Tendency to ‘WITH-strategy’

This hierarchical principle of nominal conjoining can possibly be motivated by specific properties of the linking element -(k)wa which seems to be rather comitative than coordinative by nature. The differences between these two conjunctional strategies are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Coordinate and comitative strategies (Stassen 2000: 21)

COORDINATE STRATEGY COMITATIVE STRATEGY

NPs have the same structural rank NPs differ in structural rank NPs form a constituent NPs do not form a constituent Plural/dual agreement on verbs Singular agreement on verbs

Unique coordinate particle Unique comitative particle

By the first parameter Korean nominal conjoining demonstrates clear comitative properties. As has been shown in the previous section (3.2.1), two nominals linked by the -(k)wa particle form a hierarchy with the dominating final and subordinated non-final conjuncts.

The next parameter – (non)-constituency of the NP can be tested by application of the CSC/ATB rule allowing no extraction for true coordinate structures. We have already discussed in the Introduction that this constraint does not work properly for Korean verbal &Ps. Nominal conjoining also grants no support for the universality of this principle. Since Korean is a wh-in-situ language, substitution of one conjunct with a wh-element does not conflict with grammaticality (as in (82a)), resembling ‘echo-questions’ in European languages in this respect. Technically it is also possible to raise the wh-element to the ‘normal’ specifier position (82b) but in this case the structure will be undistinguishable from its comitative variant ‘Who went to the USA with teacher Choi?’ (82c). The connective and comitative readings of the particle -(k)wa are determined only positionally: being attached to the second conjunct (A B-kwa) the particle means ‘with’, and in the medial position between two conjuncts (A-kwa B) it

means ‘and’. So, when we substitute the second conjunct with a wh-word and move it to the sentence-initial position (wh A-kwa _ ), it is not clear (out of context) whether the connector was generated in the position between two conjuncts (and means ‘and’), or it occupies the right periphery in the structure originally (and has the ‘with’-reading).

(82)

a. ‘and’-structure, wh-element in-situ: [58a]

김선생님과 누가 미국에 가셨어요?

Kim sensayngnim-kwa nwu-ka mikwuk-ey ka-sye-ss-eyo Kim teacher-CONN who-NOM USA-GOAL go-SH-PAST-QU.POL

‘(lit.) Teacher Kim and who went to the USA?’

b. ‘and’-structure, wh-element fronted: [59a]

누가 김선생님과 미국에 가셨어요?

nwu-ka Kim sensayngnim-kwa mikwuk-ey ka-sye-ss-eyo who-NOM Kim teacher-CONN USA-GOAL go-SH-PAST-QU.POL

c. ‘with’-structure, wh-element in-situ: [60a]

누가 최선생님과 미국에 가셨어요?

nwu-ka Choy sensayngnim-kwa mikwuk-ey ka-sye-ss-eyo who-NOM Choi teacher-COM USA-GOAL go-SH-PAST-QU.POL

Thus, we can maintain that judging by the constituency principle, Korean chooses the comitative strategy for nominal conjoining model (or, at least, this model cannot be defined as completely coordinative).⁴⁶

The only characteristic that slightly deviates from this general line is the criterion of verb agreement. We have mentioned already in section 2.2.3 that Korean does not posses a subject agreement system in the European sense of this word. However, some

46 That correlates with Stassen’s view maintaining that ‘in quite a few languages a differentiation between these two strategies cannot be stated with razor-sharp precision … The contrast between the Coordinate Strategy and the Comitative Strategy must be regarded as a formulation of the extreme, and focal positions, on the continuum’ (2000: 21).

analogy of plural vs. singular agreement can be detected in structures with the subject honorific suffix -si (-시). In with-structures (i.e. in structures where the main actor constitutes a single subject, and the background actor is a PP marked with an oblique case), the suffix -si should be attached to the verbal stem, if the main actor is a social superior for speaker. The social status of the second actor does not play any role (ex.

29b, repeated here as 83a). In and-structures, i.e. in structures with two main actors, one of whom is a social inferior for the speaker (e.g. a child), the suffix -si cannot be added to the collective predicate (29a, repeated here as 83b). That (to some degree) corresponds to the plural agreement and, consequently, to coordinate strategy.

(83) [33a, 33b]

a. 할아버지는 손자와 (같이) 극장에 가셨습니다.

halapoci-nun sonca-wa (kathi) kukcang-ey ka-si-ess-supnita grandfather-TOP grandson-COM (together) theatre-GOAL go-SH-PAST-DECL.FORM

‘Grandfather went (deferent.) to the cinema (together) with his grandson.’

b. 할아버지와 손자는 극장에 가(*시)었습니다.

halapoci-wa sonca-nun kukcang-ey ka-(*si)-ss-supnita grandfather-CONN grandson-TOP theatre- GOAL go-(*SH)-PAST-DECL.FORM

‘Grandfather and grandson went (*deferent.) to the cinema.’

Though Korean distinguishes between and-structures and with-structures, this coordinative feature is balanced by the fact that Korean has not elaborated a unique coordinative marker for the and-conjoining. As the examples above show, the comitative marker -(k)wa is identical to the item used as the medial NP-coordinator, which signals that the language prefers the comitative strategy in this aspect as well (the last parameter in Table 2).

The clear tendency to the comitative strategy makes it possible to classify Korean as belonging to the WITH-type of languages (à la Stassen 2000: 41) that use only comitative tools to encode all types of relations (in contrast to AND-languages which enjoy both strategies, coordinate and comitative). Some coordinating features that

Korean has do not ruin this suggestion: according to Stassen, pure instances of the WITH-type are relatively rare: such languages are unstable diachronically and tend to float ‘towards the creation of a coordinate structure, in which two NPs are balanced in rank’ (2000: 38).