Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-lfk5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T13:41:07.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Function Marking, Case, and Information Structure: Evidence from Korean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Song-Nim Kwon  and
Anne Zribi-Hertz
Song-Nim Kwon*
Affiliation:
University of Paris-8/UMR SFL, CNRS
Anne Zribi-Hertz*
Affiliation:
University of Paris-8/UMR SFL, CNRS
*
Zribi-Hertz Sciences du langage Universite Paris-8 2 rue de la Liberte 93526 Saint-Denis CEDEX 02 France [azhertz@orange.fr]
[songnim@hotmail.com]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The central goal of this article is to propose a systematic description of differental function marking (DM) in Korean, a language in which both subject and object markers may fail to be spelled out. Taking Aissen's theory of DM (Aissen 2003) as a starting point, we show that although its predictions seem mostly consistent with the statistical results of corpus-based research on Korean (and Japanese), this model does not accurately account for the Korean data. We argue that subject and object bareness (the lack of a functional particle) regularly correlates with interpretive effects that should be captured in terms of information structure (focus structure). Adapting Erteschik-Shir's (1997, 2007) framework to represent f(ocus)-structure, we argue that bare subjects and objects in Korean fail to be visible at this level. Consequently, they may be construed neither as active topics nor as foci, and thus must either be left out of f-structure or incorporated within larger f-structure constituents in order to be interpreted. We show that bare objects are never construed as topics or foci and always exhibit a form of semantic incorporation, while leul-marked objects always stand as f-structure constituents construed as focused at some level. Bare subjects, unlike neun-marked topical subjects and GA-marked subjects, can be construed neither as active topics nor as foci, and always occur in tense-deficient clauses construed as thetic and anchored to speech time. We argue that our assumptions correctly predict the results of corpus studies, and we suggest that as regards nominal arguments, f-structure visibility might ultimately stand as the crucial interpretive correlate of functional positions in syntax.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 84 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 258 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abeillé, Anne, and Godard, Danièle. 2004. De la légèreté en syntaxe. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris XCIX (1).69–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 435–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfonso, Anthony. 1966. Japanese language patterns, vol 2. Tokyo: Sophia University L.L. Center of Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bae, Hi-Im. 1999. Junggi gugeoui gyeog [Particles in Old Korean]. In Hangugeohaghwe, 599–617.Google Scholar
Battistella, Edwin. 1990. Markedness: The evaluative superstructure of language. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Battistella, Edwin. 1996. The logic of markedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 2004. Case, scope and binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den Neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Choi, Kiyong. 2005. Remarks on structural case particles in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 15.1.29–51.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, and Ladusaw, William. 2004. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistics silesiana 3. 13–21.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1988. Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. Agreement in natural languages: Approaches, theories, descriptions, ed. by Barlow, Michael and Ferguson, Charles, 159–79. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2003. A semantics for pseudo-incorporation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, ms.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1986. Wh-questions and focus. Linguistic and Philosophy 9. 117–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. The syntax/discourse interface: Information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka, and de Swart, Henriëtte. 2003. The semantics of incorporation: From argument structure to discourse transparency. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fuji, Noriko, and Ono, Tsuyoshi. 2000. The occurrence and non-occurrence of the Japanese direct object marker o in conversation. Studies in Language 24. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukuda, Minoru. 1993. Head government and case marker drop in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 24.1.168–72.Google Scholar
Go, Suk-Joo. 2001. Hangugeo josaui yeongu ‘-ga’ wa '-leul'-eul jungsimeulo [A study on Korean-focused '-ga' and ‘-leul‘]. Seoul: Yeonse University dissertation.Google Scholar
Go, Yeong-Geun, and Nam, Gi-Sim. 2003. Pyojun gugeo munbeoblon [A standard Korean grammar]. 13th printing. Seoul: Tabchulpansa.Google Scholar
Hangugeohaghwe, (ed.) 1999. Gugeoui gyeoggwa josa [Korean cases and particles]. (Research project on the Korean language.) Seoul: Weolin.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1993. Syntactic predication in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2. 167–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, and Doron, Edit. 2003. Categorical subjects. Gengo Kenkyu [The Linguistic Society of Japan] 123. 95–135.Google Scholar
Hong, Yong-Cheol. 2004. Hangugeo-ui gyoegjosa tallaggwa gyeogjosa bujae [Omission vs. lack of case marker in Korean]. Peulangseueomun Gyoyug [Teaching French Literature and Linguistics] 18. 295–314.Google Scholar
Hong, Yun-Pyo. 1975. Jugyeog josa '-GA'e daehayeo [About the nominative particle '-GA']. Gugeohag [Korean Linguistics] 3. 65–91.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.2.251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
I, Cheol-Su. 1993. Gugeo hyeongtaehag [Korean morphology]. Seoul: Inhadaechulpanbu.Google Scholar
I, Gwang-Ho. 1988. Gugeo gyeogjosa 'eul/leul'ui yeongu [A study of the Korean case marker 'eul/leul']. Seoul: Gugeohaghwe.Google Scholar
I, Mi-Ja. 2005. Josa 'leul'e daehan nonuiui jaegeomto [Revisiting the particles 'eul/leul']. Hangugeomunhagyeongu [Studies on Korean Language and Literature] 21. 177–98.Google Scholar
I, Seon-Hi. 2004. Gugeoui josawa uimiyeog [Semantic domains of Korean particles]. Seoul: Hangugmunhwasa.Google Scholar
Im, Hong-Bin. 1979. ‘Eul/Leul’ josaui uimiwa tongsa [The syntax and semantics of (l)eul]. Hangughagnonji [Journal of Theoretical Korean Linguistics] 2. 91–130.Google Scholar
Kaneko, Makoto. 2002. Syntaxe et sémantique du jugement thétique: Étude contrastive de la construction GA du japonais et de la construction pseudo-relative du français. Saint-Denis, France: Université Paris-8 dissertation.Google Scholar
Kim, Sang-Don, and Gyeong-Hi, I. 1999. Geundae gugeoui gyeogyeongu [Particles in Modern Korean]. In Hangugeohaghwe, 619–54.Google Scholar
Kim, Yong-Ha. 1998. Overt case and covert case in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 8. 177–237.Google Scholar
Kim, Yong-Ha. 1999. Hangugeoui gyeoggwa eosunui choeseojuui munbeob [A minimalist approach to case and word order in Korean]. Seoul: Hankook Munhwasa.Google Scholar
Kim, Yong-Seog. 1979. Monjeogeojosa 'eul/leul'e gwanhayeo [The object particle 'eul/leul']. Mal [Speech] 4. 29–54.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgments: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9. 153–85.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1979. The semantics of the Japanese topic marker wa. Lingvisticae Investigationes 3. 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1990. Cognitive and syntactic bases of topicalized and nontopicalized sentences in Japanese. Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 1, ed. by Hoji, Hajime, 1–26. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1992. Japanese syntax and semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 2004. Milsark's generalization and categorical judgments. Journal of Cognitive Science 4.2.121–47.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 2005. Focusing on the matter of topic: A study of wa and ga in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14. 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, Jae-Il. 1989. Munbeobgwangyeeseoui 'uimigwangye'e daehayeo [The semantics of syntax]. Hangeul [Korean Language] 205. 145–62.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1994. L'actance. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. Le marquage différentiel de l'objet. La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques, vol. 2, ed. by Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf, and Raible, Wolfgang, 344–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lee, Duck-Young. 2002. The function of the zero particle with special reference to spoken Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 34. 645–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2006. Parallel optimization in case systems: Evidence from case ellipsis in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15. 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey. 2006. The grammar of accusative case in Kannada. Language 82.1.10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Dong-Hqon. 2004. The study on the classification of Korean 'Josa's and their combination patterns. Korean Linguistics 43. 119–54, 490–92.Google Scholar
Lyu, Gu-Sang. 1989. Gugeo josa leule daehan yeongu [The Korean particle leul]. Gugeogugmunhag [Studies on Korean Linguistics and Literature] 102. 117–46.Google Scholar
Lyu, Gu-Sang. 2001. Jeonbong-gujo munbeob gwa josa {leul} [The particle leul in traditional and structural grammar]. Hangukeohag chongseo [Korean Studies] 1. 11–31.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo-noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 153–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masunaga, Kiyoko. 1988. Case deletion and discourse context. Papers from the second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, ed. by Poser, William J., 145–56. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Matsuda, Kenjiro. 1996. Variable zero-marking of (o) in Tokyo Japanese. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Minashima, Hiroshi. 2001. On the deletion of accusative case-markers in Japanese. Studia Linguistica 55.2.175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60.4.847–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1995. Wordhood and lexicality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 75–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mok, Jung-Soo. 1998. Hangugeo gyeogjosawa teugsujosaui jiwiwa geu uimi: Yuhyeonglonjeog jeobgeun [Revisiting Korean case markers and special particles: A typological approach]. Linguistic Research 23. 47–78.Google Scholar
Mok, Jung-Soo. 2003. Hangugeomunbeoblon [Issues in Korean linguistics]. Seoul: Weolin.Google Scholar
Mori, Toshiro, and Givón, Talmy. 1987. Zero object-marking in colloquial Japanese: The pragmatics of optional deletion. Eugene: University of Oregon, ms.Google Scholar
Niwa, Tetsuya. 1989. Fujosi kaku no kinou: Shudai-to kaku to gojun [The function of zero case: Topic, case and word order]. Kokugo Kokubun [Japanese Language and Literature] 58. 38–57.Google Scholar
Pak, Yeong-Jun. 1999. Geogjosaui tongsijeog yeongu [A diachronic approach of case markers]. In Hangugeohaghwe, 455–90.Google Scholar
Ramstedt, Gustaf John. 1939. A Korean grammar. (Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia [Documents from the Finno-Ugrian Society] 82.) Helsinki: Suomalats-Ugrilainen Seura (Finno-Ugrian Society).Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947/1966. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: The Free Press/London: Collier-McMillan.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. 53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revised Romanization of Korean (RRK). 2000. Seoul: Ministry of Culture and Tourism.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouveret, Alain, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1980. Specifying reference to the subject. Linguistic Inquiry 11.1.97–202.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sakuma, Katsuhiko, and Motofuji, Frank. 1980. Advanced spoken Japanese: Tonari no shibafu [Neighbor's lawn]. Tokyo: Institute of East Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2001. Le statut des objets nus en persan. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris XCVI(1).349–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 2001. On the Korean ‘case stacking’: The varied functions of the particles ka and lul. Linguistic Review 18. 193–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seon, Woo-Yong. 1994. Gugeo josa I/GA, EUL/LEUL-e daehan yeongu [The Korean particles i/ga and (l)eul]. Seoul: Seoul University MD dissertation.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by Dixon, Robert M. W., 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1981. Case marking and the nature of language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1. 227–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sin, Hyeon-Sug. 1982. Mogjeogeog pyoji leului uimi yeongu [A semantic study of the object marker leul]. Eoneo [Language] 7.1.119–39.Google Scholar
Son, In-Ho. 1995. Gugeo josa 'eul/leul'ui silhyeonjogeon [The distribution of the Korean particle 'eul/leul'). Hangeul [Korean Language] 227. 157–79.Google Scholar
Tateishi, Koichi. 1994. The syntax of ‘subjects’. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, and Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Tsutsui, Michio. 1984. Particle ellipsis in Japanese. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1991. The informational component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1995. Semantic incorporation: A uniform semantics of West Greenlandic noun incorporation and West Germanic bare plural configurations. Chicago Linguistic Society 31. 171–86.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 2001. Noun incorporation. Glot International 5.8.261–71.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Yasuko. 1986. Two kinds of ellipsis in Japanese discourse: A quantitative text study. Studies in Language 10. 337–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woo, Hyeong-Sig. 1993. 'Leul'gwa jeonmyeonseong [The global effect of 'leul']. Wungjineomunhaghwe [Wungjin Literature and Linguistics Society] 1. 29–48.Google Scholar
Woo, Hyeong-Sig. 1996. Yeonggyeol iloneseoui gyeogpyoji gyochebunseog [Case marker alternations from a connectivity perspective]. Aesanhagbo [Aesan Journal] 17. 99–153.Google Scholar
Yang, Dong-Whee. 1999. Case features and case particles. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 18. 626–39.Google Scholar
Yang, Dong-Whee. 2006. Focus movement as a phasal movement. Chomskyan Studies 1.1.119–72.Google Scholar
Yatabe, Shuichi. 1999. Particle ellipsis and focus projection in Japanese. Language, information, text, vol. 6, 79–104. Tokyo: University of Tokyo, Department of Language and Information Sciences.Google Scholar
Yoo, Dong-Seog. 1984. Yangtaejosaui tongbogineunge daehan yeongu [The communicative function of modal particles in Korean]. Seoul: Seoul University MD dissertation.Google Scholar
Yoon, Sang-Hun. 1997. The grammar of wh-interpretation, scrambling and de re/de dicto distinction. Madison: University of Wisconsin dissertation.Google Scholar