| { |
| "paper_id": "Y00-1040", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:45:24.720906Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "The Semantics of amwu-N-to/-irato/-ina in Korean -Arbitrary Choice and Concession", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Chungmin", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lee", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "clee@snu.ac.kr" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Daeho", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chung", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "Y00-1040", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "This paper reports the syntactic distribution of amwu-N-to/-irato/-ina phrases, which are representative polarity sensitive items (PSIs) in Korean, and accounts for their semantic characteristics in terms of \"arbitrary choice quantification\" and \"concession.\" In the first section, we extensively illustrate the distributional behaviour of the PSIs in various constructions and roughly generalizes the distribution in terms of (anti/non-) verdicality.\" Section 2 interprets amwu as an arbitrary choice quantifier, and the particles -to/-irato/-ina as \"concessive\" markers, so the compounds denote a special element in a pragmatic scale determined by context/situation. Section 3, based on the pragmatics of scalar implicature, accounts for the apparent ambiguity of PSIs between \"universal\" and \"existential\" readings, and further characterizes the difference among the concessive markers -to/-irato/-ina in terms of \"quantity/quality scale.\"", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This section illustrates the distribution of Korean PSIs amwu-to/-irato/-ina with various constructions which reveal their semantic characteristics. The following table is the summary of the distribution, the relevant data of which are illustrated in the APPENDIX at the end of this paper. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "V V 13. Generics V V 14. tahayngi-'is lucky' * V * 15. kikkeshayya 'at most' * V * 16. Negative Predicates V V ? 17. Rhetorical Q V V", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "There should be exceptional cases which do not conform to the judgements of the table, and some of the constructions must be examined in more detailed sub-classes. The above table, however, gives general distributional tendencies of the PSI' s. Let us first note some peculiarities of the table. First of all, amwu-N-na is not always natural in affirmative sentences but it sounds natural when the whole sentence induces an implicit modal meaning. Amwu-N-na is shown to be unacceptable in negative sentences, but it is fine only when the negation carries a \"denial\" illocutionary force --a sort of metalinguistic negation. Question marks \"?\" indicate that the combination does not always sound good due to the context/situation. Now in order to give a semantic generalization of the distribution in Table- 1, we introduce the notion of \"veridicality\" (Zwarts 1995) , which characterizes the truth-functional meanings of operators and logical connectives. The notions related to \"veridicality\" are defined as follows:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 851, |
| "end": 864, |
| "text": "(Zwarts 1995)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 799, |
| "end": 805, |
| "text": "Table-", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(1) Definition-1: Let 0 be a monadic propositional operator. The following statements hold:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "a. 0 is veridical just in case 0(p) p is logically valid. Otherwise, 0 is nonveridical. b. A nonveridical operator 0 is antiveridical just in case 0(p) -k", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "is logically valid.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(2) Definition-2: Let C be a dyadic truth-functional connective. The following statements hold. a. C is veridical with respect to p [q] ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 132, |
| "end": 135, |
| "text": "[q]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "just in case pCq p [pCq --> q] is logically valid. Otherwise C is nonveridical with respect to p [q]. b. A nonveridical connective C is antiveridical with respect to p [q] just in case pCq ----> [pCq ---> -,q] is logically valid.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Based on the definitions, Giannakidou (1998, Ch.3) gives an account of the distribution of Greek PSIs as the following:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 26, |
| "end": 50, |
| "text": "Giannakidou (1998, Ch.3)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) a. Negative polarity items are licensed by antiveridical operators/connectives. b. Affective polarity items are licensed by nonveridical operators/connectives. c. Free choice items are licensed by non-episodic operators/connectives. Now we can also build up a rough semantic generalization of Table-1 of Korean PSIs. That is, we can characterize the licensing condition of amwu-N-to/-irato/-ina in terms of \"(non/anti-)veridicality\" as in the following table: ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 297, |
| "end": 320, |
| "text": "Table-1 of Korean PSIs.", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "amwu-N-to amwu-N-irato amwu-N-ina 1. Antiveridical contexts J * * 2. Nonveridical contexts V V 3. Veridical contexts * V", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We should point out that there are a few exceptions to the above generalization: First of all, as shown in Table-1, amwu-N-to is allowed in before-clauses and eps-/molu-'not exist/know,' which are not exactly antiveridical but more negative than conditionals or comparatives. (Nam 1997) Another exception can be found in the constructions with tahayngi-'it is lucky,' which are rather veridical than non-veridical. We also have not accounted for the difference between amwu-irato and amwu-na, but section 3 will give an answer to this difference.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 276, |
| "end": 286, |
| "text": "(Nam 1997)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Finally but very importantly, we note that the near-complementary distribution of amwu-N-to and amwu-N-irato/-na, which will be discussed in the subsequent sections. This distributional property reveals that the two forms should be very similar in meaning, and that their distribution is conditioned by the particles -to/-irato/-ina. Their distribution also raises a big conceptual problem against previous semantic proposals on the licensing conditions of negative polarity items. (Zwarts 1990 (Zwarts , 1993 Nam 1994; Giannakidou 1998) That is, amwu-N-irato is licensed by non-veridical contexts but, contrary to their claims, it is not licensed by more negative, antiveridical contexts. We will propose that amwu-N-to and amwu-N-irato are alloforms which carry the same truth-conditional meaning.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 482, |
| "end": 494, |
| "text": "(Zwarts 1990", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 495, |
| "end": 509, |
| "text": "(Zwarts , 1993", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 510, |
| "end": 519, |
| "text": "Nam 1994;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 520, |
| "end": 537, |
| "text": "Giannakidou 1998)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distributions of amwu-N Phrases", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The morpheme amwu in Korean carries a quantificational force of \"arbitrary choice,\" which roughly denotes 'no matter what object x it may be.' That is, given a domain of discourse D, amwu-chooses an arbitrary object in D, so to be a kind of choice function. This quantificational force of \"arbitrary choice\" is similar to that of 'indefinite' existentials in denoting an object in a given domain, but we note several characteristics which distinguish the two quantifications.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "First, unlike indefinite existential NPs, \"arbitrary choice\" does not induce scope ambiguity with other quantifiers or operators.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(4) a. amwu-to o-ci.anh-ass-ta any-TO come-not-Past-Dec 'Noone came.' b. han/twu saram-i o-ci.anh-ass-ta one/two person-Nom come-not-Past-Dec 'One/Two person didn't come.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The indefinites in (4b) above can take wide scope over negation, so to be interpreted as 'there was/were one/two person(s) such that he/they didn't come.' Further, (4b) has another reading where negation scope over the indefinites, i.e., 'it was not the case that one/two person(s) came.' Amwu-to in (4a), however, does not show scope interaction with negation, so has only the reading 'noone came,' i.e., 'no matter what person x it may be, x did not come.' As we illustrated in the previous section, amwu-rato or amwu-na does not occur with an overt negation.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Second, \"arbitrary choice\" amwu does not induce a specific reading, so we have the following difference: Etten saram in (b) may have either a specific or a non-specific reading, so the sentence is ambiguous. But amwu-rato in (a) does not denote a specific reading. The following sentence shows that the demonstrative ku does not make amwu specific.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(6) ku amwu-to o-ci anh-ass-ta that anyone come-not-Past-Dec 'Noone came, who-so-ever.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Another crucial difference between \"arbitrary choice\" and indefinite existentials is that the \"arbitrary choice\" amwu induces a scalar implicature in appropriate contexts, so to give a \"universal-like\" quantificational force. Amwu-rato/-na in (a) below induces universal quantification, whereas the same word in (b) does not.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(7) a. amwu-rato/-na ku il-ul ha-ul.swu.iss-ta anyone that work-Acc do-can-Dec 'Anyone can do that.' = 'Every one can do that.' b. amwu-rato o-myen na-eykey cenhwaha-e anyone come-if I-Dat call-Imp 'If anyone comes, give me a call.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We will see shortly how scalar implicature brings about universal quantification in modal contexts like (a) but not in (b).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Unlike indefinite existentials, the arbitrary choice amwu can quantify over a mass domain, which undermines Lee and Horn's (1994) claim that any in English denotes 'indefinite one plus even'. Further, Korean polarity item amwu can go with -na, but indefinite existentials can not as shown in the following.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 108, |
| "end": 129, |
| "text": "Lee and Horn's (1994)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(8) a. amwu-to/-rato/-na anyone-TO/-RATO/-NA b. Nana-to/-rato/*-na one c. cokum-to/-irato/*-ina a.little", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We will also show that amwu-to/-rato/-na in Korean may induce a scalar implicature in a quality scale as well as in a quantity scale, which goes against Lee and Horn's (1994) claim.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 153, |
| "end": 174, |
| "text": "Lee and Horn's (1994)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Due to the semantics of amwu, i.e., arbitrary choice quantification, it does not take neutral/structural case markers like -ka (Nom.) or -lul (Acc), but it must occur with a concession marker -to/-raw/-na (for NPs) or in a concessive clause marked by -ato/-terato/-na 'even though'.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(9) a. *amwu haksayng-i o-ass-ta any student-Nom came `(Lit.) *Any student came.' b. *Jini-nun amwu haksayng-ul cohaha-nanta Jini-Top any student-Acc likes Jini likes any student.' c. amuw haksayng-i o-ato, sensayngnim-un hwanyengha-ass-ta any student-Nom come-though teacher-Top welcome-Past-Dec 'If any student came, the teacher welcomed him.' Due to its functional nature of arbitrary choice function, amwu does not refer to an entity of a given domain, and so does not introduce a \"discourse referent\" (Kamp & Reyle 1994) to the relevant discourse structure. That is, (10b) and (11b) are not a natural discourse, since the pronoun ku (saram) cannot be resolved in the discourse. But 10aand (11 a) are natural, and the pronouns pick up the discourse referent introduced by etten saram in the preceding utterance.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(10) a. etten saram-i o-ki.cen.ey imi Jini-nun ku saram-i kwukwu-i-nci al-ass-ta some person-Nom come-before already Jini-Top that person-Nom who-be knew 'Before some person came, Jini already knew who he would be.' b. *amwu-to o-ki.cen.ey Jini-nun ku saram-i nwukwu-i-nci al-ass-ta 'Before anyone came, Jini knew who he was.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(11) a. (i) etten saram-i ku it-ul ha-ul.swu.iss-ta some person-Nom that work-Acc do-can-Dec 'Someone can do that.' (ii) na-nun ku-ka nwukwu-i-nci al-nta I-Top he-Nom who-be-Compl know 'I know who he is.' b. iamwu-rato ku it-ul ha-ul.swu.iss-ta anyone-RATO that work-Acc do-can-Dec 'Anyone can do that' (ii) #na-nun ku-ka nwukwu-i-nci al-nta As we informally introduced, an arbitrary choice function denoted by amwu in Korean chooses an arbitrary object no matter what it may be. Thus it is a special sort of choice function which is independent of the context or the utterance situation. Amwu always occurs in a concessive context, and the quantificational force of \"arbitrary choice\" combines with the meaning of \"concession\" to yield a \"concessive arbitrary choice function\", which picks up a special entity out of the given domain. We will formally define this choice function in terms of \"pragmatic scale.\" The following sentence illustrates informally how to interpret an amwu-N phrase in terms of \"concessive choice function.\" As we noted in section 1, amwu-to and amwu-lato/amwu-na are in complementary distribution. Amwu-to only occurs in strongly negative contexts like overtly negated clauses and before-clauses, whereas amwu-lato/amwu-na occur in weakly negative contexts, like non-veridical modal, conditional and generic contexts. Their distributional properties strongly support the claim that they share a core meaning of \"concession.\" Here we note that amwu-na is allowed to occur under a \"denial\" illocutionary operator. Thus the negation in the following sentence (a) is not an ordinary negation but carries an illocutionary force of \"denial\", which is metalinguistic.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(13) a. amwu-na hapkyekha-ci.anh-ass-e anyone passed-not-Past-Dec 'It is not the case that every one passed (the exam).\u00b0b . amwu-to hapkyekha-ci.anh-ass-e anyone passed-not-Past-Dec 'No one passed (the exam).'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The following discourse attests the distributional constraint of amwu-na in a negated sentences.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(14) a. Nwuka hapkyekha-ess-ni? who pass-Past-Q 'Who passed (the exam)?' b. amwu-to/*amwu-rato/*amwu-na hapkyekha-ci.anh-ass-e Anyone-TO/-RATO/-NA passed-not-Dec 'No one passed (the exam).'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Arbitrary Choice Function", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The particles -to/-irato/-ina combine with amwu-and they share \"concessive\" meaning like English even and even though. (C. Lee 1999) The meaning of \"concession\" is based on the notion of \"low compatibility,\" i.e., least likelihood, and it often occurs in contrastive contexts. For instance, the following sentence contains a concessive adverbial clause marked by -ato.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Concession and Pragmatic Scale", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(15) a. pi-ka o-ato, kyengki-nun kyeysoktoy-ess-ta rain-Nom come-though game-Top continued Even though it rained, the game continued,' b. el : 'it rained' e2: 'the game continued'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Concession and Pragmatic Scale", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Notice that the events e 1/e2 denoted by the first/second clauses do not take place simultaneously in normal situations -they are not compatible with each other, so the whole sentence induces contrastive reading.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Concession and Pragmatic Scale", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Here we claim that noun phrases marked by the concessive marker -to/-irato/-ina refer to a lower bound of a pragmatic \"likelihood-scale.\" This is due to the fact that `concession' requires a likelihood-scale, and the meaning of \"low compatibility\" picks up the least likely element (i.e., lower bound) of the scale. The following sentences contain a subject NP with -to/-irato/-ina and implicate that the subjects denote a lower bound in a likelihood-scale determined by the context. (16) Jini-to/-rato/-na kuren it-ul ha-ul.swu.iss-e Jini-TO/-RATO/-NA such thing-Acc do-can-Dec Even Jini can do such a thing.' (17) sey saram-to an o-ass-ta three person-TO not cam\u00e8 Less than three people came.' (18) sey saram-ina o-ass-ta three person-NA cam\u00e8 No less than three people came.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Concession and Pragmatic Scale", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We might easily construct a pragmatic scale for (16), which gives an ordering for a set of individuals according to 'the ability/probability of their doing such a thing. ' Then, (16) implies that `Jini is the least likely person who can do such a thing.' We just note here the difference between Jini-to and Jini-na in (16): That is, when Jini-to/-rato is used in (16), the speaker of (16) expects that 'there are other (relatively many) people than Jini who are likely to be able to do such a thing,' but when Jini-na is used, the speaker expects that there are relatively few people who is likely to be able to do such a thing,' and that Jini is the least likely person who is likely to do it. The indefinite number phrase sey saram-to/-ina `(even) three people' in (17) and (18) also derives a scalar implicature that the number 'three' is the least likely number such that the number of people came. Thus, (17) implies that the speaker expected at least three people would come, and (18) implies that the speaker expected at most three people would come, so the number 'three' is the least likely number in a pragmatic quantity scale.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 170, |
| "end": 177, |
| "text": "' Then,", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 178, |
| "end": 182, |
| "text": "(16)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Concession and Pragmatic Scale", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We can identify \"concessive\" meaning of -to/-irato/-ina in the following, where they are leading an adverbial clause:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Concession and Pragmatic Scale", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(19) a. amwu-haksayng-i o-a.to/te.rato manna-ci.anh-ass-ta any-student-Nom come-though meet-not-Past-Dec No matter what student came, I did not see him.' b. nwukalamwu-ka ka-na sesayngnim-ul mos manna-ass-ta who/anyone-Nom go-though teacher-Acc not meet-Past-Dec No matter who went, he could not see the teacher.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Concession and Pragmatic Scale", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The basic meaning of the particle -to in Korean is \"addition\" like also/too in English, and the additive meaning derives concessive reading depending on the utterance context/situation. When it takes amwu-, however, it requires a pragmatic (likelihood) scale to denote a lower bound of the scale. Thus when the NP marked by -to is an answer to a question, the NP cannot carry a concessive reading of even, but only an additive reading of also.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Concession and Pragmatic Scale", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(20) a. Jini-malko tto nwuka hapkyekha-ess-ni? Jini-besides also who pass-Past-Q `Who passed (the exam) besides Jini?' b. Koni-to hapkyekha-ess-e.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Concession and Pragmatic Scale", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Koni-also passed Koni also passed (the exam).' c. simcie Koni-to hapkyekha-ess-e. what.is.more Koni-even passed What is more, even Koni passed (the exam).' (b) is a natural answer to the question (a), but (c) is not a natural answer since the adverb simcie 'what is more' triggers a pragmatic scale and so Koni-to only has a concessive reading 'even Koni.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Concession and Pragmatic Scale", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Why do the combinations of the arbitrary choice amwu and the concessive markers -to/-irato/-ina display different distributions and give rise to different meanings? English any is often viewed as having two different meanings depending on the contexts, i.e., NPI any and free choice any. Such a view presumes the lexical ambiguity of the word any. Giannakidou (1998) similarly argues that Greek NPIs divide into two, emphatic NPIs and non-emphatic NPIs, depending on the metrical characteristics (existence and lack of the stress).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 348, |
| "end": 366, |
| "text": "Giannakidou (1998)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distribution and Interpretation of amwu-to/-irato/-ina", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "There is, however, no need to postulate a lexical ambiguity for the analysis of Korean amwu. The various meanings that it has can be deduced from the collaboration of the following three factors: the arbitrary choice meaning of amwu, the concessive reading of the markers -to/-irato/-ina, and the pragmatic contexts the sentences provide. Here we treat amwu-to and amwu-rato as alloforms since they are not only very similar to each other in their surface forms but also are complementarily distributed. Let us now consider how amwu produces the relevant readings. In such modal contexts, we can naturally conceive of a pragmatic likelihood scale, which can easily be postulated to be linearly (totally) ordered. Thus, if an element at the lowest point of the scale satisfies the property of the predicate, any other elements in the same scale do, too. Due to the implicature thus produced, the so-called free choice reading (or universal quantifier reading) surfaces. Let us next consider the contexts in which amwu-rato/amwu-na has an existential reading. In such contexts, no scalar implicature is significant to induce universal-like quantification, since the pragmatic likelihood scale mentioned before is not naturally conceivable.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Distribution and Interpretation of amwu-to/-irato/-ina", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(24) Imperatives:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Existential vs. Universal", |
| "sec_num": "3.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "amwu-rato/-na teylyeo-e any-RATO/-NA bring-Imp = 'I ORDER YOU, for some arbitrary choice function f, you take f(x) to me.' (no pragmatic scale available) (25) Future: amwu-hako-rato/-na kyelhonha-1 ke-ya. any-with-RATO/-NA marry-Adn thing-be.Dec = 'for some arbitrary choice function f, (I/he) WILL marry f(x).'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Existential vs. Universal", |
| "sec_num": "3.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Even though some likelihood scale is provided by context/situation, it might not be totally ordered but partially ordered, i.e., there are pairs of elements in the scale such that they are not ordered with respect to each other in the scale. For example, we might marginally imagine a likelihood scale for (24) such that individuals are ordered in terms of likelihood of your taking each of them, but this scale would be partially ordered at most. In case like this, even though a lower bound of the scale satisfies the relevant predicate, this should not trigger an implicature deriving a universal quantification.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Existential vs. Universal", |
| "sec_num": "3.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "3.2. Amwu-rato vs. amwu-na Now let us see what make amwu-rato and amwu-na so similar in distribution, but different in meaing in some constructions. First consider their meaning difference in the following constructions:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Existential vs. Universal", |
| "sec_num": "3.1." |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [ |
| { |
| "text": "(26) Relative clauses headed by a universal quantifier:amwu-rato/-na chayyongha-n hoysa-nun motwu ssuleci-ess-ta. any-RATO/-NA hire-Adn company-Top all fall-Pst-Dec 'Every company that hired any number of/just any employee collapsed.' (27) if:clauses: yocum kathun pwulkyengki-ey wuli hoysa-ka amwu-rato/-na these;days like depression-at we company-Nom any-RATO/-NA chayyongha-n-ta-myen, ssuleci-ko malkeya. hire-Pres-Dec-if fall;end;up 'If our company hires any employee in such an economic depression, it will end up collapsing.' (28) habitual constructions:Jini-nun caki-ceney amwu chayk-irato/-na ilk-nun supkwan-i iss-ta. J.-Top sleep-before any book-IRATO/-NA read-Adn habit-Nom exist-Dec 'Jini is in the habit of reading any books before she goes to bed.'In the above examples, amwu-rato is interpreted as 'one man, no matter who he is'. This indicates the lowest point of the quantity scale. In contrast, amwu-na reads as 'anybody, irrespective of the quality he has'. In other words, amwu-na is an arbitrary choice in the quality scale. We can classify concessiveness into two types, quantity and quality. Based on this, we propose the following:(29) Propositions:-to 'concession in quantity(/quality) scale' -irato 'concession in quantity/quality scale' concession in quality scale'The classification given here helps to understand the fact that amwu-N-ina unlike amwu-N-irato often has a derogative sense. The classification also predicts that amwu-N-ina is not allowed in a situation where no quality scale is brought up. The prediction seems to be borne out.(30) Questions: Chelswu-hanteyse amwu sosik-irato/*-ina iss-ess-ni? C.-from any news-IRATO/-INA exisit-Past-Q 'Has there been any news from Chulsoo?' (31) If-clauses:Pise-nun amwu-rato/??-na o-myen sacang-eykey yenlakhaycwu-ess-ta. secretary-Top any-RATO/-NA come-if boss-to let;know-Past-Dec 'If anyone comes, the secretary let the boss know it.(32) Relative clauses headed by a universal quantifier: amwu-rato/??-na salanghaypo-n salam-un ipyel-uy kothong-ul al-n-ta any-RATO/-NA love-Adn man-Top separation-Gen pain-Acc know-Pres-Dec 'Everyone who has ever loved anyone knows the pains of separation.'In the above constructions, amwu-N-rato sounds much better than amwu-N-na, since the contexts do not naturally provide a pragmatic \"quality scale\" for amwu-na.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "annex", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Negation, Polarity and V Position in English\". Working Papers in Linguistics 10", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "A", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Cormack", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Smith", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1998, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Cormack, A. and N. Smith. 1998. \"Negation, Polarity and V Position in English\". Working Papers in Linguistics 10. University College London.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "Polarity Sensitivity as (non)veridical Dependency", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "A", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Giannakidou", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1998, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (non)veridical Dependency. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Thongsa kwucowa wunyul kwucouy sangkwanseng yenkwu (A Study on the Interface between between Syntact and Prosodic Structures),' Eoneohag (Linguistics)", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Jae", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kwon", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1997, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "20", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kwon, Jae-il et al 1997. \"Thongsa kwucowa wunyul kwucouy sangkwanseng yenkwu (A Study on the Interface between between Syntact and Prosodic Structures),' Eoneohag (Linguistics) vol. 20, The Linguistic Soceity of Korea, Seoul.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "W", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Ladusaw", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1979, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Ladusaw, W. 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "Frozen Expressions and Semantic Representation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Chungmin", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lee", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1993, |
| "venue": "Language Research", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "29--32", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lee, Chungmin 1993. \"Frozen Expressions and Semantic Representation\". Language Research 29-3.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Negative Polarity Items in English and Korean", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Chungmin", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lee", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1996, |
| "venue": "Language Sciences", |
| "volume": "18", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "505--523", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lee, Chungmin 1996. \"Negative Polarity Items in English and Korean\". Language Sciences 18: 505-523.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Types of NPIs and Nonveridicality in Korean and Other Languages", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Chungmin", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lee", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1999, |
| "venue": "UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics", |
| "volume": "3", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lee, Chungmin 1999 \"Types of NPIs and Nonveridicality in Korean and Other Languages,\" in UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, vol 3.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "A Korean Grammar on Semantic Pragmatic Principles", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "K", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lee", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Seoul", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Korea", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Y", |
| "middle": [ |
| "S" |
| ], |
| "last": "Lee", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1993, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lee, K. 1993. A Korean Grammar on Semantic Pragmatic Principles. Seoul, Korea. Lee, Y.S. 1993. \"Licensing and Semantics of Any Revisited\". Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 5.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "Any as indefinite plus Even", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Y", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lee", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "L", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Horn", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lee, Y. and L. Horn. 1994. \"Any as indefinite plus Even\". ms. Yale University.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Negative Polarity and Grammatical Representation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Marcia", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Linebarger", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1987, |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", |
| "volume": "10", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "325--87", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Linebarger, Marcia. 1987. \"Negative Polarity and Grammatical Representation\". Linguistics and Philosophy 10-3 : 325-87.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "Another Type of Negative Polarity Item", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Seungho", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Nam", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "Dynamics, Polarity and Quantification", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Nam, Seungho 1994. \"Another Type of Negative Polarity Item\". in M. Kanazawa and C. Pinon. eds. Dynamics, Polarity and Quantification. Stanford: CSLI. Stanford University.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Hankwuke pwucengkukeuy yuhyengkwa ku hekacoken (The Typology and Licensing Conditions of Negative Polarity Items in Korean)", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Seungho", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Nam", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1997, |
| "venue": "The Semantics of 'before' and Negative Polarity", |
| "volume": "22", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Nam, Seungho 1997. \"The Semantics of 'before' and Negative Polarity\". paper presented at the Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca. Nam, Seungho 1998. \"Hankwuke pwucengkukeuy yuhyengkwa ku hekacoken (The Typology and Licensing Conditions of Negative Polarity Items in Korean),\" Eoneohag (Linguistics) Vol. 22, The Linguistic Society of Korea, Seoul.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF14": { |
| "ref_id": "b14", |
| "title": "Negative Polarity: Entailment and Binding", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "L", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Progovac", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1993, |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", |
| "volume": "16", |
| "issue": "2", |
| "pages": "149--180", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Progovac, L. 1993. \"Negative Polarity: Entailment and Binding\". Linguistics and Philosophy 16-2: 149-180.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF15": { |
| "ref_id": "b15", |
| "title": "The Syntax and Semantics of Negative Polarity", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "F", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Zwarts", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1990, |
| "venue": "Views in the Syntax-Semantics Interface 2", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Zwarts, F. 1990. \"The Syntax and Semantics of Negative Polarity\". in S. Busemann. ed. Views in the Syntax-Semantics Interface 2. Berlin.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF16": { |
| "ref_id": "b16", |
| "title": "Three Types of Polarity\". ms", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "F", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Zwarts", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1993, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Zwarts, F. 1993. \"Three Types of Polarity\". ms. University of Groningen.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "text": "(5) a. amwu-(saram)-rato o-myen Jini-nun pankin-ta any-(person)-RATO come-if Jini-Top welcome-Dec 'If anyone comes, Jini welcomes him.' b. etten saram-i o-myen Jini-nun pankin-ta some person-Nom come-if Jini-Top welcome-Dec 'If a person comes, Jini welcomes him.'", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "text": "to o-ci.anh.ass-ta any student-Conc. come-not-Past-Dec 'No matter what student x it may be, it is not the case that x came.' 'there is some concessive choice function fc such that (f c(STUDENT) CAME)' E fe . -1 (fc (STUDENT) CAME)", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF2": { |
| "text": "Negative sentence: amwu haksayng-to o-ci.ani-ha-ess-ta any student-TO come-not-do-Past-Dec = 'No matter what student x it may be, it is not the case that x came' = 'there is some arbitrary choice function f such that (f (STUDENT) CAME)' = E f. (f (STUDENT) CAME)' (22) Definition. A function f is an arbitrary choice function iff (i) f is a choice function, and (ii) for a set K, f(K)( E s) = x, where x E K, E S is a pragmatic likelihood-scale induced by the sentence S, and x is a lower bound in E S.(23) Modal Construction: amwu haksayng-irato ku il-un ha-ul.swu.iss-ta any student-IRATO that work-Top do-can-Dec = No matter what student x it may be, it is possible that x does it' = 'there is some arbitrary choice function f such that 0(f(STUDENT) DO-IT)' = E f0(f(STUDENT) DO-IT)", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF0": { |
| "text": ". The distribution of amwu-N-to/-irato/-ina", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td>amwu-N-to</td><td>amwu-N-irato</td><td>amwu-N-ina</td></tr><tr><td>1. Affirmative S</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>V</td></tr><tr><td>2. Negative S</td><td>V</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>3. eps-/molu-`not-exist/know'</td><td>V</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>4. before-clauses</td><td>1/</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>5. Conditionals</td><td/><td>A/</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>6. Universal/Generic Quantifier</td><td>*</td><td>V</td><td>V</td></tr><tr><td>7. Habituals</td><td/><td>V</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>8. Comparatives</td><td/><td>V</td><td>V</td></tr><tr><td>9. Questions</td><td/><td>V</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>10. Modals</td><td/><td>1/</td><td>V</td></tr><tr><td>11. Imperatives</td><td/><td>V</td><td>V</td></tr><tr><td>12. Future tense</td><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF1": { |
| "text": "", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>2. Veridicality and PSIs in Korean</td></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
