A NOTE ON GENITIVE DROP IN KOREAN
Duk-Ho An
Nanzan University

1.

Introduction

In languages like Korean, Case is overtly marked on noun phrases by so-called Case
markers. It has also been observed that Case interacts with a variety of linguistic phenomenain the language. Thus, the many aspects of Case in Korean have been subjected to extensive
investigation in the generative literature (see Saito 1982, 1985, Hoshi 1993, Ahn 1996, 1999,
Kim 1990, Kim 1998, Hong 1994, 2004, Aoyagi 2004, Kwon and Zribi-Hertz 2006, Harada
2007, among others, for relevant discussion). In this paper, we will be concerned with thegenitive Case marker uy in Korean, which has received relatively little attention compared tothe more familiar structural Cases such as nominative and accusative. More specifically, we
examine the pattern of omission of uy.1 (Henceforth, we refer to this phenomenon as genitive
drop.) We argue that theta role assignment plays a central role in determining the possibilityof genitive drop. In the course of the exposition, data from Japanese will also play animportant role.2
2.

The Distribution of Uy

As mentioned above, elements in the clause may be overtly marked with a Case marker
in Korean. Thus, in (1), the subject is marked with a nominative Case marker i and the object* This paper was written while I was visiting Nanzan University in January 2009 as a post-doc
researcher. I would like to thank all the members of the Center for Linguistics at Nanzan University
for the help, support, and friendship. Especially, I would like to express my deepest gratitude toMamoru Saito and Keiko Murasugi who spent many hours with me to discuss linguistics and various
other things. I would also like to thank Yasuaki Abe, Hiroshi Aoyagi, Jonathan Bobaljik, Chisato Fuji,
Tomoko Haraguchi, Masatake Arimoto, Shigeru Miyagawa, Toshiko Oda, Tatsuya Suzuki and Yasuki
Ueda for the various help I received from them. Part of the content of this paper was also presented atthe 2nd Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative Syntax and Language
Acquisition on January 15, 2009. I thank the audience of the workshop for their helpful comments.
1

Nominative and accusative Case markers can also be omitted in certain environments (see thereferences cited in the text). As shown below, however, there is evidence that Case marker drop in
clauses and that in noun phrases are different. In this paper, we are only concerned with Case marker
drop in noun phrases.
2

As noted by An (2009), noun phrases in Japanese and Korean bear quite much similarity, which
merits further investigation from a comparative perspective. However, we will be primarily concernedwith Korean data in this paper.
Nanzan Linguistics 5, 1-16
©2009 Duk-Ho An

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

an accusative Case marker lul.
(1)

John-iJ-nom

Mary-lul coahanta.
M-acc likes‘John likes Mary.’
Similarly, elements that appear within the noun phrase may also be marked with a Case
marker. But, in the nominal domain, the usual nominative and accusative Case markers, e.g.,
ka/i and ul/lul, respectively, do not show up regardless of the grammatical function of their
host.3 Rather, the only Case form allowed for elements within the noun phrase is genitive.4(2)a.

roma-uy
Rome-genphagoydestruction(object)‘the destruction of Rome’b. * roma-lul
Rome-acc(3)a.

phagoydestruction

oykyein-uy chimlyak
alien-geninvasion(subject)‘the invasion of Aliens’b. * oykyein-i
alien-nomchimlyakinvasion

I list below further contexts where uy can appear. (The list here is not meant to be
exhaustive.) It should be noted that uy can attach to a variety of elements within the nounphrase.
(4)a.

Chelsu-uy
C-gen

cha
car

‘Chelsu’s car’3

Traditionally, it is assumed that the noun head does not have the ability to assign structural Casesuch as nominative and accusative. Therefore, (ia) is ruled out by a violation of the Case Filter.
(i)a. * the destruction Romeb. the destruction of Rome

4

Note that Korean is a head-final language. Therefore, all the elements within the noun phrase
precede the head noun, i.e., the head noun occupies the last position within the noun phrase. (There aresome exceptions to this remark. But these cases do not matter for our discussion.)-2-

A Note on Genitive Drop in Korean (D.-H. An)b.

dol-lo-uy
kongkyekstone-with-gen attack‘an attack with stones’c.

sey-kwen-uy
three-CL-gen

chayk
book

‘three books’d.

Roma-uy
Rome-genphagoydestruction‘Rome’s destruction’e.

ecey-uy
nalssiyesterday-gen weather‘yesterday’s weather’f.

Taipei-uy
Taipei-gen

nalssiweather‘Taipei’s weather’g.

Haruki-wa-uy intebyu
H-with-gen
interview‘an interview with Haruki’h.

oykyein-uy chimlyak
alien-geninvasion‘Alien’s invasion’i.

kongpo-uy
terror-gen

sunkanmoment‘a moment of terror’j.

yulep-ulo-uy yehayng
Europe-to-gen trip
‘a trip to Europe’

3.

Genitive DropIn the previous section, we saw that uy can appear quite pervasively within the nounphrase. Interestingly, uy can also be omitted in certain contexts. Crucially, not all of the-3-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

contexts in (4) allow genitive drop.5 I regroup below the data in (4) based on the pattern ofgenitive drop they manifest.
(5)a.

Chelsu-(uy) cha
C-gen
car
‘Chelsu’s car’b.

Roma-(uy)Rome-genphagoydestruction‘Rome’s destruction’c.

ecey-(uy)nalssiyesterday-gen weather‘yesterday’s weather’d.

Taipei-(uy) nalssi
Taipei-gen weather‘Taipei’s weather’e.

oykyein-(uy)alien-genchimlyakinvasion‘Alien’s invasion’(6)

a.

dol-lo-*(uy)kongkyekstone-with-gen attack‘an attack with stones’b.

sey-kwen-*(uy)three-CL-gen

chayk
book

‘three books’c.

Haruki-wa-*(uy) intebyu
H-with-gen
interview‘an interview with Haruki’

5

The Korean data given in (4) are actually based on the Japanese data examined by Saito, Lin, andMurasugi (2008). It is interesting to note that Japanese, whose noun phrases behave exactly the sameas those in Korean in the basic cases, do not allow genitive drop at all. However we will not be
concerned with this difference in this paper. See Saito and An 2009 for relevant discussion.

-4-

A Note on Genitive Drop in Korean (D.-H. An)d.

kongpo-*(uy) sunkan
terror-gen
moment‘a moment of terror’e.

yulep-ulo-*(uy)Europe-to-gen

yehayng
trip‘a trip to Europe’
Let me summarize the pattern we are looking at here. First, as mentioned above, it isclear that not all contexts in (4) allow genitive drop. The data in (5) illustrate that possessives,arguments (subject and object), temporal and locative phrases allow genitive drop. However,there are also a variety of contexts that disallow genitive drop, as shown in (6).6 Given thisobservation, the next step toward an analysis of genitive drop would be to see what thecontexts in (5) and (6) have in common, to which we turn immediately.
4.

Analysis: Genitive Drop and Argumenthood

In the previous section, we examined the contexts that allow genitive drop as well as
those contexts that disallow it. At first glance, these contexts appear to be quite
heterogeneous. But, if we can identify a property that is shared by each group of genitive(non-)drop contexts, it would also help us identify the factor that is involved in determining
the possibility of genitive drop. Thus, in this section, we will look more closely at the genitive(non-)drop contexts and argue that there is actually a way to draw a line between the contexts
that allow genitive drop and those that do not. In so doing, a comparison with N’-ellipsis inJapanese will play a crucial role. More specifically, we will argue that what determines
whether an element can drop its genitive Case marker is its argumenthood. That is, genitive
drop is contingent on theta role assignment to the host of the genitive Case marker. Thus, only
when the host is assigned a theta role, it may drop its genitive Case marker.
Before we go on to discuss genitive drop, let us digress temporarily to discuss Saito, Lin,and Murasugi’s (2008) analysis of N’-ellipsis in Japanese, which will provide us with a usefulbackground for the discussion to follow.
4.1.

N’-Ellipsis: Saito, Lin, and Murasugi 2008
The sentence in (7) is derived by N’-ellipsis, whereby the NP complement of DP is

6

We provide evidence below that adjuncts and the PPs in (6) pattern in the same way. Given this, we
may assume that the PPs in (5) are actually adjuncts. (It should be noted that it is not always entirely
clear whether a given PP is an argument or an adjunct, when it comes to nominal domains, where somany things appear only optionally.)-5-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

elided.7(7)

I have read Bill’s book, but I haven’t read [DP John’s [NP book]]

According to the standard analysis of N’-ellipsis, the NP complement of DP is elided when
the D head undergoes Spec-Head agreement (or, simply, feature checking) with its Spec (seeSaito and Murasugi 1990, Lobeck 1990, Saito, Lin, and Murasugi 2008, among others). For
instance, in (7), the possessor phrase John’s occupies DP Spec and undergoes featurechecking with the D head. Therefore, the NP complement book can be elided. On the other
hand, the D head a in (8) does not have anything in its Spec. Given that there is no featurechecking in DP, the fact that N’-ellipsis is not allowed in (8) is correctly captured.
(8) *I have edited a book, but I haven’t written [DP a [NP book]]
It has also been argued that N’-ellipsis is available in Japanese (Saito and Murasugi
1990, Saito, Lin, and Murasugi 2008, among others).8 For instance, in (9), the possessor
phrase Hanako-no ‘Hanako’s’ and the object of the head noun Kyooto-no ‘Kyoto’s’ areassumed to be in DP Spec and undergo feature checking with the D head, correctly licensing
N’-ellipsis.9(9)a.

Taroo-no taido-wa yoi
T-gen
attitude-top goodga,
[Hanako-no taido]-wa yokunai. (J)though H-gen
attitude-top good.not‘Though Taro’s attitude is good, Hanako’s isn’t.’

7

Given this analysis, the phenomenon in question does not really involve “N-bar” ellipsis. However, I
will continue to use the traditional term.
8Interestingly, noun phrases in Korean do not allow N’-ellipsis despite the similar behavior they
manifest with respect to noun phrases in Japanese. See Saito and An 2009 for relevant discussion.
9

As shown in (4), the genitive Case marker uy in Korean can appear quite pervasively on various
elements within the noun phrase. The same is true of the genitive Case marker no in Japanese. Saito,
Lin, and Murasugi (2008) argue that no is a contextual Case marker that is attached to any prenominal
constituent that is sister to a projection of N/D. More specifically, they adopt a version of Kitagawa
and Ross’s (1982) Mod Insertion rule.
(i)

Mod Insertion[DP … XP N/Dα] → [DP … XP Mod N/Dα], where Mod = no.

Assuming that (i) applies to the distribution of the genitive Case marker uy as well, Saito and An(2009) suggest further that the Mod Insertion rules in Japanese and Korean are subject to a microparametric variation, which they argue is responsible for the lack of N’-ellipsis in Korean, noted infootnote 8.

-6-

A Note on Genitive Drop in Korean (D.-H. An)b.

Rooma-noR-genhakai-wa[ Kyooto-no hakai]-yorimo hisan
destruction-top K-gen
destruction-than miserable

datta.
was‘Rome’s destruction was more miserable than Kyoto’s.’
Crucially, it is assumed that DP Spec is an argument position, in which adjuncts may notoccur. It is then predicted that adjuncts will not license N’-ellipsis, which is indeed the case,as shown in (10).10(10) a. * Hare-no hi-wa
yoi
clear-gen day-top goodga,
[ ame-no hi]-wa otikomu. (J)though rain-gen day-top feel.depressed‘Clear days are OK, but I feel depressed on rainy days.’b. *Taroo-wa iti-niti-ni san-satu-no hon-o
T-top
one-day-in three-CL-gen book-acc
Hanako-wa [ go-satu-nohon]-oyomu.
H-top
five-CL-gen book-acc readyomu ga,read though‘Taroo reads three books in a day, but Hanako reads five.’c. * Hutakire-no
two slices-gen[ hitokire-no
one slice-gen

hamu-wa
ham-tophamu]-wa
ham-topyuusyoku-ni
supper-tonara-nai.
make-not

naru
make

ga,
though‘Two slices of ham make up a supper, but one slice does not.’We have examined in this section the patterns on N’-ellipsis in Japanese. The crucial
point to keep in mind is that arguments allow N’-ellipsis and adjuncts don’t.

10

The genitive Case marker no is in principle allowed on adjuncts, as illustrated in (i). Therefore, thesource of the ungrammaticality of (10) has nothing to do with Case-marking the adjuncts.
(i) a. ame-no hi
rain-gen day‘rainy day’b. san-satu-no
hon
three-CL-gen book‘three books’c.

hutakire-no
two slice-gen

hamu
ham

‘two slices of ham’

(Saito and Murasugi 1999)

As discussed below, adjuncts can also be marked with uy in Korean.

-7-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

4.2.

Genitive Drop and Argumenthood

In this section, we propose an analysis of genitive drop in Korean. Let us consider firstthe contexts that allow genitive drop. The relevant examples are repeated below.
(11) a.

Chelsu-(uy) cha
C-gen
car
‘Chelsu’s car’b.

Roma-(uy)Rome-genphagoydestruction‘Rome’s destruction’c.

ecey-(uy)nalssiyesterday-gen weather‘yesterday’s weather’d.

Taipei-(uy) nalssi
Taipei-gen weather‘Taipei’s weather’e.

oykyein-(uy)alien-genchimlyakinvasion‘Alien’s invasion’
In (11a) through (11e), the types of the grammatical function of the host of uy are quite
diverse: they include possessor, object, temporal phrase, locative phrase, and subject,
respectively. Though it might not be obvious at first glance what they have in common, we
believe that there is a way to group them together based on a property that they share. The
evidence comes from N’-ellipsis in Japanese. Interestingly, the direct counterparts to the nounphrases in (11) in Japanese all allow N’-ellipsis, as illustrated in (12).
(12) a.

Taroo-no kuruma-wa
T-gen
car-top

yoi
good

ga,
[ Hanako-no kuruma]-wa
though H-gen
car-topyokunai.
good.not‘Though Taroo’s car is good, Hanako’s isn’t.’b.

Rooma-noR-genhakai-wa[ Kyooto-no
destruction-top K-gen

hakai]-yorimo hisan
destruction-than miserable‘Rome’s destruction was more miserable than Kyoto’s.’-8-datta.
wasA Note on Genitive Drop in Korean (D.-H. An)c.

Kyoo-no ondo-wa[kinoo-no
today-gen temperature-top yesterday-gen

ondo]-yorimo
temperature-thantakai.
high‘Today's temperature is higher than yesterday’s.’d.

Taipei-no tenki-wa[Kyooto-no tenki]-yorimo
T-genweather-top K-gen
weather-than

ii.
good

‘Taipei’s weather is better than Kyoto’s.’e.

Teki-nosinryaku-wa huseg-eru
ga,enemy-gen invasion-top prevent-can though[ utyuuzin-no sinryaku]-wa huseg-e-nai.
alien-geninvasion-top prevent-can-neg‘Though enemy’s invasion can be prevented, aliens’ invasion cannot be
prevented.’(12a) shows that possessors can license N’-ellipsis. (12b) is repeated from (9b), where theobject of the head noun licenses N’-ellipsis. (12c) and (12d) show that temporal and locative
phrases allow N’-ellipsis.11 (12e) illustrates that the subject of the head noun can license N’ellipsis.
It is important to remember that according to Saito, Lin, and Murasugi (2008), only thoseelements that can appear in DP Spec, an argument position, allow N’-ellipsis. Given this, wesuggest that the property relevant for determining the possibility of genitive drop is the notionof argumenthood. Thus, only arguments may allow genitive drop, just like the fact that only
arguments allow N’-ellipsis.
Note again that the types of the grammatical function of the host of uy that disallow
genitive drop, repeated in (13), appear to be quite diverse. They even differ with respect totheir categorial status. If the current hypothesis (13) to behave likes adjuncts. Thus, it ispredicted that the direct counterparts to (13) in Japanese do not allow N’-ellipsis. Thisprediction is borne out, except for (13), as illustrated in (14).12

11

Anderson (1983) argues based on examples like (i) that temporal and locative phrases can occupy
DP Spec, an argument position, and function as “extended possessors”.
(i)a. yesterday’s temperatureb. last year’s protest against war
c. Taipei’s weather

It is also noteworthy that Larson (1985) argues that temporal and locative phrases are inherently thetamarked.
12(14a) and (14c) are from Tomoko Haraguchi (p.c., January 2009). (14b) and (14d) are from Saito,
Lin, and Murasugi 2008, p.253. (14e) is from Toshiko Oda and Mamoru Saito (p.c., January 2009).

-9-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009(13) a.

dol-lo-*(uy)kongkyekstone-with-gen attack‘an attack with stones’b.

sey-kwen-*(uy)three-CL-gen

chayk
book

‘three books’c.

Haruki-wa-*(uy) intebyu
H-with-gen
interview‘an interview with Haruki’d.

kongpo-*(uy) sunkan
terror-gen
moment‘a moment of terror’e.

yulep-ulo-*(uy)Europe-to-gen

yehayng
trip‘a trip to Europe’(14) a. * ya-de-no
koogeki-wa kantan-da ga,
arrow-with-gen attack-top
easy-dec
though[ isi-de-no
koogeki]-wa muzukashii.
stone-with-gen attack-top
difficult(J)‘Although the attack with arrows was easy, the attack with stones was difficult.’
b. *Taroo-wa iti-niti-ni
san-satu-no
T-top
one-day-in three-CL-gen
Hanako-wa [go-satu-nohon]-oH-topfive-CL-gen book-acc

hon-o
yomu ga,book-acc read though
yomu.
read

‘Taroo reads three books in a day, but Hanako reads five.’c. * Chomsky-to-no intabyuu-wa muzukasii ga,
C-with-gen
interview-top difficult
though[ Abe sensei-to-no
intabyuu]-wa kantan-da.
Prof. Abe-with-gen interview-top easy-dec‘Though the interview with Chomsky was difficult, the interview with Prof. Abe
was easy.’-10-

A Note on Genitive Drop in Korean (D.-H. An)

d. * Hare-no hi-wa
yoi
clear-gen day-top goodga,[ame-no hi]-wa otikomu.
though rain-gen day-top feel.depressed‘Clear days are OK, but I feel depressed on rainy days.’e. ? Yooroppa-e-no ryokoo-wa mizika katta
Europe-to-gen travel-top short was[ amerika-e-no
ryokoo]-wa naga
America-to-gen (travel)-to
long

ga,
but
katta.
was‘The travel to Europe was short, but the one to America was long.’
Given Saito, Lin, and Murasugi’s (2008) account of N’-ellipsis, the ungrammaticality of theexamples in (14a) through (14e) illustrate that the relevant prenominal elements function as
adjuncts. The fact that the corresponding elements in (13a) through (13e) also fail to license
genitive drop is significant and provides support for our hypothesis that the argumenthood of
the host of uy is the key factor in determining the possibility of genitive drop.
Regarding the mismatch between (13) and (14), we suspect that the categorial status of
the relevant prenominal elements matters. That is, in the good cases of genitive drop,
illustrated in (11), none of the prenominal elements is a PP, while some of the bad cases in(13) do involve PPs (e.g., (13a), (13c), and (13e)). Given this, we assume that in the nounphrases in Korean, PPs function as adjuncts, while they may function as arguments in cases
like (14) in Japanese. However, precisely how (14e) is different from the rest of the examples
in (14) is not clear to us at the moment. We hope that future research will shed more light on
this contrast.
To summarize, we have seen in this section that there is a parallelism between genitive
drop and N’-ellipsis. Under Saito, Lin, and Murasugi’s (2008) analysis of N’-ellipsis, we
proposed based on this observation that the relevant factor involved in licensing genitive dropis the argumenthood of the host of uy. That is, if the host of uy bears a theta role, it may
optionally drop uy. In the following section, we will discuss some complex cases of genitive
drop, which necessitates introduction of an additional constraint on genitive drop.
5.

Some Complex Cases

In the previous section, we proposed that genitive drop is allowed only if the host of uy
receives a theta role, i.e., only if it is an argument in an extended sense, seeing that temporaland locative phrases also allow genitive drop (see footnote 11). Here, it is noteworthy that in
all the examples we have examined so far, the relevant prenominal element is the only
prenominal element within the noun phrase. Interestingly, if more than one element appears
prenominally, a new pattern emerges with respect to genitive drop. More specifically, there
seems to exist a complex pattern of adjacency requirements on genitive drop. Consider thedata in (15).

-11-Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009(15) oykyein-*(uy) ciku-(uy)alien-genearth-genchimlyakinvasion‘Alien’s invasion of the earth’Here, the subject oykyein ‘alien’ may not drop its genitive Case marker, while genitive drop isallowed for the object ciku ‘earth’.13 Therefore, it seems that the intervening object somehow
blocks genitive drop from the subject. Furthermore, it is not only an intervening genitivemarked object that blocks genitive drop from the initial constituent. Other categories such as
relative clauses can also block genitive drop from the initial constituent.
(16) oykyein-*(uy)alien-gen[amutoanyoneyeysang mothan]
predict could.not

chimlyakinvasion‘the invasion of Aliens that nobody could predict’Given this, it seems that in addition to being a theta role holder, as argued in the previous
section, the host of uy must also be adjacent to the head noun. However, the picture gets more
complicated given the availability of genitive drop for the temporal phrase ecey ‘yesterday’ in(17), which is not adjacent to the head noun.
(17) ecey-(uy)Kim kyosu-(uy) kanguy
yesterday-gen Prof. Kim-gen lecture‘Prof. Kim’s yesterday’s lecture’
We suspect that the relevant difference between (15) and (17) has to do with the way therelevant initial constituent is theta-marked. That is, the initial constituent in (15) is assigned atheta role from the head noun, while that in (17) is inherently theta-marked (see footnote
11).14Given this, the adjacency requirement on genitive drop can be summarized as follows:
13(i)

Recall that subjects can in principle drop uy, as repeated below.
oykyein-(uy) chimlyak
alien-geninvasion‘Alien’s invasion’

14

In fact, temporal and locative phrases enjoy quite much freedom with respect to genitive drop,
regardless of their position with respect to the head noun.
(i)ecey-(uy)Taipei-(uy) nalssi
yesterday-gen Taipei-gen weather‘Yesterday’s Taipei’s weather’(ii) Taipei-(uy) ecey-(uy) nalssi-12-

A Note on Genitive Drop in Korean (D.-H. An)(18) a.

If the host receives a theta role from the head noun, it must also be adjacent to thehead noun.

b.

If the host is inherently theta-marked, it does not have to be adjacent to the headnoun.

At the moment, it is not entirely clear to us why this restriction holds. But, we suspect that itderives at least in part from the independently motivated locality restriction on theta roleassignment.
6.

Further Issues

Before we conclude, let us briefly consider a few remaining issues. First, one mightsuspect that genitive drop involves some kind of incorporation process15, given that adjacency
is required, which is typical of incorporation, and also that when the genitive Case marker isdropped, the resulting structure looks like a compound (see, e.g., (11)). However, there isreason to believe that genitive drop does not involve an [X0 N0] configuration, which would
arise if genitive drop involved incorporation of the prenominal element into the head noun.
The evidence comes from the fact that prenominal elements that allow genitive drop can be
syntactically complex, i.e., they are phrasal, as illustrated by (19).
(19) a.

Chelsu-lang Yenghi-(uy)
C-and
Y-gen

chinkufriend‘Chelsu and Yenghi’s friend’b.

[[mikuk-eyseon]haksayng]-(uy) pumo
America-from came student-gen
parents‘the parents of a student who came from America’

Given this, we conclude that the incorporation analysis of genitive drop is hard to maintain.16
15

See, for instance, Hong 1994, 2004 for an incorporation analysis of Case marker drop in clauses.
However, regardless of whether Case marker drop in clauses can be analyzed in terms of incorporation
or not, there is no a priori reason to expect the same analysis to carry over to genitive drop. We show
below that genitive drop in fact behaves differently from Case marker drop in clauses.
16

The argument here is inspired by Massam’s (2001) discussion on noun incorporation in Niuean,
where she argues that the phenomenon in question is phrasal and does not involve word-levelprocesses at all. (Hence, Massam actually refers to the phenomenon in question as “pseudo noun
incorporation (PNI)”.)
It is also interesting to note that PNI is similar to genitive drop in that it requires adjacency. The gistof her analysis of the adjacency requirement on PNI is that the adjacency effect is only apparent andthat it involves phrasal movement. Given that we have left open the question about the precise natureof the adjacency requirement on genitive drop, it is tempting to try to extend Massam’s analysis to-13-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

In An 2009, an alternative formulation of the incorporation analysis is considered, where
it is suggested that what is incorporated is not the prenominal constituent, but the genitive
Case marker itself. If this is the case, the problem posed by the phrase status of the host of uy
would not matter. It would also easily capture the adjacency requirement. One aspect thatremains mysterious is why the genitive Case marker never surfaces anywhere after theputative incorporation.
Finally, it is well-known that Case marker drop is also possible in clauses. There havealso been various approaches to this phenomenon. For instance, Ahn (1996) argues that Case
marker drop in clauses involves some kind of left dislocation. On the other hand, Hong (1994,
2004) argues for an incorporation analysis of Case marker drop in clauses (see Saito 1982,
1985, Hoshi 1993, Ahn 1996, 1999, Kim 1998, Hong 1994, 2004, Kwon and Zribi-Hertz
2006, Harada 2007, among others, for further discussion). Here, the question is whether Case
marker drop in clauses and genitive drop can receive a uniform analysis. Regarding this, wewould like to point out that genitive drop crucially differs from Case marker drop in clauses,
which suggests that a unified analysis of these phenomena may be hard to achieve.
First, note that certain adjuncts may be Case-marked in Korean, as illustrated in (20).
(20) Chelsu-ka
C-nom

mikuk-lultu pen-ul yehaynghayssta.
America-acc two time-acc traveled‘Chelsu traveled America twice.’
Here, the Case marker on the adjunct tu pen ‘twice (or two times)’ is optional.
(21) Chelsu-ka
C-nom

mikuk-lultu penAmerica-acc two time

yehaynghayssta.
traveled

Recall however that in the noun phrase, adjuncts may not drop their genitive Case marker, as
shown in (22).
(22) a.

Chelsu-uy tu pen-uy yehayng
C-gen
two time-gen travel‘lit. Chelsu’s two times’ travel’

b. * Chelsu-uy tu pen
C-gen
two timeyehayng
travelSecond, as discussed above, genitive drop places a strict adjacency requirement on thehost of uy. However, in the case of Case drop in clauses, there does not seem to be suchaccount for the adjacency effect in genitive drop. But, there seems to be no obvious way to do so at the
moment.

-14-

A Note on Genitive Drop in Korean (D.-H. An)

requirement.17(23) a.

ku chayk-(ul)the book-acc

way sass-ni?
why bought-Q‘Why did you buy the book?’b.

way ku chayk-(ul) sass-ni?

We believe that these differences demonstrate clearly that the two phenomena should be
subjected to different analyses.
7.

Conclusion

We have examined in this paper the phenomenon of genitive Case marker drop in
Korean. In the course of the exposition, we have identified a number of significant propertiesof genitive drop: first, there is a certain parallelism between N’-ellipsis in Japanese andgenitive drop in Korean; second, only those elements that bear a theta role may drop thegenitive Case marker; third, if the host of the genitive Case marker is an argument of the headnoun, it must also be adjacent to the head noun to be able to drop the genitive Case marker.
However, we have also left a number of important questions. For instance, we are notsure whether the parallelism between N’-ellipsis and genitive drop stems from a deeper
property of the grammar of Japanese and Korean. Moreover, the nature of the adjacency
requirement seems to require further exploration. We hope that future research will allow us
to explain these questions in a better way.

References
Ahn, H. (1988) “Preliminary Remarks on Korean NP,” in E-J. Baek, M. Kang, Y. Kim, and S. Lee,eds., papers from the 6th International Conference on Korean Linguistics, Hanshin
Publishing, Seoul, 1-15.
Ahn, H. (1996) “A Study of Syntactic Word Formation,” in H. Ahn, ed., Proceedings of 1996 Seoul
International Conference on Generative Grammar, Hankuk Publishing, Seoul, 1-21.
Ahn, H. (1999) “Notes on Case Deletion,” in Y-W Kim, I-K. Kim, and J-W. Park, eds., Linguistic
Investigations: In honor of In-Seok Yang, Hankuk Publishing, Seoul, 1-16.
An, D. (2009) “On the Nature of Genitive Case in Korean: with Reference to Japanese,” paper
presented at the 2nd workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative
Syntax and Language Acquisition, Nanzan University, January 15.
Anderson, M. (1983) “Prenominal Genitive NPs,” The Linguistic Review 3, 1-25.
17

In fact, in the case of Case marker drop in clauses, it is not even clear which element the host of theCase marker should be adjacent to. A potential candidate might be the verb. But, (23) shows clearly
that this may not be correct.

-15-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

Aoyagi, H. (2004) “Morphological Case as Phoneticization,” paper presented at the 2004 LSKInternational Conference, Yonsei University, Seoul, July 28th.
Harada, N. (2007) “Case Drop beyond Structure,” Snippets 14, 4-5.
Hong, Y. (1994) “Yunghap Ilonkwa Kyekcosa Punpo,” Studies in Generative Grammar 4, 1-43.
Hong, Y. (2004) “Hankukeuy Kyekcosa Tallakkwa Kyekcosa Pucay,” Phurangsu Emun Kyoyuk 18,
295-314. [written in Korean]
Hoshi, H. (1993) “Case Marker Drop and Wh-movement in Japanese,” Tsukuba English Studies 12,
191-246.
Kim, Y. (1998) “Overt Case and Covert Case in Korean,” Studies in Generative Grammar 8, 177-237.
Kim, Y. (1990) The Syntax and Semantics of Korean Case: The Interaction between Lexical and
Syntactic Levels of Representation, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Kitagawa, C. and C. Ross (1982) “Prenominal Modification in Chinese and Japanese,” Linguistic
Analysis 9, 19-53.
Kwon, S. and A. Zribi-Hertz (2006) “Bare Objects in Korean: (Pseudo) Incorporation and(In)definites,” in S. Vogeleer and L. Tasmowski, eds., Non-definites and Plurality, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam, 107-132.
Larson, R. (1985) “Bare-NP Adverbs,” Linguistic Inquiry 16, 595-621.
Lobeck, A. (1990) “Functional Heads as Proper Governors,” NELS 20, 348-362.
Massam, D. (2001) “Pseudo Noun Incorporation in Niuean,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
19, 153-197.
Saito, M. (1982) “Case Marking in Japanese,” ms., MIT.
Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. and D. An (2009) “A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese and Korean,” ms. Nanzan
University, Nagoya, Japan.
Saito, M. and K. Murasugi (1990) “N’-deletion in Japanese,” in J. Ormazabal and C. Tenny, eds.,
UConn Working Papers in Linguistics 3, Department of Linguistics, University ofConnecticut, Storrs, 87-107.
Saito, M. and K. Murasugi (1999) “Subject Predication within IP and DP,” in K. Johnson and I.
Roberts, eds., Beyond Principles and Parameters, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 167-188.
Saito, M., J. Lin, and K. Murasugi (2008) “N'-ellipsis and the Structure of Noun Phrases in Chineseand Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 247-271.

-16-