대한언어학회 전자저널

Lee, Jieun; Kim, Say Young & Song, Sanghoun. (2023). What restricts or boosts the use of internally-headed relative clauses in Korean?. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 31(3), 113-137. This study examines what factors may restrict or boost the use of internally-headed relative clauses (IHRCs) in Korean. Although previous studies showed that the distribution of IHRCs in Korean is heavily restricted, Korean IHRCs are found in naturally occurring data. To understand the factors that suppress or boost the use of IHRCs, this study focused on the effect of the construction that is functionally similar to IHRCs on the one hand, and the constructions that are structurally similar to IHRCs on the other hand. Specifically, the influence of these factors was tested with a structural priming task. The task was performed using a PowerPoint Presentation and fifty-five native Korean speakers participated in this task. The results showed that the use of IHRCs can be curtailed by externally- headed relative clauses (EHRCs), which are functionally similar to IHRCs. In addition to this, the use of IHRCs can be boosted by structurally similar perception verb constructions and complement clauses. This case study shows how similarity affects the use of low-frequent constructions like IHRCs in Korean and offers new perspectives for studying their limited distribution.

# internally-headed relative clauses; similarity; structural priming effect; statistical preemption

• Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1993). The recency effect: Implicit learning with explicit retrieval? Memory & Cognition, 21(2), 146–155.
• Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.
• Bock, K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35(1), 1–39.
• Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87(1), 55–83.
• Cha, J.-Y. (2005). Constraints on clausal noun phrases in Korean with the focus on the gapless relative clause construction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
• Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234–272.
• Cho, S.-K. (2014). Hankwuke nayhayk kwankyeycel-uy yonginseng-ey tayhan yenkwu (‘A study on the acceptability of the internally-headed relative clauses in Korean’). Enehak, 22(2), 183–198.
• Cho, S-K. (2016). Kwue malmwungchi pwunsek-ul thonghan hankwuke nayhayk kwankyeycel yenkwu (‘A study on Korean internally-headed relative clauses through the analysis of corpus data from Korean speakers’). Enecengpo, 23, 77– 94.
• Chung, C., & Kim, J.-B. (2003). Differences between externally and internally headed relative clause constructions. In J.-B. Kim & S. Wechsler (Eds.). Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 3–25). Standford: CSLI Publications.
• Chung, D.-H. (1999). A complement analysis of the head internal relative clauses. Language and Information, 3(2), 1–12.
• Clark, E. V. (1987). The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp. 1-33). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Oxford University Press.
• Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic linguistic theory 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford:　Oxford University Press.
• Foraker, S., Regier, T., Khetarpal, N., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. (2009). Indirect evidence and the poverty of the stimulus: The case of anaphoric one. Cognitive Science, 33(2), 287–300.
• Forster, K. I., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L. (2009). The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 163–171.
• Fuji, M. (1998). Temporal interpretation of internally headed relative clauses in Japanese. Working Papers from Rutgers University, 1, 75-91.
• Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago:　Chicago University Press.
• Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford:　Oxford University Press.
• Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton:　Princeton University Press.
• Goldwater, M. B., Tomlinson, M. T., Echols, C. H., & Love, B. C. (2011). Structural priming as structure‐apping: Children use analogies from previous utterances to guide sentence production. Cognitive Science, 35(1), 156–170.
• Grosu, A., & Landman, F. (2012). A quantificational disclosure approach to Japanese and Korean internally headed relatives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 21(2), 159–196.
• Hare, M. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (1999). Structural priming: Purely syntactic? In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 208–211).
• Horie, K. (1993). Internally headed relative clauses in Korean and Japanese: where do the differences come from? Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 5, 449-458.
• Horie, K. (2011). Versatility of nominalizations: Where Japanese and Korean contrast. In F. H. Yap, K. Grunow-Hårsta & J. Wrona (Eds.), Nominalization in Asian Languages (pp. 473–496). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Jhang, S.-E. (1994). Headed nominalizations in Korean: Relative clauses, clefts, and comparatives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University.
• Jo, M.-J. (2003). The correlation between syntactic nominalization and the internally headed relative constructions in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar, 13, 535-564.
• Jung, Y.-S. (1995). Internally headed relative clauses in Korean. In S. Kuno et al. (Eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics (pp. 235-248). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.
• Kim, J.-B. (2016). The syntactic structures of Korean. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.
• Kim, K.-M., & Song, S.-H. (2022). Distributional asymmetry in subject and object internally headed relative clauses in Korean. Korean Linguistics, 94, 57–86.
• Kim, M.-J. (2004). Event-Structure and the Internally-Headed Relative Clause Construction in Korean and Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
• Kim, M.-J. (2007). Formal linking in internally headed relatives. Natural Language Semantics, 15, 279–315.
• Kim, M.-J. (2008a). Internally Headed Relatives Parallel Direct Perception Complements. In Mitsuko Endo Hudson et al. (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 13 (pp. 281-292). Standford: CSLI.
• Kim, M.-J. (2008b). Relevance of grammar and pragmatics to the relevancy condition. Language Research, 44(1), 95–120.
• Kim, M.-J. (2009). E-type anaphora and three types of kes-construction in Korean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 27(2), 345–377.
• Kim, N.-K. (1984). The grammar of Korean complementation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa Center for Korean Studies.
• Kim, R., & Yang, H.-K. (2017, November 3-5). Why do nonnative English learners perform L2 statistical preemption less than native counterparts? The role of different repertoires for L1 and L2 constructions. Poster session at the 42nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, USA.
• Kim, Y.-B. (2002). Relevancy in internally headed relative clauses in Korean. Lingua, 112(7), 541–559.
• Kim, Y.-H. (2013). A note on Korean internally headed relative clauses. Studies in Modern Grammar, 75, 83–99.
• Kitagawa, C. (2005). Typological variations of head-internal relatives in Japanese. Lingua, 115, 1243-1276.
• Kuroda, S.-Y. (1976, February 14-16). Headless relative clauses in modern Japanese and the relevancy condition. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 269-279). University of California.
• Lee, J.-E. (2018). Myengsahwaso+cosa kwuseng-eyse kwanchaltoynun cungkeseng- kwa tauymiseng-ey tayhan yenkwu (‘A study of evidentiality and polysemic features from nominalizer + particle Constructions’). NRF KRM(Korean Research Memory).
• Lee, J.-E. (2020). ‘-Un kes-i’wa ‘-un kes-ul’lo phyositoyn nayhaykkwankyeycel mich yusa kwuseng yenkwu (‘A study of the internally headed RC and its resemblant constructions marked by ‘-un kesi’ and ‘-un kesul’’). kwukehak, 95, 167–210.
• Lee, J.-E. (2021a). Nayhaykkwankyeycel-uy hyengseng ceyyak mich pwusacello-uy uymi hwakcang yenkwu (‘A study of internally-headed RCs: Focusing on the formal restrictions and the semantic extension to adverbial clauses’). Language Research, 57(1), 51–85.
• Lee, J.-E. (2021b). Korean internally headed relative clauses: Encoding strategy and semantic relevance. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 41(1), 1–32.
• Lee, J.-R. (2006). The Korean internally headed relative clause construction: Its morphological, syntactic and semantic aspects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
• Lee, J.-W., & Song, S.-H. (2020). Revisiting the persuade-constructions in Korean with empirical evidence. Linguistic Research, 37(1), 29–70.
• Marcotte, J. (2005). Causative alternation errors in child language acquisition [Doctoral dissertation]. Stanford University.
• Mun, S.-Y. (2012). Yuhyengloncek kwancem-eyse pon hankwuke kwankyeycel-uy myech mwuncey (‘A study on Korean relative clauses in typological perspective’). Kaysinemwunyenkwu, 35, 31–68.
• Mun, S. Y. (2017). Yuhyeonglon-uy kwancem-eyse pon hankwuke-uy ‘ges’ myeongsacel (‘‘Ges’ clausal nominalization in the Korean language from a typological perspective’). Kwukehak, 84, 33–88.
• Park, C.-W. (2022a). Metonymy in the Korean internally headed relative clause construction. Linguistics Vanguard, 8(1), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan- 2020-0134
• Park, C.-W. (2022b). Korean relative clauses: Metonymy, zone activation, and reference point. Studia Linguistica, 76(2), 275–314.
• Park, H.-J. (2019). Hankwuke-uy ilmyeng nayhaykkwankyeycel kwuseng-uy thongsa-wa uymi (‘The syntax and semantics of internally headed relative clauses in Korean’). Pankyoemwunyenkwu, 52, 87–118.
• Ramscar, M. (2002). The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense does not require a rule. Cognitive Psychology, 45(1), 45–94.
• Ransom, E. N. (1988). The grammaticalization of complementizers. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 4, 364-374.
• Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Judgement evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanishthan to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(3), 467–503.
• Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Nonnative speakers do not take competing alternative expressions into account the way native speakers do. Language Learning, 66(1), 60–93.
• Ryu, B.-R. (2022). Arguments and non-arguments for the so-called internally headed relative clauses in Korean. Language and Information, 26(2), 1–25.
• Shimoyama, J. (1999). Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8, 147-182.
• Shimoyama, J. (2002). Wh-constructions in Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
• Song, J. J. (2001). Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. Harlow:　 Pearson (Longman).
• Song, S.-H. (2021). Different types of internally headed relative clauses in Korean: A corpus-based analysis. Studies in Linguistics, 60, 89-114.
• Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 389–420.
• Yeom, J.-I. (2015). Gapless adnominal clauses in Korean and their interpretations. Language Research, 51(3), 597–627.
• Yeon, J.-H., & Park, C.-H. (2021). Pomwuncel, nayhaykkwankyeycel, pwunyelmwuney nathananun kes-uy thongsauymilon (‘A syntactic-semantic analysis of the bond noun ‘kes’ in three different grammatical constructions in Korean’). Eoneohag, 90, 129-154.