한국어에서의 격 표지 실현과 격 인허

Morphological Case Realization and Case Licensing in Korean

Given that in Korean, morphological cases appear on arguments, it is tempting to suppose that every Case licensing must be identified by a morphological case in this language. With this in mind, we reexamine the generalization on the distribution of morphological cases in Korean, proposed by Hong (1994), according to which morphological cases are obligatory on arguments in the specifier position, but optional on arguments in the complement position, and confirm that this generalization is essentially correct. So, non-appearance of morphological case on arguments in the complement position goes against the supposition that every Case licensing must be identified by a morphological case. Then, we raise a question about how non-case-marked arguments in the complement position can be identified as an argument. We assume, following Baker (1988), that there are four methods of PF identifying argument relationship, which are morphological case, verbal agreement, adjacency, and incorporation, and argue that non-case-marked arguments in the complement position are cases of adjacency or incorporation.