conditions on agreement in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 453–480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bonet, Eulalia, and Daniel Harbour. 2012. Contextual allomorphy. In The morphology and phonology of exponence, ed. Jochen Trommer, 195–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Borer, Hagit. 2014. Wherefore roots? Theoretical Linguistics 40: 343–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brown, Lucien. 2011. Korean honorifics and politeness in second language learning. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bruening, Benjamin. 2010a. Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English locative inversion and do-support. Language 86: 43–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bruening, Benjamin. 2010b. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 519–562. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Caballero, Gabriela, and Alice C. Harris. 2012. A working typology of multiple exponence. In Current issues in morphological theory: (Ir)regularity, analogy and frequency. Selected papers from the 14th International Morphology Meeting, eds. Ferenc Kiefer, Mária Ladányi and Péter Siptár, 163–188. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cho, Dong-In. 1994. Functional projections and verb movement. In Theoretical issues in Korean linguistics, ed. Young-Key Kim-Renaud, 233–254. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  26. Choe, Hyon Sook. 1987. Syntactic adjunction, A-chain and the ECP: Multiple identical Case construction in Korean. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 17, eds. Joyce McDonough and Bernadette Plunkett, 100–120. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  27. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Google Scholar
  28. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  29. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  30. Chung, Inkie. 2007. Suppletive negation in Korean and distributed morphology. Lingua 117: 95–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Chung, Inkie. 2009. Suppletive verbal morphology in Korean and the mechanism of vocabulary insertion. Journal of Linguistics 45: 533–567. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3: 239–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Christensen, Ken Ramshøj. 2003. On the synchronic and diachronic status of the negative adverbial ikke/not. Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax WPSS 73: 1–53. Google Scholar
  34. Corbett, Greville. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language 83: 8–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Deal Amy Rose. 2016. Plural exponence in the Nez Perce DP: A DM analysis. Morphology 26: 313–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Embick, David. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 185–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Embick, David. 2003. Locality, listedness, and morphological information. Studia Linguistica 57: 143–169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Embick, David, and Morris Halle. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Going Romance 2003, eds. Twan Geerts and Haike Jacobs, 59–88. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  40. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  42. Furbee, N. Louanna. 1974. Identity in gapping and the lexical insertion of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 299–304. Google Scholar
  43. Gribanova, Eva. 2015. Roots in ellipsis and multidominance. Paper presented at Roots 4 workshop, NYU. Google Scholar
  44. Hagstrom, Paul. 1996. Do-support in Korean: Evidence for an interpretive morphology. In Morphosyntax in generative grammar, eds. Hee-Don Ahn et al. Seoul: Hankuk. Google Scholar
  45. Hagstrom, Paul. 2002. Implications of child error for the syntax of negation in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 211–242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In PF: Papers at the Interface (MITWPL) 30, eds. Benajamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang and Martha McGinnis. 425–449. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  47. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  48. Han, Hak-Sung. 1993. AgrP and NegP in Korean. Linguistic Journal of Korea 18: 437–461. Google Scholar
  49. Han, Chung-hye, and Jong-Bok Kim. 2004. Are there “double relative clauses” in Korean?. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 315–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Han, Chung-hye, and Chungmin Lee. 2007. On negative imperatives in Korean. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 373–394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Han, Ho, and Myung-Kwan Park. 1994. The syntax of negation in Korean and its development in child language. In Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 152–162. Google Scholar
  52. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Harley, Heidi. 1994. Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. In Papers on phonology and morphology (MITWPL) 21, eds. Colin Phillips and Heidi Harley, 289–320. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  54. Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. PhD thesis, MIT. Google Scholar
  55. Harley, Heidi. 2008. On the causative construction. In Handbook of Japanese linguistics, eds. Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 20–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  56. Harley, Heidi. 2013. Getting morphemes in order: Merger, affixation and head-movement. In Diagnosing syntax, edc. Lisa Cheng and Norbert Corver, 44–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Harley, Heidi. 2014. Reply to commentaries, “On the identity of roots”. Theoretical Linguistics 40: 447–474. Google Scholar
  58. Harley, Heidi. 2015. Hiaki verbal number suppletion really is suppletion. Paper presented at Roots 4 workshop, NYU. Google Scholar
  59. Huang, James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574. Google Scholar
  60. Jackson, Eric. 2005. Derived statives in Pima. Paper presented at the SSILA Annual Meeting, Oakland. Google Scholar
  61. Jo, Jung-Min. 2013. Predicate contrastive topic constructions: Implications for morpho-syntax in Korean and copy theory of movement. Lingua 131: 80–111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1987. Possessor raising in Korean. In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics II, 80–88. Seoul: Hanshin. Google Scholar
  63. Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1988. Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding, and movement. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  64. Kim, Jin-Sook. 2012. Comprehension of elided phrases in Korean and English. PhD diss., University of Hawaii Google Scholar
  65. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2001. A constraint-based and head-driven approach to multiple nominative constructions. In HPSG-2000 Conference, eds. Dan Flickinger and Andreas Kathol, 166–181. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  66. Kim, Jong-Bok, and Peter Sells. 2007. Korean honorification: A kind of expressive meaning. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16: 303–336. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Elsewhere in phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, eds. Stephan. R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Google Scholar
  68. Kishimoto, Hideki. 2013. Covert possessor raising in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 161–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ko, Heejeong. 2007. Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 49–83. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Koopman, Hilda. 2005. Korean and (Japanese) morphology from a syntactic perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 601–633. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Landau, Idan. 2007. Constraints on partial VP-fronting. Syntax 10: 127–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lee, Sook-Hee. 1992. The syntax and semantics of serial verb constructions. PhD thesis, University of Washington. Google Scholar
  73. Lomashvili, Leila, and Heidi Harley. 2011. Phases and templates in Georgian agreement. Studia Linguistica 65: 223–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) ’91, eds. Germán Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and Hee-Rahk Chae, 234–253. Columbus: Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  75. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (PLC) 21, eds. Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel et al., 201–225. Google Scholar
  76. Marantz, Alec. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Distributed Morphology today, eds. Ora Matushansky and Alec Marantz, 95–115. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Marvin, Tatjana. 2003. Topics in the stress and syntax of words. PhD thesis, MIT. Google Scholar
  78. Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  80. Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 77–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Merchant, Jason. 2015. How much context is enough?: Two cases of span-conditioned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 273–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Merchant, Jason, and Natalia Pavlou. 2017. The morphosyntax of the periphrastic future under negation in Cypriot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 17: 233–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Moskal, Beata. 2014. The role of morphological markedness in exclusive/inclusive pronouns. In Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 40, 354–368. Google Scholar
  84. Moskal, Beata. 2015a. Limits on allomorphy: A case study in nominal suppletion. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 363–376. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Moskal, Beata. 2015b. Domains on the border: Between morphology and phonology. PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs. Google Scholar
  86. Moskal, Beata, and Peter W. Smith. 2016. Towards a theory without adjacency: Hyper-contextual VI-rules. Morphology 26: 295–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Newell, Heather. 2008. Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases. PhD diss., McGill University. Google Scholar
  88. Newell, Heather, Maire Noonan, Glyne Piggot, and Lisa Travis. 2016. The structure of words at the interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  89. Norris, Mark. 2014. A theory of nominal concord. PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz. Google Scholar
  90. Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. PhD thesis, MIT. Google Scholar
  91. Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  92. Park, Kap-young. 1990. Negation. verb movement, and light verbs in Korean. In Papers from the seventh international conference on Korean linguistics, ed. E.-J. Baek. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar
  93. Piggott, Glyne, and Heather Newell. 2006. Syllabification, stress and derivation by phase in Ojibwa. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 20. Google Scholar
  94. Pollard, Carl Jesse, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  95. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1991. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424. Google Scholar
  96. Potts, Christopher, Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Ash Asudeh, Rajesh Bhatt, Seth Cable, Christopher Davis, Yurie Hara, Angelika Kratzer, Eric McCready, Tom Roeper, and Martin Walkow. 2009. Expressives and identity condition. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 356–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language? PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  99. Saito, Hiroaki. 2015. Humble form, subject honorification and object honorification in Japanese. Paper presented at the 10th International Workshop on Theoretical East Asian Linguistics, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Google Scholar
  100. Samuels, Bridget. 2011. Phonological architecture: A biolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Schutze, Carson. 2001. On Korean “Case Stacking”: The varied functions of the particles ka and lul. The Linguistic Review 18: 193–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Sells, Peter. 1995. Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexical perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 277–325. Google Scholar
  103. Siddiqi, Daniel. 2006. Minimize exponence: Economy effects on a model of the morphosyntactic component of the grammar. PhD diss., University of Arizona. Google Scholar
  104. Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the word: Economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in Distributed Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Sohn, Ho-Min. 1980. Theme-prominence in Korean. Korean Linguistics 2: 2–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Svenonius, Peter. 2005. Two domains of causatives. Ms., University of Tromsø. Google Scholar
  107. Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Spanning. Ms., University of Tromsø. Google Scholar
  108. Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2013. Corrective but coordinates clauses not always but sometimes. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 827–863. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Ura, Hiroyuki. 1996. Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. PhD thesis, MIT. Google Scholar
  110. van Gelderen, Elly. 2008. The negative cycle. Linguistic Typology 12: 195–243. Google Scholar
  111. van Gelderen, Elly. 2013. The linguistic cycle and the language faculty. Language and Linguistics Compass 7: 233–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Volpe, Mark. 2005. Japanese Morphology and its theoretical consequences: Derivational morphology in Distributed Morphology. PhD diss., Stony Brook University. Google Scholar
  113. Wescoat, Michael T. 2002. On lexical sharing. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. Google Scholar
  114. Wescoat, Michael T. 2005. English nonsyllabic auxiliary contractions: an analysis in LFG with lexical sharing. In Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) 05, eds. Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, 468–486. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  115. Winter, Yoad. 2001. Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  116. Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Number 55 in Studies in Generative Grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  117. Yi, Eun-Young. 1994. NegP in Korean. In Papers on negation (Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 12), eds. Howard Grabois, David Parkinson, and Deborah Yeager, 193–208. Ithaca: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  118. Yoon, Jong-Yurl. 1989. On the Multiple ‘ka’ and ‘lul’ constructions in Korean. In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3, 383–394. Seoul: Hanshin. Google Scholar
  119. Yun, Gwanhi. 2004. Constraints on possessor raising and its structure in Korean. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 46, 406–421. Google Scholar
  120. Yun, Sung Kyu. 1993. Honorific agreement. PhD diss., University of Hawaii. Google Scholar
  121. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, and Eunjeong Oh. 2007. On the syntactic composition of manner and motion. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Zwicky, Arnold M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59: 502–513. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Language and LiteratureDaegu UniversityGyeongsan-siKorea
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations