1887
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to identify the novel type of Korean definiteness marker. Especially I show that Korean KU which originated from the morphological demonstrative ‘that’, instantiates a solid pattern of distribution of definiteness marker. Mainly focusing on the semantico-pragmatic role of KU, the proposal comprises three main parts: (i) Given that Korean employs distinct devices teased apart into uniqueness (i.e. referential use) and familiarity (i.e. anaphoric use) in its definiteness system, I show that the effect of referential use in argument saturating function is achieved by the covert “determiner” in bare nouns, whereas anaphoric use in argument non-saturating function is achieved by the overt KU; (ii) The semantic contribution of KU is analyzed as a domain restrictor (D; Etxeberria & Giannakidou 2010) which supplies an indexical property as an argument (Schwarz 20092013Jenks 2018); (iii) I further show that the D operator is present in the syntax, falling out from the standard D position as an adjunctive modifier in a lower DP layer. The contribution of my work is that the proposed account allows us to widen our view of cross-linguistic variation to cases where the prerequisite of definiteness is based on the dissociation of meaning (i.e. the semantic role of D as encoding familiarity) and form (i.e. the syntactic role of D as an argument-building function).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00084.kan
2021-03-17
2021-05-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abney, Steven Paul
    1987The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahn, Dorothy
    2017 Definite and demonstrative descriptions: A micro-typology. InErlewine, Michael Yoshitaka (ed.), Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 84), vol.1, 33–48. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barker, Chris
    1998 Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory16(4). 679–717. 10.1023/A:1005917421076
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005917421076 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barwise, Jon & Cooper, Robin
    1981 Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy4(2). 159–219. 10.1007/BF00350139
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00350139 [Google Scholar]
  5. Büring, Daniel
    2003 On d-trees, beans, and b-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy26(5). 511–545. 10.1023/A:1025887707652
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chang, Soo Jung
    2009Nominal structure and interpretation: On the syntax of the Korean determiner phrase. Athens-Clarke: University of Georgia. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen
    2009 On every type of quantificational expression in Chinese. InGiannakidou, Anastasia & Rathert, Monika (eds.), Quantification, definiteness, and nominalization (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 24), 53–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cho, Hye-Sun
    1999 Interpretation and function of the Korean demonstrative ku. Studies in Modern Grammar18. 71–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cho, Jacee
    2017 The acquisition of different types of definite noun phrases in L2-English. International Journal of Bilingualism21(3). 367–382. 10.1177/1367006916629577
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916629577 [Google Scholar]
  10. Choi, Jinyoung
    2007Free choice and negative polarity: A compositional analysis of Korean polarity sensitive items. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Christophersen, Paul
    1939The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chung, Sandra & Ladusaw, William A.
    2003Restriction and saturation. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5927.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5927.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Diessel, Holger
    1999Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  14. Elbourne, Paul
    2005Situations and individuals. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy31(4). 409–466. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9043‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9043-0 [Google Scholar]
  16. Etxeberria, Urtzi
    2005Quantification and domain restriction in Basque. Leioa: University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Etxeberria, Urtzi & Giannakidou, Anastasia
    2010 Contextual domain restriction and the definite determiner. InRecanati, François & Stojanovic, Isidora & Villanueva, Neftalı (eds.), Context-dependence, perspective and relativity (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 6), 93–126. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2014 D-heads, domain restriction and variation: From Greek and Basque to Salish. InEtxeberria, Urtzi & Giannakidou, Anastasia & Schürcks Lilia (eds.), The nominal structure in Slavic and beyond (Studies in Generative Grammar 116), 413–440. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Etxeberria, Urtzi. & Giannakidou, Anastasia
    2019 Definiteness, partitivity and domain restriction: A fresh look at definite reduplication. InAguilar-Guevara, Ana & Pozas Loyo, Julia & Vázquez-Rojas Maldonado, Violeta (eds.), Definiteness across languages (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 25), 419–452. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Giannakidou, Anastasia
    2004 Domain restriction and the arguments of quantificational determiners. InYoung, Robert B. (ed.), SALT 14: Proceedings of the 14th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, 110–126. Ithaca: CLC Publications, Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Giannakidou, Anastasia & Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen
    2006 (In)Definiteness, polarity, and the role of wh-morphology in free choice. Journal of Semantics23(2). 135–183. 10.1093/jos/ffl001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffl001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gillon, Carrie
    2006The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in Skwxwú7mesh. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2009 The semantic core of determiners: Evidence from Skwxwú7mesh. InGhomeshi, Jila & Ileana, Paul & Wiltschko, Martina (eds.), Determiners: Universals and variation (Linguistics Today 147), 177–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.147.06gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.147.06gil [Google Scholar]
  24. Gundel, Jeanette K.
    1988 Universals of topic-comment structure. InHammond, Michael & Moravcsik, Edith A. & Wirth, Jessica (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (Typological Studies in Language 17), 209–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.17.16gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.17.16gun [Google Scholar]
  25. Hawkins, John A.
    1980 Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. Linguistics and Philosophy3(3). 419–427.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1991 On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics27(2). 405–442. 10.1017/S0022226700012731
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012731 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heim, Irene
    1982The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1990 E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy13(2). 137–177. 10.1007/BF00630732
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630732 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ionin, Tania
    2006This is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics14(2). 175–234. 10.1007/s11050‑005‑5255‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-5255-9 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ionin, Tania & Baek, Soondo & Kim, Eunah & Ko, Heejeong & Ken, Wexler
    2011That’s the meaning: Interpretation of definite and demonstrative descriptions in L2-English. InPirvulescu, Mihaela & Cuervo, María Cristina & Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa & Steele, Jeffrey & Strik, Nelleke (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2010), 122–138. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ionin, Tania & Baek, Soondo & Kim, Eunah & Ko, Heejeong & Kenneth Wexler
    2012That’s not so different from the: Definite and demonstrative descriptions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research28(1). 69–101. 10.1177/0267658311432200
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658311432200 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jenks, Peter
    2018 Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry49(3). 501–536. 10.1162/ling_a_00280
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00280 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kadmon, Nirit
    1987On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1990 Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy13(3). 273–324. 10.1007/BF00627710
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627710 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kaneko, Makoto
    2012 Japanese demonstrative so-no as a modifier lacking definiteness. InAguilar-Guevara, Ana & Chernilovskaya, Anna & Nouwen, Rick (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, vol.2, 335–348. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2014 The semantics and syntax of Japanese adnominal demonstratives. InCabredo Hofherr, Patricia & Zribi-Hertz, Anne (eds.), Crosslinguistic studies on noun phrase structure and reference (Syntax and Semantics 39), 239–268. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kang, Arum
    2012 Semantics and pragmatics of definiteness in Korean: The case of ku. InUmut Ozge (ed.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 67: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 8), 187–198. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2015(In)definiteness, disjunction and anti-specificity in Korean: A study in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Chicago: University of Chicago. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2018 Unexpectedness effect: The emphatic determiner with gradable NPs in Korean. The Journal of Studies in Language33(4). 595–615. 10.18627/jslg.33.4.201802.595
    https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.33.4.201802.595 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kang, Beom-Mo
    1994 Plurality and other semantic aspects of common nouns in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics3(1). 1–24. 10.1007/BF01733148
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01733148 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kim, Ilkyu
    2015 Is Korean -(n)un a topic marker? On the nature of -(n)un and its relation to information structure. Lingua154. 87–109. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.010 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kim, Min-Joo
    2016 Cognitive indexical usage of demonstrative ku in Korean and a split DP analysis. InKim, Tae Sik & Ha, Seungwan (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar (SICOGG 18), Beyond core syntax: A minimalist approach, 175–194. Seoul: The Korean Generative Grammar Circle.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2019The syntax and semantics of noun modifiers and the theory of universal grammar: A Korean perspective (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 96). Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑05886‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05886-9 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kim, Min-Joo & Kaufmann, Stefan
    2007 Domain restriction in freedom of choice: A view from Korean Indet-na items. InMcNally, Louise & Puig-Waldmüller, Estela (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 375–389. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. King, Jeffrey C.
    2001Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1990.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1990.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lee, Chungmin
    1989 (In)Definites, case markers, classifiers and quantifiers in Korean. InKuno, Susumu & Kim, Young-joo & Whitman, John & Kang, Young-Se & Lee, Ik-Hwan & Bak, Sung-Yun (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III: Proceedings of the 1989 Workshop on Korean Linguistics (Harvard WOKL-1989), 469–488. Cambridge: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 1994 Definite/specific and case marking in Korean. InKim-Renaud, Young-Key (ed.), Theoretical issues in Korean linguistics, 325–341. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 1995 A unified account of polarity phenomena. InT’sou, Benjamin K. & Lai, Tom B. Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 10), 281–291. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee, Chungmin & Chung, Daeho & Nam, Seungho
    2000 The semantics of amwu-N-to​/-irato/-ina in Korean: Arbitrary choice and concession. InIkeya, Akira & Kawamori, Masahito (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 14), 413–423. Chiba: PACLIC 14 Organizing Committee.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Link, Godehard
    1983 Logical semantics for natural language. InHempel, Carl G. & Putnam, Hilary & Essler, Wilhelm K. (eds.), Methodology, epistemology, and philosophy of science: Essays in honour of Wolfgang Stegmüller on the occasion of his 60th birthday, June 3rd, 1983, 261–283. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑7676‑5_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7676-5_14 [Google Scholar]
  51. Löbner, Sebastian
    1985 Definites. Journal of Semantics4(4). 279–326. 10.1093/jos/4.4.279
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/4.4.279 [Google Scholar]
  52. Longobardi, Giuseppe
    1994 Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry25(4). 609–665.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lyons, Christopher
    1999Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  54. Martí Martínez, María Luisa
    2003Contextual variables. Storrs: University of Connecticut. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Matthewson, Lisa
    1996Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. (Doctoral dissertation.).
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2001 Quantification and the nature of crosslinguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics9(2). 145–189. 10.1023/A:1012492911285
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012492911285 [Google Scholar]
  57. Nowak, Ethan
    2019 Complex demonstratives, hidden arguments, and presupposition. Synthese (2019) (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-019-02250-5) (Accessed2020-10-22.) 10.1007/s11229‑019‑02250‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02250-5 [Google Scholar]
  58. Oshima, David Y. & McCready, Eric
    2017 Anaphoric demonstratives and mutual knowledge: The cases of Japanese and English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory35(3). 801–837. 10.1007/s11049‑016‑9356‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-016-9356-6 [Google Scholar]
  59. Park, Eun-Hae
    2009(Wh-)indeterminates, free choice, and expressive content in Korean. Chicago: University of Chicago. (Doctoral Dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Prince, Ellen F.
    1981 Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. InCole, Peter (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 1992 The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. InMann, William C. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.16.12pri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.12pri [Google Scholar]
  62. Roberts, Craige
    1996 Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. InYoon, Jae-Hak & Kathol, Andreas (eds.), Papers in semantics (OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49), 91–136. Columbus: Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 2002 Demonstratives as definites. Invan Deemter, Kees & Kibble, Rodger (eds.), Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation (CSLI Lecture Notes Series 143), 89–136. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy26(3). 287–350. 10.1023/A:1024157132393
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393 [Google Scholar]
  65. Russell, Bertrand
    1905 On denoting. Mind14(4). 479–493. 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479 [Google Scholar]
  66. Schwarz, Florian
    2009Two types of definites in natural language. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 2013 Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically. Language and Linguistics Compass7(10). 534–559. 10.1111/lnc3.12048
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12048 [Google Scholar]
  68. Sohn, Ho-min
    2001The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (First published in 1999.)
    [Google Scholar]
  69. . Forthcoming. Korean. 1st edn.London: Routledge. (First published in 1994.)
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    1978 Assertion. InCole, Peter (ed.), Syntax and semantics, volume 9: Pragmatics, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Stanley, Jason
    2002 Nominal restriction. InPreyer, Gerhard & Peter, Georg (eds.), Logical form and language, 365–388. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Stanley, Jason & Szabó, Zoltán Gendler
    2000 On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language15(2–3). 219–261. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00130
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00130 [Google Scholar]
  73. Strawson, Peter F.
    1950 On referring. Mind59(235). 320–344. 10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320 [Google Scholar]
  74. Suh, Eugenia
    2005 The nominal phrase in Korean: The role of D in a “determiner-less” language. InHeffernan, Kevin & Suh, Eugenia (eds.), Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 25: Niagara Linguistics Society 2005 Conference Proceedings, 10–19. Toronto: Linguistics Graduate Course Union, University of Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Szabolcsi, Anna
    1987 Functional categories in the noun phrase. InKenesei, István (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian, volume 2: Theories and analyses, 167–191. Szeged: JATE, University of Szeged.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Von Fintel, Kai
    1994Restrictions on quantifier domains. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 1998 The semantics and pragmatics of quantifier domains. Cambridge: MIT. (Manuscript.) (Notes for Vilem Mathesius Lectures at the Vilem Mathesius Center in Prague.)
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Westerståhl, Dag
    1984 Determiners and context sets. Invan Benthem, Johan & ter Meulen, Alice (eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural language (Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics 4), 45–71. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Wolter, Lynsey Kay
    2006That’s that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00084.kan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00084.kan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): definiteness , demonstratives , domain restriction , DP structure and Korean KU
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error