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).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The DP/NP distinction does not impact our argumentation in this paper, so we simply refer to ‘NP’ throughout; we do not thereby intend to make any claim about the DP hypothesis for Korean.
However, see Baker (1991), and especially Bruening (2010a) for arguments against a postsyntactic account of English do-insertion. See also Pollard and Sag (1994) for a lexicalist approach. We use Bobaljik’s proposal here mainly for illustrative purposes and also because it provides a useful parallel to the approach to Korean ha-insertion that we do adopt later.
The non-adjacent suppletion conditioning we argue for is thus similar to Moskal and Smith’s (2016) ‘Hyper-Contextual’ Vocabulary Insertion rules. However, the evidence they introduced to motivate such rules did not include conditioning across uninvolved intervening structure.
Abbreviations used in this paper: ACC = accusative, ADJ = adjectivizer, DECL = declarative, FOC = focus, GEN = genitive, HON = honorific, INT = interrogative, NEG = negation, NMLZ = nominalizer, NOM = nominative, PRES = present, PST = past, TOP = topic.
Kim (2001), among many others, criticizes the possessor-raising analysis of double nominative constructions. One of the main objections is that in-situ possessor constructions only receive a literal interpretation (ia) while raised possessor constructions can receive either a literal or idiomatic interpretation (ib). In fact, however, (ia) can immediately receive an idiomatic interpretation once appropriately contextualized (ii). We conclude a raising analysis is viable.
-
(i)
-
(ii)
-
(i)
We adopt a ‘Dependent Case’ view of the realization of case morphology (Marantz 1991; Bobaljik 2008), according to which the surface form of a syntactically licensed case feature is dependent on its structural context. Thus the case of the possessor NP appears as -uy ‘gen’ when the tail of the possessor-raising chain is pronounced, and as -kkeyse ‘nom.hon’ when the head of the chain is pronounced. Indeed, An (2014) argues that -uy is simply a morphological marker of nominal modification, not a case particle; if that is correct, it may be that structural case for possessors of subjects is always assigned in a covert multiple-subject configuration.
In addition to the nouns that are lexically [+hon], there are nouns that are lexically [-hon]. These nouns can never receive honorific nominative or trigger honorification. All proper nouns and inanimate nouns fall into this group.
Sells (1995:305) points out that the do-support analysis has difficulty accounting for the fact that the negated verb often appears as anh-, rather than an-ha-. When it surfaces as anh-, following suffixes appear in their consonant-stem form rather than the vowel-stem form required by an-ha-. Reduction to anh- is not possible when main verb ha- ‘do’ takes short-form negation to produce a linearly equivalent an-ha- sequence. Sells proposes that anh- is a consonant-final negative auxiliary verb. We reject this view, following Han and Lee (2007) and others, given that there is a morphosyntactically parallel (in)ability construction mos ha- ‘unable to V’, which behaves exactly like long-form negation in triggering do-support; no ‘auxiliary verb’ analysis of this form is possible, and a unified analysis is only possible within the do-support view of an-ha- ∼ anh-.
We can see two possible approaches to the reduced anh- form. Perhaps dummy ha- ‘do’ is a distinct lexical entry from main verb ha- ‘do’, and only the former has a reduced allomorph h- (analogous to the do/don’t [du] ∼ [do] stem allomorphy in English). Alternatively, as noted above, Han and Park (1994) and Han and Lee (2007) suggest that the negative morpheme an(i)- is the head of Neg0 in long-form negation but an adverbial element in short-form negation. It is possible that ha-reduction is conditioned by the word-internal relationship between Neg0 and the adjoined ha- verb in long-form negation. The impossibility of reduction in a short-form negation an-ha sequence might then follow from the distinct structural status of the short-form negative morpheme as a clitic to the verb-word.
See also Ahn (1991), Cho (1994), Hagstrom (1996, 2002), Park (1990), Yi (1994). Han and Lee (2007) assume that do-support targets the Neg0 head, rather than the T0 head, since they argue that Neg + DO behave as a constituent in the case of so-called mal-negation; others (e.g., Yi 1994) assume that do-support targets T0, as in English. In fact, the constellation of facts considered here may provide a new piece of evidence in support of Han and Lee’s conclusion. In verb-copy constructions, discussed in Sect. 2.3.3 below, negation must be included in the leftmost copy of the verb, but tense need not be. When the head verb occurs in a long-form negation construction, the copy also must surface in long-form negation. Copying of T0 is optional. However, the dummy verb ha- must occur in the leftmost copy regardless of the presence of T0, illustrated in (i) below. This suggests that ha- is present to support Neg0, rather than T0.
-
(i)
-
(i)
Yi (1994:201–204) provides arguments against treating ha as a lexical verb here, showing that it is not the case that ha selects VP-ci as its complement. She shows that ci-phrases cannot undergo passivization, nor can they be fronted in verb copy constructions, unlike their alleged counterparts, phrases marked with the true nominalizer -ki.
Kim and Sells (2007) report that a sentence with multiple -si like (24c) increases the sense of honorification, and hence supports their expressive analysis of honorification. Our consultants, however, find that two instances of -si merely produce a somewhat more stilted, ponderous, or redundant utterance than the single-use sentences in (24a) and (24b), which we take to perhaps point in the direction of an ellipsis-type account of the variation; see further discussion in Sect. 2.3.3 below.
A projection-based analysis which lets go of this assumption is adopted by Kim and Sells (2007), from Volpe’s (2005) account of Japanese. In their account, multiple HonPs are optionally projected either below or above the locus of negation, or both. However, they do not posit a direct connection between the presence of an HonP and the presence (or at least potential presence) of a nominative-marked honorific subject, and hence the obligatory presence of -si in the context of a -kkeyse-marked subject is unaccounted for in their proposal. The account proposed here, which inserts the Hon0 head post-syntactically in agreement with a [+hon] nominative NP accounts for the distribution of honorification without introducing optional functional projections in the verbal extended projection, and accounts for the fact that honorification is mandatory, not optional, in the presence of a -kkeyse-marked NP.
Proposals positing multiple AgrP projections have always involved separate controllers for each AgrP—an AgrOP in a relationship with the object, in addition to the AgrSP for the subject. Usually such projections have been motivated with syntactic evidence, e.g., the existence of extra specifier positions which result in additional possible surface positions for various arguments (Bobaljik and Carnie 1996; Bobaljik and Jonas 1996). Even with such syntactic evidence, AgrPs have been controversial (Chomsky 1995). In contrast, here we have a single controller, and (due to the SOV & scrambling nature of Korean), no convincing syntactic evidence for the four specifier positions implicated in a double-AgrSP analysis (Spec-vP, Spec-AgrSP1, Spec-AgrSP2, Spec-TP). In other contexts where multiple Agree relations are established with a single controller, notably in nominal concord, separate AgrP projections are not typically posited (see, e.g., Norris 2014, among others). For all these reasons we concur with Yi (1994) that positing multiple AgrPs to account for the multiple honorific marking would be ad-hoc.
It is possible to imagine that si-insertion does not target a verbal projection, and hence need not be post-syntactic, since other heads in the extended projection might provide appropriate loci for a [+hon] feature. Merchant (p.c.) suggests the
, T0 or Neg0 nodes as potential hosts for honorification. The 
node, however, cannot be the host of honorification since when the verb includes an overtly realized v0 node, as in lexical causatives, for example, honorification always follows the causative marker (thay-wu-si-ess-ta
BURN-v0-Hon0-T0-C0 vs. *thay-si-wu-ess-ta
BURN-Hon0-v0-T0-C0), and never appears adjacent to the 
. It is equally unlikely that honorification is hosted by T0, since in verb-copy constructions, which need not include the TP projection at all (Jo 2013), honorification is not affected when T0 is absent (see (63b) below). Finally, it is unlikely that Neg0 is the host for honorification, since in short-form negation, at least, the honorific marker must follow the verb, and cannot attach to prefixal Neg0an- (an-ka-∅-si-ess-ta Neg0-
GO-Hon0-v0-T0-C0 vs. *an-si-ka-∅-ess-ta Neg0-
GO-Hon0-v0-T0-C0).Potts et al. (2009) show that there are cases of structural mismatch under ellipsis involving expressive adjectives like fuckin’, but since we have shown that honorification is a mandatory agreement process, rather than an optional expressive element, it’s unclear how ‘mismatch,’ involving the presence of an elided honorific morpheme (e.g., (25a)) would be syntactically licensed, given the non-honorifiable subject of the second clause. A projection-based view of honorification could be saved in the case of ellipsis if the presence of the relevant projection was considered to be universal in the clausal spine, with a null realization when it bears a [-hon] feature. In that case, the structure of the elided clause would match the structure of its antecedent, but the feature content of the second projection would be different than the feature content in the antecedent, like e.g., varying gender on elided pronominal variables. No previous projection-based analyses (e.g., Kim and Sells 2007) have posited the presence of a (-)honorific projection in neutral clauses, however.
More recent proposals have dissociated external argument introduction from the vP, expanding the VP further to include a VoiceP (Pylkkänen 2008, among many others); nothing in the analysis presented here hinges on such a separation so we use only the simpler split-VP structure. However, our approach is compatible with a structure including VoiceP as well.
Han et al. (2007) argue that there are two populations of Korean speakers; those who exhibit head-movement of the verbal complex to C0 and those who do not, rather assembling the morphemes of the verb via lowering or post-syntactic morphological merger. We only illustrate head-movement here, moving the verb cyclically up to the edge of the VoiceP phase, prior to further head-movement of the Voice0 complex. For a verb-in-situ speaker of Korean, we assume that post-syntactic merger could apply to the linear string of morphemes to generate the unified surface form of the verb instead (see discussion of merger-under-adjacency in Harley 2013). We assume that in in-situ grammars, Hon0-sprouting is triggered by the copy (trace) of NP[+hon] in the specifier of the relevant Spell-Out domain (Spec-vP for honorification on the main verb or SpecTP for honorification on ha), since the morphosyntax of honorification is identical across all speakers of Korean. However, the account of po-constructions in Sect. 4 is not compatible with any Korean speaker leaving the complement verb in situ, where it would sprout an Hon0 node, so in restructuring contexts, at least, the embedded verb must head-move as far as the matrix v0.
We assume a copy theory of ‘trace,’ but use the t notation for readability. A reviewer asks whether Hon0-sprouting applies to the copy of v0 head left behind inside the TP. This copy also meets the structural description of (26), as it is c-commanded by an (unpronounced) copy of the [+hon] subject NP. We assume that the maximal node of a lower copy is marked for non-pronunciation, and that this marking prevents the exponence of any terminal node within the marked domain. It is possible, then, to suppose that Hon0-sprouting does apply to this lower copy, but that it fails to be realized because it is contained within a domain marked for non-pronunciation. Alternatively, one could posit a constraint ensuring that purely morphological rules such as Hon°-sprouting do not apply to constituents that have been marked for non-pronunciation. We assume the former since it does not require any additional assumptions, but either possibility is consistent with the theory presented in this paper.
The non-finite verb form ka-si- occurs with the participializing suffix -ci in these constructions. We do not include a participializing node in the tree here to keep the key elements of our analysis as clear as possible.
The failure of syntactic v0 to Neg0 movement can be syntactically encoded via the checking requirements of the Neg0 head. If anything (e.g., v0) head-raised to Neg0, the conditioning environment for (30) would not be met, since the Neg0 terminal node would no longer be sister to T0 (i.e., the structure would be [[Neg0-v0]\(_{\mathrm{Neg}^{0}}\)-T0]\(_{\mathrm{T}^{0}}\). It is tempting to account for the insertion of ha- in ha-focus construction in fn. 24 below in a similar fashion, perhaps by generalizing NegP to PolP and suggesting that the [-neg] variant of the Pol0 head also requires ha- support when non-pronunciation of a copy prevents a verb from adjoining to it. We leave this speculation for future work.
The proposal that Hon0-sprouting applies once per phase, couched in a cyclic spell-out system, predicts that the number of honorific markers cannot exceed the number of spell-out domains containing a verbal element (i.e., v0), though fewer may surface; see the discussion of ellipsis of the honorific marker in Sect. 2.3.3. An alternative is conceivable in which Hon0-sprouting might apply more than once in an acyclic single spell-out system, which would give rise to the same effect as our proposal in these constructions. However, such an approach is challenged by the fact that po-constructions—‘restructuring’ constructions—containing multiple v0 heads but only one operation of spell-out, do not allow multiple occurrences of -si (see Sect. 4 below). In a cyclic spell-out system, assuming that the Hon0-sprouting rule targets the most local v0 (i.e., the least embedded v0), as we propose in Sect. 4, the banned occurrence of -si on the less local, more embedded v0 in po-constructions follows. Therefore, we contend that cyclic spell-out is necessary to fully account for the distribution of the honorific marker.
Indeed, even more than two are sometimes possible; the long-form negation construction can itself embed a NegP, to introduce a double negation reading, and that second NegP can be realized via a further long-form negation construction; this process can in principle iterate further. The embedded Neg0 heads require verbal support, since each lacks a verbal host in its embedded position, and node-sprouting of a v0 will occur. (The formulation of the v0-sprouting rule in (30) above would have to be generalized to any environment in which Neg0 lacks a v0 sister to accommodate these cases.) Each sprouted ha- node in that structure is a potential target for Hon0-sprouting, leading to the possibility of sentences with arbitrarily many Hon0 nodes. As we will see in Sect. 4 below, however, it turns out to be important to apply node-sprouting rules only once per phase, to account for po-constructions. The potential to embed a long-form negation construction directly under another long-form negation construction, and trigger do-insertion and honorification without an intervening T0 or C0 node, suggests that NegP should be analyzed as a phase boundary.
It is somewhat unusual to observe an ellipsis process applying at the sub-word level, but perhaps not unprecedented; English affix-focus constructions like John is ANTI-missile, not PRO-! are analyzed in a similar way (see Merchant 2015).
Additional factors are also at play in verb-copy constructions. As shown by Chung (2009), the (optional) presence of full Tense inflection on the first copy prevents the elision of -si on that copy in two of the three verb-copy constructions, the ‘iterated rhetorical’ verb-copy construction and the ‘echoed-verb’ verb-copy construction. We interpret this as suggesting that a stronger identity constraint is in place between the copies when full inflection is present, preventing ellipsis in either copy. This constraint does not apply when the two loci for honorification are not completely identical, as in both long-form negation and the ha-focus verb-copy construction, in which the head verb is replaced by dummy ha- ‘do’, possibly also via node-sprouting following ellipsis of the main verb, as suggested by Jo (2013). We leave a full exploration of the interaction of honorification and identity in verb-copy constructions for future work.
See, e.g., Embick (2010), Embick and Halle (2005), Embick and Noyer (2007), and Marantz (1997) for the assertion that suppletion of content words effectively does not exist, and Borer (2014) for a proposal that Uto-Aztecan suppletive verbs are separate lexical items, though see Harley (2014) for a rebuttal. See also discussion of this issue with regard to Greek and English suppletion in Merchant (2015). Interested readers are further referred to Corbett (2007) and Bonet and Harbour (2012) for the existence of root suppletion.
The same point can be made with the idioms yak-ul calmos mek/capswusi-ta ‘to do something wrong’ (lit. ‘to take wrong medicine’), iseng-ul al/molu-ta ‘to (not) have an experience in sexual intercourse’ (lit. ‘to (not) know the opposite sex’), cuk-e poa-ya/to cesung-ul an/molu-ta ‘to (not) truly come to know something even after first-hand experience’ (lit. ‘to die to (not) believe in afterlife’), hana-lul tut-ko/tul-eto yel-ul al/molu-ta ‘to (not) be smart enough to understand more than what was said’ (lit. ‘to (not) know ten things after hearing only one’).
Admittedly, certain idioms are less felicitous with the suppletive stems for these verbs. For example, miyekkuk-ul mek-ta ‘to fail a test’ (lit. ‘to eat seaweed soup’) does not sound appropriate with the honorific stems for EAT; similarly, kay khoskwumeong-ulo al-ta ‘to consider something trivial’ (lit. ‘to consider something a dog’s nostril’) does not extend very well in the negative. In the case of ‘to eat seaweed soup,’ regular short-form negation marking is possible in reportative context, so it may be possible that this idiom recruits a separate, homophonous verb. In the case of ‘to consider something a dog’s nostril,’ however, short-form negation is impossible entirely, suggesting that perhaps polarity is important to the idiomatic interpretation here and cannot be altered, either via suppletion or regular short-form negation.
It is perhaps worth noting that Han and Lee’s (2007) proposal is consistent with a broader view of variation in negative morpho-syntax cross-linguistically. In Icelandic, for example, the negative morpheme ekki behaves as an adverb (see the overview in Christensen 2003), as does the French negative morpheme pas (Abeillé and Godard 1997). Van Gelderen (2008, 2013) argues for a formalist view of the Jespersen cycle of grammaticalization of negative morphemes: A negative sentential adverb undergoes phonological reduction and is reanalyzed by succeeding generations as a specifier, then as a clitic, then as the affixal head of NegP, until its phonological content becomes inconsequential and the cycle is renewed by speakers inserting a negative adverb to ‘reinforce’ the negative content inadequately represented by the exponent of the Neg0 head. Chungmin Lee (p.c.) suggests that this is an appropriate view of the development of short-form and long-form negation in Korean as well; the negative adverb an(i) was present and used for negation in the Old Korean period, while long-form negation came into the language some time later, in the Middle Korean period.
Note that Matushansky uses the more general term ‘m-merger’ for this operation; we use Embick and Noyer’s term ‘Lowering’ since it’s less confusable with syntactic Merge.
Merchant and Pavlou (2017) propose a revised version of the Span Adjacency condition which eliminates the requirement that a span include only heads in the extended projection, and allows for any element in a selectional relationship with a constituent to count as part of the span. Given a selectional theory of adjunction, like that of Bruening (2010b), Toosarvandani (2013), and Winter (2001), the adjoined negator here could count as part of a span and allow suppletive conditioning. However, the structurally intervening and irrelevant-for-suppletion v0 node in the complex head formed by Lowering would still pose a problem for the revised Span Adjacency condition. See also fn. 39 below.
Note that we include the terminal string -si as part of the vocabulary item realizing the
nodes here. In Sect. 4.1 below we show that -si in these cases has undergone reanalysis as part of root VI itself, and does not realize the Hon0 terminal node. As is often the case when a feature conditions suppletion (Siddiqi 2006, 2009), the Hon0 node itself is realized by a zero allomorph.For the same reason, the Korean patterns with
KNOW and 
EXIST are a challenge to Svenonius’s (2012) Spanning hypothesis about portmanteau forms, according to which such forms must realize spans of hierarchical structure (not, as for Merchant 2015, simply be conditioned by them). Similarly, the behavior of 
KNOW rules out another family of hypotheses, which is that insertion of Hon0 creates a barrier that prevents the vocabulary rule for root insertion from recognizing the presence of Neg0 within the complex head. If the insertion of the Hon0 dissociated morpheme created a phase-like locality domain within the word, blocking access to Neg0 at the point of root insertion, then we would predict that negative honorific forms of 
KNOW would surface with the unmarked allomorph, *an(i)-a-si, which is ungrammatical, rather than with the negative allomorph, molu-si.This solution is considered by Chung (2009:561), but is dismissed because of his inverse conclusions about the relative locality relations of Hon0 and Neg0 with the root.
Bobaljik’s (2012) data on suppletion in comparative and superlative constructions did not reveal the effect of independent conditioning features at distinct hierarchical positions, since he was looking at comparison structures, and it turns out that comparatives are cross-linguistically strictly contained by superlatives (his ‘Strict Containment Condition’). The Korean case thus provides a flexible environment for testing the specifics of locality constraints on allomorphic conditioning, since negation does not entail honorification or vice versa.
She contrasts po-constructions with another type of serial verb construction which is morphologically very similar but which behaves in the opposite way with regard to these tests, concluding that this second type of SVC is not formed by head-movement. This second type of SVC has an unusual adjunctive syntactic structure that has been investigated more recently by Zubizarreta and Oh (2007), among others, and also forbids Hon0-sprouting on the first member of the compound. We tentatively attribute this to the restructuring character of these SVCs, which involve semantic control (or ‘restructuring’) to achieve a manner interpretation of the V1. This means that the embedded structure will be spelled-out without an honorific NP c-commanding the verb, and regular honorification of the V1 is therefore impossible. The semantics of these constructions is such that it seems impossible to use one of our limited set of suppletive honorific verbs as the V1, so thus far we have been unable to test them with suppletion; we set them aside here pending further investigation.
As noted in Sect. 4.3 below, it is this feature of po-constructions which poses significant problems for theories involving adjacency requirements, including Merchant and Pavlou’s (2017) revised version of Span Adjacency. It could be possible to eliminate the requirement that all intervening elements in the span participate in conditioning the allomorphy (which in fact does not figure in Merchant and Pavlou’s formal definition of the condition) to allow for these po-condition cases as well as the intervening v node in the Neg-suppletion cases mentioned in fn. 30 above.
Merchant (p.c.) suggests that there may be some syntactic variation which could account for the optionality of suppletion in these cases, noting that the po-verbs are classic ‘restructuring’-type predicates and that restructuring is known to exhibit optionality cross-linguistically. If we followed Wurmbrand (2001) in treating restructuring as involving the projection (or not) of an embedded subject NP (PRO), we could perhaps account for the optionality of suppletion, in that there might not be a local honorific subject to condition the necessary honorification. However, this would wrongly predict that an embedded regular -si should also be possible in po-constructions when PRO is present, which it is not (see (63) above). Another alternative we considered is that head-movement may be optional in po-constructions. If the embedded verb may remain in-situ in a (mandatorily subjectless) embedded verbal projection, that would predict the optional appearance of non-honorific forms. However, the tests for head-movement suggested by Lee (1992) do not reveal any distinction between the honorific and non-honorific alternants in (67).
, T0 or Neg0 nodes as potential hosts for honorification. The 
node, however, cannot be the host of honorification since when the verb includes an overtly realized v0 node, as in lexical causatives, for example, honorification always follows the causative marker (thay-wu-si-ess-ta
BURN-v0-Hon0-T0-C0 vs. *thay-si-wu-ess-ta
BURN-Hon0-v0-T0-C0), and never appears adjacent to the 
. It is equally unlikely that honorification is hosted by T0, since in verb-copy constructions, which need not include the TP projection at all (Jo 
GO-Hon0-v0-T0-C0 vs. *an-si-ka-∅-ess-ta Neg0-
GO-Hon0-v0-T0-C0).
nodes here. In Sect. 
KNOW and 
EXIST are a challenge to Svenonius’s (
KNOW rules out another family of hypotheses, which is that insertion of Hon0 creates a barrier that prevents the vocabulary rule for root insertion from recognizing the presence of Neg0 within the complex head. If the insertion of the Hon0 dissociated morpheme created a phase-like locality domain within the word, blocking access to Neg0 at the point of root insertion, then we would predict that negative honorific forms of 
KNOW would surface with the unmarked allomorph, *an(i)-a-si, which is ungrammatical, rather than with the negative allomorph, molu-si.References
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.
Ahn, Hee-Don. 1991. Light verbs, VP-movement, negation and clausal architecture in Korean and English. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin.
Ahn, Hee-Don, and Hang-Jin Yoon. 1989. Functional categories in Korean, Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3: 79–88.
Ahn, Sung-Ho. 2002. Honorification and AgrP. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of Korea Winter 2002 Meeting, Seoul National University.
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2008. Structuring participles. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 26, 33–41.
An, Duk-Ho. 2014. Genitive case in Korean and its implications for noun phrase structure. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23: 361–392.
Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 717–778.
Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.
Baker, C. Lee. 1991. The syntax of English “not”: The limits of core grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 387–430.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1994. What does adjacency do? In The morphology-syntax connection (MITWPL) 32, 1–32. Cambridge: MITWPL.
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.
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.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
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.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Diane Jonas. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195–236.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2006. Honorification as agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 385–398.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Fumikazu Niinuma. 2004. Conditions on agreement in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 453–480.
Bonet, Eulalia, and Daniel Harbour. 2012. Contextual allomorphy. In The morphology and phonology of exponence, ed. Jochen Trommer, 195–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2014. Wherefore roots? Theoretical Linguistics 40: 343–359.
Brown, Lucien. 2011. Korean honorifics and politeness in second language learning. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010a. Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English locative inversion and do-support. Language 86: 43–84.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010b. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 519–562.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chung, Inkie. 2007. Suppletive negation in Korean and distributed morphology. Lingua 117: 95–148.
Chung, Inkie. 2009. Suppletive verbal morphology in Korean and the mechanism of vocabulary insertion. Journal of Linguistics 45: 533–567.
Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3: 239–282.
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.
Corbett, Greville. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language 83: 8–42.
Deal Amy Rose. 2016. Plural exponence in the Nez Perce DP: A DM analysis. Morphology 26: 313–339.
Embick, David. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 185–230.
Embick, David. 2003. Locality, listedness, and morphological information. Studia Linguistica 57: 143–169.
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595.
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.
Furbee, N. Louanna. 1974. Identity in gapping and the lexical insertion of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 299–304.
Gribanova, Eva. 2015. Roots in ellipsis and multidominance. Paper presented at Roots 4 workshop, NYU.
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.
Hagstrom, Paul. 2002. Implications of child error for the syntax of negation in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 211–242.
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.
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.
Han, Hak-Sung. 1993. AgrP and NegP in Korean. Linguistic Journal of Korea 18: 437–461.
Han, Chung-hye, and Jong-Bok Kim. 2004. Are there “double relative clauses” in Korean?. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 315–337.
Han, Chung-hye, and Chungmin Lee. 2007. On negative imperatives in Korean. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 373–394.
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.
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.
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.
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. PhD thesis, MIT.
Harley, Heidi. 2008. On the causative construction. In Handbook of Japanese linguistics, eds. Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 20–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Harley, Heidi. 2014. Reply to commentaries, “On the identity of roots”. Theoretical Linguistics 40: 447–474.
Harley, Heidi. 2015. Hiaki verbal number suppletion really is suppletion. Paper presented at Roots 4 workshop, NYU.
Huang, James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574.
Jackson, Eric. 2005. Derived statives in Pima. Paper presented at the SSILA Annual Meeting, Oakland.
Jo, Jung-Min. 2013. Predicate contrastive topic constructions: Implications for morpho-syntax in Korean and copy theory of movement. Lingua 131: 80–111.
Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1987. Possessor raising in Korean. In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics II, 80–88. Seoul: Hanshin.
Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1988. Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding, and movement. PhD diss., MIT.
Kim, Jin-Sook. 2012. Comprehension of elided phrases in Korean and English. PhD diss., University of Hawaii
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.
Kim, Jong-Bok, and Peter Sells. 2007. Korean honorification: A kind of expressive meaning. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16: 303–336.
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.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2013. Covert possessor raising in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 161–205.
Ko, Heejeong. 2007. Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 49–83.
Koopman, Hilda. 2005. Korean and (Japanese) morphology from a syntactic perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 601–633.
Landau, Idan. 2007. Constraints on partial VP-fronting. Syntax 10: 127–164.
Lee, Sook-Hee. 1992. The syntax and semantics of serial verb constructions. PhD thesis, University of Washington.
Lomashvili, Leila, and Heidi Harley. 2011. Phases and templates in Georgian agreement. Studia Linguistica 65: 223–267.
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.
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.
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.
Marvin, Tatjana. 2003. Topics in the stress and syntax of words. PhD thesis, MIT.
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109.
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 77–108.
Merchant, Jason. 2015. How much context is enough?: Two cases of span-conditioned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 273–303.
Merchant, Jason, and Natalia Pavlou. 2017. The morphosyntax of the periphrastic future under negation in Cypriot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 17: 233–262.
Moskal, Beata. 2014. The role of morphological markedness in exclusive/inclusive pronouns. In Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 40, 354–368.
Moskal, Beata. 2015a. Limits on allomorphy: A case study in nominal suppletion. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 363–376.
Moskal, Beata. 2015b. Domains on the border: Between morphology and phonology. PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Moskal, Beata, and Peter W. Smith. 2016. Towards a theory without adjacency: Hyper-contextual VI-rules. Morphology 26: 295–312.
Newell, Heather. 2008. Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases. PhD diss., McGill University.
Newell, Heather, Maire Noonan, Glyne Piggot, and Lisa Travis. 2016. The structure of words at the interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norris, Mark. 2014. A theory of nominal concord. PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz.
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. PhD thesis, MIT.
Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York: Garland.
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.
Piggott, Glyne, and Heather Newell. 2006. Syllabification, stress and derivation by phase in Ojibwa. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 20.
Pollard, Carl Jesse, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1991. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.
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.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language? PhD diss., MIT.
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.
Samuels, Bridget. 2011. Phonological architecture: A biolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schutze, Carson. 2001. On Korean “Case Stacking”: The varied functions of the particles ka and lul. The Linguistic Review 18: 193–232.
Sells, Peter. 1995. Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexical perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 277–325.
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2006. Minimize exponence: Economy effects on a model of the morphosyntactic component of the grammar. PhD diss., University of Arizona.
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the word: Economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in Distributed Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1980. Theme-prominence in Korean. Korean Linguistics 2: 2–19.
Svenonius, Peter. 2005. Two domains of causatives. Ms., University of Tromsø.
Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Spanning. Ms., University of Tromsø.
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2013. Corrective but coordinates clauses not always but sometimes. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 827–863.
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1996. Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. PhD thesis, MIT.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2008. The negative cycle. Linguistic Typology 12: 195–243.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2013. The linguistic cycle and the language faculty. Language and Linguistics Compass 7: 233–250.
Volpe, Mark. 2005. Japanese Morphology and its theoretical consequences: Derivational morphology in Distributed Morphology. PhD diss., Stony Brook University.
Wescoat, Michael T. 2002. On lexical sharing. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
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.
Winter, Yoad. 2001. Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Number 55 in Studies in Generative Grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter.
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.
Yoon, Jong-Yurl. 1989. On the Multiple ‘ka’ and ‘lul’ constructions in Korean. In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3, 383–394. Seoul: Hanshin.
Yun, Gwanhi. 2004. Constraints on possessor raising and its structure in Korean. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 46, 406–421.
Yun, Sung Kyu. 1993. Honorific agreement. PhD diss., University of Hawaii.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, and Eunjeong Oh. 2007. On the syntactic composition of manner and motion. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Zwicky, Arnold M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59: 502–513.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, J., Harley, H. Locality domains and morphological rules. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 37, 1319–1365 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-09438-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-09438-3