Topicalization and Negation In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 056 557 FL 002 467 AUTHOR Oh, Choon-Kyu TITLE Aspects of Korean Syntax:Quantification, Relativization, Topicalization,and Negation. INSTITUTION Hawaii Univ., Honolulu. Dept.of Linguistics. PUB DATF Aug 71 NOTE 235p.; Doctoral dissertationpublished in Working Papers in Linauistics,v3 n3 Jun 1971 EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$9.87 DESCRIPTORS *Connected Discourse; *DeepStructure; Doctoral Theses; Grammar; *Korean;Linguistic Theory; Negative Forms (Language); *Semantics;sentences; Surface Structure; Syntax;Transformation GenerativQ Grammar; Transformations (Language);*Transformation Theory (Language) ABSTRACT By offering solutions tolong-standing problems like quantification, relativization,topicalization and negationin Korean syntax, the presentdissertation aims to show thelimitations of any approach which concentrateson the sentence as alinguistic unit or which takes semanticsfo be interp-etative. Onepossible solution suggested here is atopic-by-topi.J approach, with theidea that there are two basic typesof sentences: introductorysentences which introduce the existence of anobject or fact, and other sentences which assertthings other than theexistence of that item. Chapter two covers quantification;chapter three discusses restrictive and non-rertrictiveclauses; chapter four considers topicalization; and chapter fivedeals with negation. Appendix one discusses formal constraints onthe deletion of reflexive pronouns and considers the roleof presupposition in grammarin the area of pronominalization by deletion. Otherappendixes list the rules used in the paper and Koreanparticles. A bibliography isincluded. (Author/W) From: Ubiking Papers in Linguistics;Vol. 3, NO. 32 June 1971. ASPECTS OF KOREAN SYNTAX: QUANTIFICATION, RELATIVIZATION, TOPICALIZATION, AND NEGATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATEDIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII IN PARTIALFULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN LINGUISTICS AUGUST 1971 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. BY Choon-Kyu Oh Dissertation Committee: Charles-James N. Bailey, Chairman Lewis S. Josephs "' Gary J. Parker 014 0 Copyright (4,1i; 1971 by Choon Kyu Oh "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL HiS BEEN GRANTED BY(-110n K1u.0V\ TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION. FURTHER REPRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PERMISSIONOF ME COPYRIGHT OWNER." DEDICATION To my teacher Charles-James Nice Bailey, whohas been probably the firstthesis chairman with so much interestand care in his student andwho has awoken in me an intensive interestin the search of the principles of language, and to my wife Soung-Ei Oh, who has willinglyand lovingly taken the severe ordeal of four years, sacrificingalmost everything thatbelongs to her, and even financially supporting mystudy with the moneyexchanged with painful labor, I dedicate this thesiswith deep appreciation. FOREWORD One of my most pleasantexperiences as a faculty member and as a co-editor of these Working Papers has beenthe supervising of Choon-Kyu Oh's doctoral dissertation. This studept's innate knack forhandling the complex materials of moderngenerative semantics has enabledhim in a brief eight months of concentratedlabor to produce a work that will make many contributions to thetheory of generative semantics. I have been mainly concernedwith putting all relevant materialsinto Oh's hands and with questioning his proposalsin any way in which I have thought they were weak,since I have had to leave thetechnical- ities of Korean syntax to my colleagueLewis Josephs. Both of us, together with Gary Parker, the otherco-editor of this publication, have gone over every word in this writingwith as critical an eye as possible. The result is one that we feel hasfew weakneses and many strengths. We are pleased to commend it to thereaders of this series with the certainty that they will find manythings in it to interest and profit them. We sincerely hope that Ohwill reap the rewards of his diligence and remain true to the qualityof work he has exhibited here. C.-J. N. Bailey ABSTRACT Chomsky used to claim thatonly the syntactic componentis generative, while the phonologicaland semantic components are supposed to be solely interpretative. The base eomponent was responsible for meaning, andtransformations were not supposedto change meaning. As the discipline oflinguistics has advanced since then, we have come to seethe limitations of thisapproach, and linguists such asLakoff, Ross, and McCawleyhave claimed that the semantic componentis generative. Since the adoption of generative theory in syntactic analysis,almost all linguistic arguments have centeredaround the sentence. However, this sentential approach has resultedin the insolubility ofmany' problems, such aspronominalization, topicalization,quantification, relativization, and negation. By offering bettersolutions to long-standingproblems and like quantification,relativization, topicalization, negation in Korean syntax,the present dissertationaims to show the limitations of anyapproach which concentrates onthe sentence as a linguisticunit or which takes semanticsto be interpretative. It is true that at thepresent stage there are still manyproblems to be solved within thegenerative-semantic, discourse-centered approach (the problem ofdeciding the boundary of adiscourse being only one of them). One possible solutionsuggested here is a topic-by-topic approach--viz, theview that there are twobasic types of sentences: an introductorysentence which introduces the existence of an object orfact, and other sentenceswhich assert things other than theexistence of that item.The same sentence non-introductory for another can beintroductory fer one NP and is NP in the largersentence. Nat:=ally, an introductory sentence ordered before the othertypes of sentence. In Chapter Two, Carden'sanalysis of quantificationis It is reviewed and itslimitations are indicated andcircumvented. shown how the concept ofthe introductory sentenceenables the problems related to grammar correctlyto predict and explain many suggested approach is tested quantification. The validity of the contain quantifiers on negating andinterrogating sentences which adjective plus.a and other indefinitePhrases consisting of an peculiar properties of noun. Carden's explanations of the quantifiers observed byhim are carried furtherby showing that quantifiers cannot bepredicates of introductorysentences. Adjectives which occur in anon-introductory sentence arenegated exactly the way adjectives arewhen moved into anintroductory sentence by a rule thatgenerates non-restrictiverelative clauses, In Chapter which rule is alsoresponsible for movingquantifiers. Three, restrictive ananon-restrictive relativizaticns are structures are suggestedfor them discussed. Different underlying is shown to and juztified. RESTRTCTIVE-RELATIVE-CLAUSE FORMATION sentence into the be a copying rule. It copies an introductory opposite of the rule, following sentence. This copying rule is the NON-RESTRICTIVE-RELATIVE-CLAUSE FORMATION, exceptthat the former is not a simple pc-mutation rule. The definition of definitenessadopted in this dissertation suggests a neat solution to an age-oldproblem in Korean--nn and ka as subject particles(the counterparts of Japanese wa and22), which is discussed in Chapter Four. In Chapter Five, the author shows how a NEG-INCORPORATION ruleis needc,C( for the correct descx.iption of negation in Korean. In an Appendix, the role of presupposition in grammar isillustrated with one of the major processes in Korean syntax,pronominalization by deletion. The writer tries to show throughouthow the generative- semantic approach alone can handlein a natural manner the problems discussed here, by importing the notionof presupposition into syntax. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS* COM COMMATIVE DIR DIRECTIONAL DLM DELIMITER NEG NEGATIVE MARKER NOM NOMINALIZER NT NOT-TRANSPORTATION 0 OBJECT-MARKER PL PLURALIZER QUANTIFIER 0T QUOTATIONAL QUES QUESTION REL RELATIVIZER RET RETROSPECTIVE SUBJECT-MARKE71 TOPIC-MARKER *For the names ofrules, see Appendix II. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vi Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter II QUANTIFICATION 4 2.1 Introduction 4 2.11NOT-TRANSPORTATION 4 2.12Verb of denial in Korean and English 10 2.13 EQUI-NP DELETION and REFLEXIVIZATION 13 2.14CONJUNCTION REDUCTION 20 2.2 The derivation of indefinite NP's modified by adjectives 31 2.21 Other negations and questions 40 2.22EQUI-NP DELETION and REFLEXIVIZATION 49 2e23 CONJUNCTION REDUCTION 56 Chapter III RELATIVIZATION 60 3.1 Introduction 60 3.11 Introductory E,entence and Lelated matters 62 3.12RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE FORMATION and the definiteness of NP's 66 3.13NR-FORMATION 87 3.2 Some possible objections 95 3.21 Direction ofeMbedding in NR-FORM and the problem, of ambiguity of a NR 96 3.22Stacked restrictive relative clauses 103 110 3.3 Other related problems 3.31 Derivation of generic nouns 3.32 Identity and referentiality of NP s 119 3.33 Implications made by the hierarchlof anaphora 124 Chapter IV TOPICALIZATION 127 4.1 Introduction 127 4.11 Definite NP and TOPICALIZATION 129 4.12 Further restriction on TOPTCALIZAT )14 134 4.13 TOPICALIZATION as a postcyclic rul 139 4.14 Restriction on the applicability o, TOP1CALIZATION 144 4.2 The