Pragmatic Syntax Bloomsbury Studies in Theoretical Linguistics

Bloomsbury Studies in Theoretical Linguistics publishes work at the forefront of present-day developments in the field. The series is open to studies from all branches of theoretical linguistics and to the full range of theoretical frameworks. Titles in the series present original research that makes a new and significant contribution and are aimed primarily at scholars in the field, but are clear and accessible, making them useful also to students, to new researchers and to scholars in related disciplines.

Series Editor: Siobhan Chapman, Professor of English, University of Liverpool, UK.

Other titles in the series:

Agreement, Pronominal Clitics and Negation in Tamazight Berber, Hamid Ouali Deviational Syntactic Structures, Hans Gotzsche First Language Acquisition in Spanish, Gilda Socarras Grammar of Spoken English Discourse, Gerard O’Grady A Neural Network Model of Lexical Organisation, Michael Fortescue The Semantic Representation of Natural Language, Michael Levison, Greg Lessard, Craig Thomas and Matthew Donald The Syntax and Semantics of Discourse Markers, Miriam Urgelles-Coll The Syntax of Mauritian Creole, Anand Syea Pragmatic Syntax

Jieun Kiaer

Bloomsbury Studies in Theoretical Linguistics

LONDON • NEW DELHI • NEW YORK • SYDNEY Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10018 UK USA

www.bloomsbury.com

Bloomsbury is a registered trade mark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2014

© Jieun Kiaer 2014

Jieun Kiaer has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the Author of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN: HB: 978–1–6235–6021–8 ePDF: 978–1–6235–6114-7 ePub: 978–1–6235–6835–1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kiaer, Jieun. Pragmatic Syntax / Jieun Kiaer. pages cm. – (Bloomsbury studies in theoretical linguistics) ISBN 978-1-62356-021-8 (hardback) – ISBN 978-1-62356-114-7 (epdf) – ISBN 978-1-62356-835-1 (epub) 1. Korean language–Syntax. 2. English language–Syntax. 3. Pragmatics. 4. English language–Grammar, Generative. 5. Korean language–Grammar, Generative. I. Title. PL923.K44 2014 415 – dc23 2013050512

Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. “Don’t think, but look!” (Philosophical Investigations 66) – Ludwig Wittgenstein

Contents

List of Figures viii List of Tables x Acknowledgements xi Preface xii Abbreviations xvi

1 Perspective Shift 1 2 Economically Motivated Syntax 23 3 Expressively Motivated Syntax 45 4 Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 71 5 Formal Tools: Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 119 6 Modelling Nominal Particles in Korean 149 7 Modelling Verbal Particles in Korean 165 8 Particle Doubling: Incrementality at Work 185 9 The Syntax of Spoken Dialogue 201 10 Conclusion 211

Notes 214 Bibliography 217 Index 224 Figures

Figure 1.1. Incremental constituency via build-and-revise process 19 Figure 2.1. Matrix clause reading or embedded clause reading? 29 Figure 2.2. {Black {cab driver}} vs. {{Black cab} driver} 30 Figure 2.3. Preference to local structuring 31 Figure 2.4. Total/partial reading 42 Figure 3.1. Structural role of comma intonation 54 Figure 3.2. Comma intonation for the fronted expression (19) 57 Figure 3.3. Copied tone for (25) 59 Figure 3.4. One breath condition 62 Figure 3.5. Animacy in TUL attachment 63 Figure 4.1. Distribution of OV vs. VO languages (WALS, Map 81) 71 Figure 4.2. Prosodic break after the dative NP 75 Figure 4.3. Pitch track from Park (2003) 79 Figure 4.4. Listener or recipient? 82 Figure 4.5. Location of wh NP when matrix reading is induced (sentence- initial positions) 84 Figure 4.6. Location of wh NP when embedded reading is induced (just before a verb or post-verbal positions) 84 Figure 4.7. Evidence of early verb-less cluster formation 87 Figure 4.8. Matrix clause reading or embedded clause reading? 98 Figure 4.9. Interaction between grammatical components during the process 101 Figure 4.10. Listener or recipient? 106 Figure 4.11. Cluster formation via oblique movement 108 Figure 4.12. Unforced revision from a matrix into an embedded clause 109 Figure 5.1. Incremental constituency: Build-and-destroy approach 121 Figure 5.2. Predetermined type-raising 122 Figure 5.3. Binary, functor–argument relation 125 Figure 5.4. Simplified structure-building sketch in English 126 Figure 5.5. Bundle of information 127 Figure 5.6. Stepwise structure building via lexical projection of met 129 Figure 5.7. Defining locality 132 Figure 5.8. Defining non-locality 133 Figures ix

Figure 5.9. NPI-Neg verb distance: The case ofamwuto 135 Figure 5.10. Marrying the two nodes: Long-distance dependency resolution 142 Figure 5.11. Partial structures projected by (a sequence of) case particles (Korean) 142 Figure 5.12. Two at one go: Branching out from mother structure 146 Figure 6.1. Partial structures projected by (a sequence of) case particles 151 Figure 6.2. Prosodic structure of Korean 152 Figure 6.3. Structural discontinuity via prosodic break 153 Figure 6.4. Lexical action of intonational break 154 Figure 6.5. Step-by-step structuring 155 Figure 6.6. Set of meanings represented by nominative particles 158 Figure 6.7. Topic phrase: Intonationally set apart 162 Figure 6.8. Producing two types of LINKed structure 163 Figure 7.1. Prosodic realization of (4) 167 Figure 7.2. Prosodic realization of (5) 167 Figure 7.3. IP boundary tone at the final-endingkwu (reading of 6b) 168 Figure 7.4. IP boundary tone at the verb malhayssni (reading of 6d) 169 Figure 7.5. Tone and mood 170 Figure 7.6. Building dialogue structures by LINK relations 182 Figure 8.1. Copied tones: Korean 187 Figure 8.2. Right-to-left structure building 189 Figure 8.3. Copied tones: English 194 Figure 9.1. Interaction between grammatical components during the process 203 Figure 9.2. Updating trees for each other 208 Tables

Table 1.1 Occurrence of indirect object: Ditransitive verbs 16 Table 1.2 Tests for degree of transitivity (among typical transitive verbs) 18 Table 2.1 Average syllable length of NP with nominative particle 26 Table 2.2 Average syllable length of NP (with -eykey, -hanthey (‘to’), -uro (‘towards’) particles) 27 Table 3.1 Number of words at left, medial and right periphery 61 Table 4.1 Early association at left periphery 84 Table 4.2 Pronominal subject realization 92 Table 4.3 Number of genders 114 Table 4.4 Word-order typology 117 Table 5.1 Types in dynamic syntax 125 Table 5.2 Set of information at each node in Figure 5.5 128 Table 5.3 Local and non-local ways of fixing to whom 138 Table 5.4 General way of fixing to whom 138 Table 7.1 List of connective/conjunctive particles (can also be used as final-ending particles) 169 Table 9.1 Dialogue fragments 207 Acknowledgements

The core concerns in this book originally developed from my doctoral research. I am grateful to my tutors and colleagues who helped me begin to shape these ideas during those years. My special thanks go to Prof. Ruth Kempson, who introduced me to Dynamic Syntax and helped me to realize how, behind the scenes, pragmatic motivations indeed shape syntactic architecture. I also thank Prof. John Hawkins, who convinced me of the importance of processing and production in linguistic theory and in particular led me to look at the patterns and distributions in the corpus – especially in verb-final languages. I am also thankful to Prof. Carlos Gussenhoven, who helped open my ears to the world of speech sound. I have yet to meet Prof. Christopher Potts but I was introduced to his work through Prof. Peter Sells, and I am grateful to both of them for their unknowing input into this project. I am also grateful to my informants who participated in various psycholinguistic tests and interviews. Prof. Jiyoung Shin from Korea University not only allowed me to use her speech corpus but also gave many insightful comments. Tohru Seraku, my PhD student, was amazing in his editorial assistance. The John Fell Fund from Oxford University Press and the YBM Research Fund provided generous financial support throughout the project. I cannot name all, but I am immensely thankful to my colleagues and students who have encouraged this project from its inception and provided invaluable comments and feedback over these last years. Thank you all.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends in the UK and in Korea. Without their constant love and care, this project would never have begun. Preface

The spoken, the unspoken and the unspeakable1

Why is it that a certain pattern of linguistic structure is speakable, yet never spoken? Why is it that only a very limited number of possible or speakable syntactic patterns are observed in our everyday communication? What is the fundamental cause of such linguistic choices? Until now, in theoretical syntax, very little concern has been given to asking why it is that only a very limited number of patterns out of numerous possible alternatives are so popular and spoken. This book seeks to answer these questions.

Speakable vs. unspeakable

Linguistic fragments are put together to yield a meaning. This process is consistent and systematic, never arbitrary or accidental. Exploring the way such incomplete information is compiled has been the task of all syntacticians. However, the majority of theoretical linguists over the last fifty years have devoted themselves to finding criteria which could distinguish between possible speakable (i.e. grammatical) and impossible unspeakable (i.e., ungrammatical) syntactic patterns. The essence of such knowledge is known as competence, distinguished from performance, known as mere behavioural variation.

Spoken vs. (speakable, yet) unspoken

Pursuing a different emphasis, throughout this book, I want to bring up another important asymmetry that can help us reveal the essence of linguistic competence – that is the difference between what is spoken and speakable yet never or hardly spoken: why is there such a clear-cut asymmetry between what is frequently spoken and what is not among all speakable structures? This is not some marginal or peripheral question, but, I believe, a crucial question which can bring new insights to contemporary syntactic paradigms.

Frequency asymmetry

Let’s take one example in English. A phrasal verb pick up with an intervening object was found around 3,971 times in the 100-million word collection of British National Corpus. In principle, any number of words could appear between pick and up in Preface xiii

English. Yet, 99.5% of the time, only one or two lexical items with one syllable occurred between pick and up. No examples were found with an object that has more than four words between pick and up. Why is this the case? Are these only stylistic and, therefore, accidental variations? Why are certain linguistic structures speakable, yet never or hardly ever spoken? Why are possibly ambiguous sentences not ambiguous in real use? What can contemporary linguistic theory tell us about those speakable, yet unspoken structures? We find answers for these questions in pragmatics.

Pragmatic motivations in syntax

Truly, the motivation of this book is to argue that structural variations are not accidental or arbitrary but are pragmatically motivated and driven. In particular, I will show that there are two major syntactic motivations: one is to maximize efficiency (Chapter 2) and the other is to build up a multidimensional, ‘expressive’ proposition (Chapter 3). And these two most important syntactic motivations are indeed pragmatic in nature and cannot be understood properly at a single-sentence level. Based primarily on a large spoken/written corpora investigation, this book aims to show that linguistic structures have been built and are built with the aim of establishing a multidimensional, expressive proposition in the most efficient way, ready to be used in spoken communication.

From a static to a dynamic perspective

Contemporary linguistic theory has tended to ignore consideration of the stepwise procedure, which shows how a structure is built in real time. This book assumes a dynamic perspective where a structure is considered to be built stepwise, following the way it is perceived in real time. On this basis, I argue that the essence of syntactic competence is dynamic and can be observed in the way native speakers build a structure in an incremental way.

Basic questions again

How do people define the basic syntactic unit – namely, the constituent? Is it through a one-step process? And is it through a purely syntactic mechanism? Do we need any empirical proof in deciding the unit as such? Questions like these need to be sought in all areas of syntactic discussion. If the answers to these questions are no, what does this tell us about the architecture of grammar? Phillips (1996) brought these fundamental questions into the heart of generative grammar. These questions led me to think of some basic properties of grammar: what is the aim/goal, unit and tenet of syntactic structure building? Though undoubtedly important, I argue that a ‘grammaticality xiv Preface judgement test for a single, complete sentence’ hinders us from searching and shaping the procedural, interactive and multidimensional nature of the knowledge of language. This book shows the necessity of broadening the unit of syntactic discussion from a single written sentence to spoken corpus and dialogue. The goal of this book is to pursue answers to the above questions and furthermore reconsider some core properties of mental grammar, which have been ignored due to the mistaken emphasis on the competence/performance distinction. In particular, based on cross-linguistic data, taken mainly from Korean (known as a strict verb-final language with a relatively free word order), I claim that the basic unit and goal of syntactic structure building should be reset to take into consideration its inherently resource sensitive nature: that is its efficiency and multidimensional, expressive potential. The core phenomena we are going to see in this book show some clear contrasts between the grammatical forms which are preferred and those which are avoided. However, I argue that it is not an adequate explanation to regard this variation as being merely stylistic. We see that in most cases the pattern of asymmetry is systematically observed in different types of comprehension and production, as well as in diachronic, synchronic and typological variation. I argue that any grammar formalism should be able to explain the cause of asymmetry and explaining this pattern of asymmetry – between possible yet avoided and possible and preferred forms – should be used as a crucial criterion in determining the success of each mental grammar.

Outline of the book

In order to prove the pragmatically driven nature of syntactic structure buildings, in Chapter 1, I argue that there needs to be a perspective shift in linguistic theory from a static to a dynamic perspective. This implies several shifts: from written to spoken syntax; from ideal to empirical syntax; and from syntax that is verb-centred and one step to syntax that is incremental and step-by-step. Chapter 2 discusses how syntactic structures are motivated to increase efficiency by showing close packaging between a structure and a meaning and incremental, local structure building. Chapter 3 discusses how syntactic structures are motivated to reveal the multidimensional and expressive nature of proposition formation. Chapter 3 is inspired by Potts’ (2005) innovative work on expressives and Conventional Implicature (CI). In Chapter 4, with a focus on locality, I discuss the challenges of verb-final languages, which, though comprising more than 50% of world languages, have been ignored or underestimated in syntactic discussion. Up to Chapter 3, I focus on English data and from Chapter 4 onwards, I focus on Korean. In Chapter 5, I provide formal tools to model the above two syntactic motivations, and address the challenges posed by these verb-final languages. I adopt the process-oriented framework of Dynamic Syntax (DS: Kempson et al. 2001, Cann et al. 2005) but provide a revised/updated version to adapt to the challenge of verb- final languages. Also, within the DS architecture, I adopt Potts’ (2005) view to regard expressives as a CI functor and propose that particles and prosody are used as a CI Preface xv functor to produce an “expressive” proposition. Chapters 6 and 7 provide an analysis of nominal/verbal particles in Korean. I show that particles and prosody in Korean have both constructive and expressive functions in realizing syntactic structures. In Chapter 8, I focus on “doubling” phenomena to show incremental structural clustering. Chapter 9 examines the syntax of spoken dialogue. Finally, Chapter 10 summarizes and discusses further implications for current research. Abbreviations

ACC accusative ADJ adjective ADN adnominal ADV adverb(ial) AUX auxiliary CAUS causative CL classifier COM comitative COMP complementizer COND conditional CONJ conjunct COP copula DAT dative DECL declarative DEF definite FOC focus FORMAL formal FUT future GEN genitive HON honorific IMP imperative INTRG interrogative LOC locative NEG negative NMLZ nominalizer/nominalization NOM nominative OBJ object OBL oblique PASS passive PERF perfective Abbreviations xvii

PL plural POL polite POSS possessive PRES present PRF perfect Q question REFL reflexive REL relative RETRO retrospect TOP topic VOC vocative VOL volitional

1

Perspective Shift

Spoken, the unspoken and the unspeakable

The mystery of human language lies in the way humans construct linguistic messages in a systematic way across languages, and in particular, the way they recognize basic units and put them together to yield a meaningful message, and then enrich that message through communication to and fro. Even very young children seem to grasp the essence of this interactive practice early on. It is not, however, a straightforward task to generalize the nature of this linguistic ability. Children in particular are able to produce plausible sentences that they have never heard or been taught. Indeed, it is mysterious and almost miraculous to see how young children acquire their mother tongue. Even though they are not exposed to possible and impossible utterances explicitly, they still seem to have a grasp of possible and impossible forms. This is known as Plato’s problem (Chomsky 1988). Any native speaker of English would judge the sentence in (1a) to be grammatical, despite never having heard it before, whereas the sentence in (1b) would be deemed ungrammatical. (1) is Chomsky’s famous example (Chomsky 1965:3).

(1) a. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

b. *Furiously sleep ideas green colorless.

How is this possible, and what is it that native speakers acquire? For the last 50 years, linguists have been amazed at the intuitive knowledge which allows native speakers to distinguish between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences such as those in (1); and consequently they aimed to reveal the essence of human language by looking at similar patterns contrasting between possible and impossible language. This contrast became the basis for building syntactic architecture in human language. Since then, it has been assumed that one of the core competencies of native speakers of a language is the ability to tell whether a given sequence of words is well-formed or ill-formed in their mother tongue. However, as we shall explore in this chapter, certain perspectives on linguistic competence, particularly those based on static observation of a single sentence, became obstacles to the initial aim of revealing the essence of human language. Most of all, contemporary theoretical linguistics1 have focused on the logical limits of human language, generating pairs of examples between what can be possible (=grammatical) 2 Pragmatic Syntax and what cannot be possible (=ungrammatical) instead of focusing on spoken possibility: that is what can be spoken/used and what cannot be, or hardly is, spoken/ used. In the sections to follow, I argue that a perspective shift from a static, sentence- based one to a dynamic, spoken dialogue-based one is not only beneficial but essential in the search for the structural underpinnings to human language. In this book, I particularly want to draw attention to the frequency asymmetry observed in spoken syntax – in other words, to the fact that native speakers do not produce all the logically possible well-formed strings with equal frequency in real language use. In addition, they do not understand with similar efficiency all logically possible well-formed strings. Instead, they show a strong preference for certain well- formed strings both in understanding and in their own production. The same tendency is also found in typological variation as well as in language change. Neither diachronic nor synchronic variation display all the logically possible alternatives, but rather a very limited set of variations. We find that even young children, in acquiring their mother tongue, do not make any arbitrary or accidental mistakes, only plausible mistakes. As we will explore further in this book, I argue that this is a natural consequence of syntax being pragmatically driven or motivated. In particular, in chapters 2 and 3, I argue that structure building is motivated in order to build an expressive proposition in an efficient manner. In doing so, I uncover the importance of considering multi- dimensionality and the gradient nature of syntactic representation. Up to Chapter 3, I focus on English language data in order to highlight the consensus of argument over this issue, but from Chapter 4 onwards, I focus on Korean and other verb-final languages.

1.0. From a static perspective to a dynamic perspective In spite of the initial amazement at spoken language acquisition, for the last 50 years, linguistic theorists have focused on the internal structure of written sentences, assuming that the grammatical sentence alone contains the essence of native speakers’ knowledge of language. Hand-in-hand with this, spoken data were thought to contain too much variation that would be unrelated to a speaker’s innate, core knowledge of language. With regard to structure building, within both transformational and non- transformational frameworks, the verb or predicate has been regarded as sole repository for combinatorial properties of a structure. Yet, recent findings in psycholinguistic literature show that regardless of verb-position, syntactic structures are built incrementally following the linear order. This seems to be intuitive in that the use of verbless sequences is common across languages, as we see in what is commonly known as ellipsis. Though researchers have indeed found some problems in the static perspectives noted right from the outset of the development of the generative framework, they have mostly been regarded as marginal issues, and hence have not been considered a challenge to the paradigm as a whole. This book shows that this line of thinking is misleading, and that those problematic cases are a window to more fundamental problems. This book proposes that a dynamic, procedural perspective of language Perspective Shift 3 needs to be adopted, replacing static ones, in order to explain the heart of linguistic competence. One of the important reasons for such a perspective shift is this: it seems that at the very heart of purely syntactic matters, there invariably lies a pragmatic (and apparently non-syntactic) driving force or motivation. Think of the most important tools used in syntactic literature, such as grammaticality judgement and the basic building block, namely, a constituent. How often do we rely onnon-syntactic means (e.g. prosody or context) to judge grammaticality? How often do we use the same non-syntactic factors to decide basic constituents and subsequent structural array? We will return to each of these questions soon. (2) sums up the paired views, where the former reveals the dominant views in the generative tradition and the latter reveals the views that I am proposing in this book.

(2) Static vs. dynamic perspective

a. Ideal speaker’s knowledge-based grammar vs. corpus-based, empirically proven grammar (Section 1.1)

b. Single, written sentence perspective vs. spoken, dialogue perspective (Section 1.2)

c. Structure-only perspective vs. integrated perspective (Section 1.2)

d. Verb-centred, static grammar vs. incremental grammar (Section 1.3)

The former I call (a written-sentence based) static perspective and the latter I call (a spoken-dialogue based) dynamic perspective. In the following, I will come back to each attribute with examples in relevant subsections in brackets, as indicated earlier, I will demonstrate that adopting a dynamic perspective is necessary not just to explain individual problematic cases, but also to understand the very basic properties of human language. That is, it is essential to turn to a dynamic perspective to understand the basic units of syntactic architecture and the way in which those units are put together to form an independent, meaningful information unit. As we shall soon see, it is not possible to define basic syntactic units such as constituent or argument within a static, sentential perspective, let alone structuring it into a meaningful proposition. Moreover, it is impossible to fathom how information is communicated between speakers from a static, single sentence–based perspective.

1.1. From ideal syntax to empirical syntax Undoubtedly, as originally set out by Chomsky 1965, putative grammar requires appropriate observation, description and explanation. Yet, this perspective needs serious reconsideration. The ideal speaker’s knowledge of language needs to be situated in a real, spoken context and be empirically provable. Simply speaking, we need to look at the data that have been spoken by the real speaker. (Of course, not all the spoken data deserve equal research interest, but spoken data need to be systematically 4 Pragmatic Syntax and consistently characterized within the remit of linguistic research.) Traditionally, generativists have been unwilling to allow empirical evidence at the heart of discussion, as the following quote shows.

While evidence from language acquisition, experimentation on language processing, and evidence from language deficits is relevant, in principle, to determining the properties of Universal Grammar and particular grammars, for some unspecified reason, evidence from these sources is ‘insufficient to provide much insight concerning these problems’, and that therefore, the theoretical linguist is compelled to rely on grammar-internal considerations’. (Chomsky 1981:9), cited by Clahsen (2006:11)

I believe, however, that the aim of any linguistic theory should be to explain, as much as is possible, the natural language data that we come across daily. In this context, I argue that it is time to shift our focus from what is logically possible to what could potentially be spoken and try to explain why certain sequences are more frequently spoken than others. This contrast, I think, needs our attention along with the grammatical/ungrammatical contrast. The following quote from Phillips and Lewis (2013) well sums up the position that I am taking in this book.

Meanwhile, the feasibility of the real-time approach to grammatical computation has been reinforced by linguistic and psycholinguistic evidence of recent years. This implies a research program for grammatical theory that goes far beyond the traditional concern with classifying acceptable and unacceptable sentences, and it suggests that grammatical theories should be accountable to a much richer body of evidence, particularly evidence on the time course of grammatical processes. This is just what we should want. (Phillips and Lewis 2013)

In the following section, we will discuss the problem of restricting attention to one ideal speaker’s judgement in shaping the architecture of grammar. In particular, I will discuss the limitations and problems of grammaticality judgements and some frequently used tests and criteria in linguistics.

Limitations of (a written-sentence, output-only based) grammaticality judgements

We will see that grammaticality judgements, known to be the sole important criterion in shaping structural configuration, need to have solid empirical foundations in order to be properly used in linguistic theories. And, judging grammaticality based on a ‘sound-less’, ‘growth-less’ and ‘context-less’ single sentence will be inevitably misleading. Consider (1), repeated here as (3).

(3) a. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

b. *Furiously sleep ideas green colorless. Perspective Shift 5

As noted earlier, the contrast between (3a) and (3b) has undoubtedly influenced decades of linguistic theory and supported the essence of the Chomskian claim, but, what does * really refer to? Also, what about ? or ??(?)? According to Carnie (2002), * is defined as a symbol that is used to mark syntactically ill-formed (unacceptable or ungrammatical) sentences. On the other hand, the hash mark or number sign (#) is used to mark semantically strange, but syntactically well- formed sentences. However, in most cases, it is not simple to distinguish semantic oddities from syntactic oddities. Moreover, the distinction between * and # or between * and ?(?) is not used in a systematic way in the literature. As Schütze (1996) discusses in detail, though the concept of grammaticality judgement is regarded as the foremost criterion in shaping grammars, the method for defining degrees of grammaticality is not robust enough. We may refer to the Chomskian ethos, exemplified below, for the reason why this is so.

I have no doubt that it would be possible to devise operational and experimental procedures that could replace the reliance on introspection with little loss, but it seems to me that in the present state of the field, this would simply be a waste of time and energy. (Chomsky 1969:81)

Is it truly a waste of time and energy? Is it better to decide between ? and ?? or ??? on a subjective basis in shaping the grammar than on a more reliable, agreed database? What sort of strangeness requires the use of the ??? judgement and from what source does it stem? What kind of strangeness matters in a grammar formalism? Before going further, let us look at another type of strangeness that is important, and yet cannot be detected in a typical grammaticality judgement test. Along with the asymmetry between a grammatical and an ungrammatical sequence as shown earlier, this book assumes that there is another set of interesting asymmetry, which also reveals the core aspects of linguistic universals, innate to native English speakers. Consider (4) from Stowe (1986) and (5) from Wasow (2002).

(4) Efficiency asymmetry

No slowdown at us:

a. My brother wanted to know if Ruth will bring us home to Mom at Christmas.

Slowdown at us:

b. My brother wanted to know who Ruth will bring us home to at Christmas.

(5) Frequency asymmetry

Frequently observed:

a. Pat picked up a very large mint-green hard cover book.

Hardly observed:

b. Pat picked a very large mint-green hard cover book up. 6 Pragmatic Syntax

Both sentences in (4) and (5) are grammatical. Nevertheless, native speakers’ real- time understanding of the sentences in (4) or real usage of the sentences in (5) is very different. In the case of (4), using an online self-paced reading task, Stowe (1986) reported relatively slower reading time at the direct object position in (4b), compared to the same position in (4a) as underlined. Such a delay or slow-down effect occurs because native speakers carry a prediction or expectation for the upcoming structure. In (4b), when native speakers come across the sequence of who Ruth, they are most likely to interpret who as the direct object of the upcoming sentence. Hence, when they realize such expectation turns out to be wrong at the time of facing us, they will experience some sort of delay as a ‘surprising effect’. This phenomenon which Stowe observed is known as the Filled-Gap Effect. Note that if there is no prediction or expectation for the future structure in the process of structure building, there should not be any such surprising effect in the middle of a sentence. The asymmetry observed in (5) is due to so-called Heavy NP (noun phrase) Shift. This phenomenon was observed first in Ross (1967). Though both sentences are grammatical, native speakers strongly prefer to locate heavy NPs at the end of the sentence so that the verb and its accompanying particle may come together, as in (5a). Let’s take one example in English. I collected a phrasal verb pick up with an intervening object around 3,971 times in the 100 million words British National Corpus. In principle, any number of words could appear between pick and up in English. Yet, 99.5% of the time, only one or two lexical items with one syllable occurred between pick and up. No examples were found with an object that has more than four words between pick and up. This phenomenon has been a long-standing puzzle in generative grammar, since the weight or length effect is regarded as being unrelated to innate knowledge of language. This belief, however, has recently been challenged. Hawkins (1994, 2004) and Wasow (2002), among others, have argued that grammar should have adequate ways of explaining this phenomenon. They in particular show that a processing-based account is better suited to explaining puzzling grammatical phenomena such as the Filled-Gap Effect (as in (4)) or Heavy NP Shift (as in (5)) than purely theoretical accounts. My view is more radical than Hawkins’ and Wasow’s in that I believe that processing considerations should be at the very heart of the grammar – in explaining all structural phenomena. Indeed, I shall argue in due course that grammar and processing are inseparable and that understanding ‘how’ a structure is processed should form the essence of any grammatical theory and analysis of any syntactic phenomenon. It is not easy to explain the frequency effect within generative grammar. Even in up-to-date generative grammar the asymmetry observed as in (5) becomes negligible, since both sentences are technically grammatical. This, however, does not mean that the asymmetry in (5) is irrelevant in revealing linguistic competence. Instead, I argue that it shows the necessity of having a grammar-formalism which can explain the procedural and optimizing nature of syntactic structure building. In this book, based on Dynamic Syntax (DS, Cann et al. 2005), I aim to show how a structure is built step-by-step from left to right. We will provide a basic introduction of the framework in Chapter 5. It is worthwhile to note that frequency asymmetry as in (5), though not properly explained, has at least received considerable attention in Perspective Shift 7 generative linguistics. However, as we shall discuss in detail in Chapter 3, most non- morpho-syntactic driving forces of structure building still fail to attract the attention of theoretical linguistics. Besides grammaticality, notions such as felicity (first used in Austin 1975) and acceptability (first discussed in Quirk and Svartvik 1966) are also frequently used judging tools in theoretical linguistics, which deserve the solid empirical foundation to be properly used in linguistic discussions. In this book, we adopt the following convention in denoting grammaticality of a structure or the felicity of its meaning. Note that I have expanded the judging point of abnormality from the end of a structure into the whole process of structure building.

(6) Grammaticality judgement criteria a. *: syntactically abnormal either in the process of understanding it or at the level of judging the final outcome sentence. These sentences are rarely observed in the corpus (of spontaneous speech). On the other hand, ?? represents an abnormality less severe than the kind seen in sentences marked with *. b. #: semantically abnormal either in the process of understanding it or at the level of judging the final outcome sentence. These sentences are rarely observed in the corpus (of spontaneous speech). On the other hand, ?? represents an abnormality less severe than the kind seen in sentences marked with #.

Most of the time, it is not quite clear whether strangeness/oddity is caused by syntactic or semantic factors. Distinguishing the two is not a clear-cut task as often assumed. However, I use * when the dominant cause of strangeness/oddity is abnormal structure. I then use # when the dominant cause of strangeness/oddity is the abnormal meaning of a structure. Yet, when such a cause is not clear or irrelevant, I will use ??(?). To ensure objectivity of using ??(?), I have consulted dozens of native speakers. To show where strangeness/ungrammaticality occurs during the process of structure building, I will put these symbols as subscripts under the corresponding word. For instance, in (4b), ?? is subscribed under the word us, because this is where the strangeness occurs first time.

(4) Efficiency asymmetry

No slowdown at us:

a. My brother wanted to know if Ruth will bring us home to Mom at Christmas.

Slowdown at us:

b. My brother wanted to know who Ruth will bring us?? home to at Christmas.

Grammaticality judgement very often requires more sentences than the one in question. Consider (7). Whether Anna’s utterance in (7) is grammatical or not depends 8 Pragmatic Syntax on the existence of a context. That is, Anna’s utterance in (7) is ungrammatical without the context provided by Bill.

(7) Bill: Why did you choose linguistics?

Anna: Because I like languages.

Consider (8) too. (8) shows the importance of prosody in grammaticality judgement. As we shall return to in Section 1.2, contrary to (8a), (8b) is known to be ungrammatical due to wrong phrasing. { } refers to prosodic phrasing.

(8) a. Alison bakes cakes for tourists and {Caroline for her family}.

b. ???Alison bakes cakes for {tourists and Caroline} for her family.

In this book, I will particularly emphasize the role of prosody in structural realization. Hence, wherever relevant, I will provide phrasing information as in (8) or tonal properties with ( ↑ ) for rising tone and ( ↑ ) for falling tone. It is interesting to realize that when people are asked about the grammaticality of a sentence, very often they speak out the sentence or imagine the relevant context where the corresponding sentence can be used naturally.

What sort of data do we need to look at? Can we trust data from the web and corpora?

Does online communication provide us the right sort of data that we can use in our research? Can linguists trust and use the data from Twitter and Google? I think we can – as long as they systematically and consistently represent the patternized linguistic behaviour of native speakers. It will be time-reversing to ignore those data given that now we are living in the digital generation. Pure empirical data without solid theoretical speculations are dangerous. Numbers alone cannot tell us much about underlying knowledge of human language. I believe that perceptional differences in language processing or production of less than a couple of seconds, no matter whether statistically reliable or not, need to be carefully interpreted rather than being used as evidence for or against any claim based on statistical credibility alone. What is much needed is a solid, shared, objectively collected, balanced database. Linguistic theory needs to make proper use of a well- established database such as spoken corpora or open web resources to be able to provide explanatorily adequate accounts. The following quotes from Bresnan (2007:297) and Hawkins (2004:1) sum up this view.

What is needed are data from language as it is in ecologically natural settings and better models for understanding it. (Bresnan 2007:297)

The time has come when we can return to the big question about the role of performance in explaining grammars and give some answers based not on Perspective Shift 9

philosophical speculation but on the growing body of empirical data from grammars and from performance. (Hawkins 2004:1)

The status quo in the field has, however, been far from getting the right balance for an empirical foundation: either it has been very close to ignoring them all, taking the view that there is no way to prove anything empirically in a strict sense or, conversely, it has put a heavy emphasis on achieving new empirical findings, ignoring altogether what their implications are for the theory of syntax. In one sense, efforts to incorporate empirical challenges into the architecture of grammar have been made repeatedly since the outset of Chomskian linguistics. Nevertheless, I believe that their role has always been underestimated. If they supported theoretic, grammar-internal claims, they were well-received. However, in cases where the data did not support the claims made, generative linguists tended to invoke an independent parsing theory, instead of rethinking the properties of the grammar and its architecture. Yet, as we shall explore in this book, without radical changes at the heart of the grammar, it is impossible to grasp the essential knowledge of human language.

Empirical foundation for syntactic testing tools

Very often, in the syntactic literature, the range of possible tests and their relative strength are used without substantial empirical credibility. One linguist argues for one thing using one test, and another argues for another thing using another test. Questions such as which tests are reliable and how they are related are rarely raised. Just like the grammaticality test, I believe that tests and criteria need solid empirical foundation. I think the kind of work done by Schütze (1996) needs to be applied meticulously to all tests and criteria used in theoretical linguistics in order to provide a robust empirical foundation. Let us take one example motivation for invoking subject-hood. In a discussion of a construction with multiple nominative NP constructions, Yoon (2007, 2009) argues that Subject-to-Object Raising (SOR) provides an important piece of evidence for the nominative NP being a Major Subject rather than a Grammatical Subject. We will return to this discussion in Chapter 8. But, leaving aside the discussion on the two types of subjects, let us here just think about the empirical reliability of SOR. Consider (9), which is taken from Yoon (2007).

(9) Subject-to-Object Raising (from (a) to (b)): this diagnoses that yenghi is a Major Subject a. Cheli-nun Yenghi-ka yenglihay-ss-ta-ko mitnun-ta

C-TOP Y-NOM smart-PAST-DECL-COMP believe-DECL

‘Cheli believes that Yenghi was smart.’ 10 Pragmatic Syntax b. ??? Cheli-nun Yenghi-lul yenglihay-ss-ta-ko mitnun-ta

C-TOP Y-ACC smart-PAST-DECL-COMP believe-DECL

‘Cheli believes Yenghi to have been smart.’

Though the Subject-to-Object Raising property is an important criterion used for distinguishing the two types of subjects, the problem is that sentences with SOR are rarely acceptable and rarely observed in Korean. Only a limited number of -hata ‘to do’-ending verbs with particular modality allows the kind of SOR shown in (9). I found only three examples in the 10-million Sejong Corpus which show an ‘accusative subject’ like the one in (9b). (I will shortly return to the description of the corpus.) But more strikingly, none of the examples with two subjects found in the Sejong Corpus allows Subject-to-Object Raising. Given such lack of empirical proof, I doubt whether SOR is a reliable criterion in the discussion of the multiple subject construction. The above example reflects one of the most prominent mistakes made in syntactic discussions, which is to overemphasize or overgeneralize ‘one’ possible or impossible structure without looking at the general patterns of structure within the language in question. In Korean syntax, SOR criteria have been carried over from debates based largely on English language data, frequently without raising any such questions; but if this phenomenon is rarely observed, we need to reconsider whether it is suitable as an empirical basis in discussing Korean grammar. This perspective, I believe, can be applied to other criteria and tests that theoretical linguists use casually.

Why does the ideal speaker speak efficiently?

Fundamentally, if we base our analysis and discussion on an ideal speaker’s perfect knowledge of language, it is hard to explain why native speakers unanimously aim to speak efficiently. Either implicitly or explicitly, grammars have expressed efficiency through cost-saving principles such as locality (i.e. build a structure as local as possible to minimize structure-building effort) to capture different syntactic phenomena. Yet, in my view, those principles were rather ‘slipped in’ un-noticeably to each framework rather than being put forward and explicitly motivated. We will come back to this in Section 4.2. One might say that efficiency of language understanding as opposed to having knowledge of one’s language reflects fundamentally different aspects of human language (see Miyamoto 2002 for instance). Yet, I dispute this view. Instead, I argue that a strict and radical gap between innate knowledge of a language, known as competence, and behavioural variation, known as performance, is the result of looking at grammar from a static point of view, ignoring its procedural, time-sensitive and dynamic nature. I will show that such an unnecessary gap can be bridged and that we can provide a more elegant syntactic account by assuming a dynamic and procedural nature for linguistic competence. I will call this procedural competence in this book. Perspective Shift 11

Corpora and data collection to be used in this book

Before going further, I will briefly provide the characteristics of the corpora and data collection that I use in this book. As for the questionnaire-type database that I have used in the book, I will explain each instance as it is discussed. a. Sejong Corpus: Korean The 21st Century Sejong Project was launched in 1998 by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in association with a number of related academic circles including the National Institute of the Korean Language. It contains the following: 1. Primary Corpus of Modern Korean: 7 Million Words 2. Special Data Division 1. Corpus of Modern Korean Colloquial Transcription : 0.6 Million Words ○ Raw Corpus : 0.55 Million Words ○ Morphologically Parsed Corpus : 0.05 Million Words 2. Parallel Corpus ○ Korean-English Parallel Corpus : 0.85 Million Words ● Raw Corpus : 0.8 Million Words ● Morphologically Parsed Corpus : 0.05 Million Words ○ Korean-Japanese Parallel Corpus : 0.13 Million Words 3. Corpus of Korean Used by the North and Overseas Koreans : 1.5 Million Words ○ Raw Corpus : 1.4 Million Words ○ Morphologically Parsed Corpus : 0.1 Million Words 4. Historical Corpus : 0.82 Million Words ○ Raw Corpus : 0.62 Million Words ○ Morphologically Parsed Corpus : 0.2 Million Words 3. Sejong Spoken Corpus Sejong Spoken Corpus is the collection of spoken materials, including telephone conversations, dialogues, speeches, lectures and spontaneous conversations. The most recent version of Sejong Spoken Corpus is available at http://www.korean.go.kr/09_ new/dic/example/present_sch_spoken.jsp. b. SLILC (Spoken Language Information Lab Corpus): Korean2 Adults’ Spontaneous Speech Fifty-seven Korean native speakers (over 20 years old) were divided into groups of three, and were asked to freely discuss any topic for one hour in the lab. 19 hours of speech was recorded and transcribed by members of the Korea University Spoken Language Information Lab, both phonetically and orthographically. The recording contains 174,409 words and 140,657 accentual phrases.

Children’s Spontaneous Speech Fifty-three children aged three to eight participated. 25 hours of speech was recorded and transcribed by members of the Korea University Spoken Language 12 Pragmatic Syntax

Information Lab. Each child talked with the controller through playing and reading. c. Korean Usage Frequency (Kang and Kim Corpus Search) Based on the 15 million words in the Sejong Morpho-Semantic Tagged Corpus, Kang and Kim studied the frequency of Korean words. Their corpus is a written corpus, composed of newspaper articles (23.6%), periodicals (11.7%), novels (31.3 %), essays (9.6%) and others (1.8%). d. The World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) WALS is a large database of structural (phonological, grammatical and lexical) properties of languages gathered from descriptive materials (such as reference grammars) by a team of more than 40 authors (many of them were the leading authorities on the subject). WALS Online is a joint project of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and the Max Planck Digital Library. e. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) The Corpus of Contemporary American English contains more than 385 million words of text, including 20 million words each year from 1990 to 2008, and is equally divided among spoken, fiction, popular magazines, newspapers and academic texts. f. BYU-BNC: the British National Corpus: English The British National Corpus (BNC) is a 100-million-word collection of samples of written and spoken language from a wide range of sources, designed to represent a wide cross-section of current British English, both spoken and written. I adopted Davies (2004) in particular because it has a user-friendly query syntax. The BYU-BNC is available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc. Both COCA and BYU-BNC were established by Mark Davies. g. Google Books Corpus This new interface for Google Books allows you to search more than 155 billion (155,000,000,000) words in more than 1.3 million books of American English from 1810 to 2009 (including 62 billion words from 1980 to 2009). Although this ‘corpus’ is based on Google Books data, it is not an official product of Google or Google Books, but rather it was created by Mark Davies. Let us now move to another dimension of perspective shift: namely, from written to spoken syntax.

1.2. From written syntax to spoken syntax Linguistic data properly analysed cannot be immune to prosody. Linguistic sequences need to be heard, so that syntax is in some sense observable. We cannot indeed think Perspective Shift 13 of ‘sound-less’ syntactic input. Tonal properties or phrasing patterns are not the mere reflection of syntactic architecture but indeed its ‘behind-the-scene driving force’. As noted earlier, though generative grammarians have regarded syntactic competence as being expressed in spoken, rather than written language, ironically almost every example used in the syntactic literature is from a written source – mainly provided by the linguists themselves. This is because it has been implicitly assumed that there is no significant difference between written and spoken syntax. However, natural language syntax should be able to explain linguistic competence as observed in spoken syntax – that is developed and realized within a spoken context, overcoming the biased idea that the variations observed in spoken data are nothing but mere stylistic variations. In this book, I argue that what we need to look at in linguistic studies is spoken dialogue rather than single, isolated sentences. It is interesting to note that originally, the idealized speaker-hearer was one of the key parts of the definition of linguistic competence. In Chomsky (1965:4), competence is defined as the idealized speaker- hearer’s knowledge of his language, whereas performance is the actual use of language in concrete situations. Nevertheless, in the recent paradigm of generative syntax, only ‘speaker-hearer-absent’ written sentences are treated as manifestations of linguistic competence.

Beyond footnotes

In theoretical linguistics, authors have often used ‘footnotes’ to show how spoken element(s) can contribute to the grammaticality of the given sentence. Nonetheless, it is difficult to think about basic grammatical judgements outside the context of how they are spoken. As discussed briefly in the last section, the role of non-syntactic factors in syntactic structure building cannot be marginalized. From the very beginning of generative linguistics, researchers have realized the necessity of looking at interfaces of different grammatical components. Studies on information structure in particular continue to pursue the incorporation of prosodic prominence and the newness of meanings within various word orders. Topic, focus or notions related to Information Structure are very hard to understand in a one-dimensional, purely structural perspective (see Ramchand and Reise, 2007, for an overview).

Prosody (even) in reading

Recently, Fodor (2002) has argued for the Implicit Prosody Hypothesis (IPH) shown in (10). A series of supporting evidence was observed and reported cross-linguistically thereafter (see. Jun 2003, Fodor and Kitagawa 2003, among others).

(10) Implicit Prosody Hypothesis (IPH): In silent reading, a default prosodic contour is projected onto the stimulus, and it may influence syntactic ambiguity resolution. Other things being equal, the parser favors the syntactic analysis associated with the most natural (default) prosodic contour for the construction. 14 Pragmatic Syntax

This assumes the role of hidden prosody not only in speaking and listening but even in (silent) reading. This is certainly the right way to proceed, compared to the structure- only view. However, I go one step further to argue that so-called ‘interface phenomena’ are not restricted to certain particular data alone. Rather, interface concerns highlight the need for an integrated perspective in which levels of information, representing meaning, sound and function need to be regarded as a whole package. Without considering prosody, it is not even possible to define the basic units of a linguistic structure. Carnie (2002) shows the importance of prosody in identifying the constituency of a seemingly verbless cluster (i.e. gapping). Consider (11), mentioned earlier as (8).

(11) a. Alison bakes cakes for tourists and {Caroline for her family}.

b. ???Alison bakes cakes for {tourists and Caroline} for her family.

To identify the constituency of Caroline for her family, a prosodic boundary is essential. So, (11b) sounds bizarre because the intended constituency of Caroline for her family is not secured due to wrong phrasing. {} represents prosodic phrasing. Native speakers of English use prosodic information such as intonational boundaries in anticipating upcoming conjuncts (see Shafer, 1997). Hence, when a sequence such as (12a) is given, (12c) will be the preferred conjunct, whereas when a sequence such as (12b) is given, (12d) will be preferred.

(12) a. The bear gave %{an apple to the elephant} and ..( ↑ )

b. The bear gave an apple % {to the elephant and (… ↑ )

c. an orange to the rabbit.

d. the rabbit.

Nevertheless, just like the ‘structure-alone’ view, assuming ‘prosody-alone’ as the main source of structure building is also misleading. Jun (2003) and Kang and Speer (2002) showed the role of prosody in structural disambiguation in Korean. However, measuring up the contribution of prosody alone without the right spoken context is a difficult and unrealistic aim. In other words, although the role of prosody is crucial, in actual comprehension and production, prosody is not the sole factor that needs to be taken into account. Instead, we observe that prosody used within the right context disambiguates the meaning of a sentence. We will return to this in Chapter 4. Along with prosody, context matters in ensuring appropriateness of the constituent(s). Consider (13). The constituency between the lexical items in brackets in (13d) and (13e) can be retrievable only when the right context is given along with prosody.

(13) a. What did you give to who(m) at Christmas?

b. Who did you give what at Christmas? Perspective Shift 15

c. To whom did you give what at Christmas?

d. {A rucksack to John}, {a doll to Mary} and {a music box to Sue}.

e. {John a rucksack}, {Mary a doll}, and {Sue a music box}.

For instance, the constituency between an indirect and a direct object (e.g. John a rucksack) may not be assured in (e) within the context provided by (13a). Likewise, the constituency between a direct object and an indirect object (e.g. a rucksack to John) may not be assured within the context provided by (13b). In 1.4, I will discuss how a constituent is built incrementally during the process of structure building, rather than being built all at once.

Role of prosody and context in argument structure realization

Argument(hood) and adjunct(hood) have been found at the centre of many discussions in syntax. In the following, however, I will show that even concepts such as these, along with transitivity/intransitivity, are hard to define in purely structural terms without considering how the verb is spoken, in which context, with which prosody. Either the completion of a structure or obligatoriness of an argument needs to be decided relative to consideration of prosody and context. Often, linguists use their own intuition as to the obligatory/optional nature of verbal complements in deciding argument and adjunct. However, notions such as these lack a solid empirical basis, and hence empirically sound criteria are much needed. In particular, if we adopt obligatoriness/optionalness at the single-sentence level as the most important criterion for argumenthood, we will immediately face a number of empirical problems. Consider (14).

(14) We ate well ( ↑ ).

Examples such as (14) are readily found in English, even though ate is a transitive verb and requires an explicit direct object. In languages like English, those arguments cannot be elliptical. But, is (14) ungrammatical? According to my search of BYU-BNC, about 20–25% of the time the verbs drank and ate had no visible following object. And about 80 times, drank was immediately followed by an -ly adverb (e.g. Drank deeply/ heavily) without an object. Likewise, ate was immediately followed by an -ly adverb 72 times without an object; met 238 times; studied 109 times and talked 173 times. Many transitive verbs can appear with an -ly adverb yet without a direct object. (See Levin (1993:33–40) for unexpressed object alternations.) The way in which argument structure is realized becomes more problematic in the case of ditransitive verbs. There are numerous examples in which ditransitive verbs occur without all three arguments being made explicit. And deciding whether an expression is obligatory or optional becomes more problematic in pro-drop languages: How can we decide whether the argument structure requirement is met or not when the argument(s) can be realized optionally? Structural anticipation between an 16 Pragmatic Syntax interrogative sentence and a declarative sentence differs too. For instance, even in a non pro-drop language like English, argument-dropping is okay and often observed in interrogative sentences. Consider (15). Examples are from BYU-BNC.

(15) a. Why did you give then? (no indirect and direct object)

b. Did he give a name? (no indirect object)

In (16), even native speakers of English cannot easily decide the necessity of the bracketed argument.

(16) a. Please bring (me) the document.

b. And don’t leave (the office) without it.

This becomes more problematic in the case of pro-drop languages like Korean. In the Sejong Corpus, only 17% of the time, the indirect object was observed in the case of cwuess- ‘gave’. In the case of ponayss- ‘sent’, only 8% of the time, the indirect object was observed. As we can see in Table 1.1, dative arguments with -eykey were more frequent than those with -hanthey. This is because the majority of the Sejong Corpus is written corpus. Yet, strikingly, languages with no visible subjects are much more common than languages which require visible explicit subjects. According to Dryer (2008), only 77 languages out of 674 languages under investigation required explicit subjects. Marten (2002) is radical in assuming that, in principle, the argument/adjunct distinction should be abolished, due to the problem of distinguishing them. However, acquiring the basic distinction between argument and adjunct, as well as the valence of each predicate (i.e. the necessary number of arguments), seems to form part of the basic knowledge required in language acquisition. Nam (2007) proposes the necessity of considering ‘complete information units’ in a given context in order to define argument and adjunct. Consider (17) from Nam (2007: 26). Here, complementary questions are used as a way of testing the completeness of a piece of information. Nam argues that (17B) is inadequate, because when B speaks the underlined part of the utterance, he/she is accepting what A says as self-sufficient information. Hence, the subsequent question, which reveals that in fact he/she does not have that information, contradicts the preceding utterance. This is why connections as in (17A) to (17B) are bad.

Table 1.1 Occurrence of indirect object: Ditransitive verbs

Ponayss- ‘sent’ (number of Cwuess- ‘gave’ (number of total occurrence: 865) total occurrence: 4,271) Indirect object occurrence via -eykey 62 689 Indirect object occurrence via -hanthey 7 38 Total occurrence of dative arguments 69/865 (8%) 727/4,271 (17%) Perspective Shift 17

(17) A: Jina-ka ecey mannasse. [Korean]

J-NOM yesterday met

‘Jina met (someone) yesterday.’

B: *Ah, kuraysskwuna. Kurente nwukwul mannasse?

Ah, I see. but whom met

‘Oh, I see. But then, who did she meet?’

In this book, following Nam’s (2007) view, I argue that the argument/adjunct distinction is context-bound. There are other semantic factors that influence argument realization. For instance, as shown in (18)–(19), progressive sentences are more readily expressed as intransitive sentences than those in the simple past or present tense.

(18) a. I am going ( ↑ ).

b. ??I went ( ↑ ).

(19) a. I AM studying (as a response to ‘Study hard!’) ( ↑ ).

b. ??I study ( ↑ ).

I believe that the best approach to the argument/adjunct distinction is to investigate the argument structure of each verb based on some corpus distribution, taken from spontaneous spoken corpora if possible. The argument structures for verbs listed in Levin (1993) could be the starting point of such an investigation. In Table 1.2, I have demonstrated the transitivity of some typical transitive verbs by putting them in different linguistic environments, created by non-syntactic factors. It seems that verbs like make, like and get must have an obligatory ‘it’ object in any situation. However, these three verbs and a few others seem to be exceptional, as in most cases, the argument structure of each verb, in other words, what information is required in order to yield a complete information unit, depends on how the event is perceived in the spoken context. Note that when typical transitive verbs are used as intransitive verbs, very often boundary tones either falling or rising accompany them. Along with prosody, other non-syntactic factors, such as semantic emphasis or aspectual meaning, could play a crucial role in determining purely structure-internal properties such as the argument structure of a verb. Based on the observations made earlier, we may place the verbs in Table 1.2 along a scale, such as the one shown in (20), to grade their degree of transitivity. Verbs at the right-hand side are more transitive than the ones at the left-hand side.

(20) Degree of transitivity (among typical transitive verbs)

←---drive/cook/eat------make/like/get-→ ++++transitivity 18 Pragmatic Syntax

Table 1.2 Tests for degree of transitivity (among typical transitive verbs)

Verbs -er (job) e.g. PAUSE Focus e.g. ‘I’ Particular Tense/ Obligatory ‘it’ Driver (+ adverb) drove. Aspect/Negation Object e.g. I I drove (fast). e.g. I often drive. I made it. never drove. Cook √ √ √ √ NO Drive √ √ √ √ NO Study √ √ √ √ NO Hit ? √ X √ NO Eat √ √ √ √ NO Cut ? √ √ √ NO Make √ X X X YES Like √ X X X YES Get ?? X X X YES Kill √ X X X YES/NO

1.3. From verb-centred syntax to incremental syntax Incrementally built constituents

Phillips (1996, 2003) showed that the basics of syntax, such as defining a constituent, cannot be established without considering the procedural aspects of syntactic structure building. He argued that even defining a constituent3 may be difficult without taking linear order into consideration. The same string of words may be diagnosed as a constituent according to the criteria of one constituent test, but not others. (21) taken from Phillips (2003) shows a case of constituency conflict. When coordination is taken as a test for constituency, in (21a), Gromit a biscuit passes the coordination test and thus is regarded as a constituent. In (21b), however, Gromit a biscuit cannot pass the movement test and thus is not regarded as a constituent.

Constituency conflict

(21) [Gromit a biscuit] is a constituent according to the coordination test

a. Wallace gave [Gromit a biscuit] and [Shawn some cheese] for breakfast.

[Gromit a biscuit] is NOT a constituent by movement test

b. *[VP Gromit a biscuit] Wallace gave VP* for breakfast.

Based on the constituency shift and constituency conflict phenomena, Phillips argued for the Incrementality Hypothesis as described in (22). In Figure 1.1, two constituents are circled. The one created by A and B together is a constituent at one point, but then Perspective Shift 19 that constituent is destroyed at the next stage and a new constituent between B and C is created as a result.

(22) Sentence structures are built incrementally from left to right.

XX

A B A Y

B C

Figure 1.1. Incremental constituency via build-and-revise process

As shown in Figure 1.1, Phillips assumes that syntactic relations must respect constituency at the point in the derivation when the relation is established. Yet, once this relation is licensed, constituency (between A and B) may change subsequently (i.e. be revised/destroyed), and this, he argued, was the basis for the constituency conflict observed in (21). For the first time, to my knowledge, in the generative grammarian tradition, Phillips put the issue of the ‘time-point’ of derivation, that is a time unrelated to the hidden or abstract stages of the derivation, but rather the concrete ‘real’ time, the time of understanding the sentence, at the heart of grammatical theory. His work is revolutionary in that he saw the necessity of considering the ‘real-time’ processing of linguistic structure in explaining some of the core notions of linguistic theory. He took the challenge of incrementality to the very heart of linguistic theorizing. The way in which linguistic structure is built is as important as the end product of the structure-building procedure. Though this sounds very intuitive, nevertheless, as the following quote from Phillips and Lewis (2013) shows, this was not the case in the field.

For at least 40 years it has been standard to assume that human grammatical competence is an implementation independent system, and that this system assembles sentences via bottom-to-top derivations that typically proceed in the opposite order than normal comprehension and production. We have argued that there is very little evidence for the implementation independence of human grammatical abilities, and that the motivations for bottom-to-top syntactic derivations are less than overwhelming. Meanwhile, the feasibility of the real-time approach to grammatical computation has been reinforced by linguistic and psycholinguistic evidence of recent 20 Pragmatic Syntax

years. This implies a research program for grammatical theory that goes far beyond the traditional concern with classifying acceptable and unacceptable sentences, and it suggests that grammatical theories should be accountable to a much richer body of evidence, particularly evidence on the time course of grammatical processes. This is just what we should want. (Phillips and Lewis 2013)

The basis for incrementality is very compelling. Linguistic structures are built incrementally – bit by bit – from ‘left to right’, instead of being built all at once when all the requisite information becomes available. In other words, humans are able to conjecture the meaning of what they are hearing as it goes on without any delay, regardless of the location of the verb. In fact, such incremental combinatory ability is easily observable in other areas of cognition too. Nevertheless, explaining the incremental perspective is made difficult by the assumption that only the verb encodes combinatory information in structure building. I will call this view the verb-only or verb-centred perspective. Most grammars have a verb-centred view in structural composition, where a structure is built all at once by the verb, as the verb carries all the necessary combinatory information. Though it is the verb which projects a basic structural array, including argument structure, this book shows that it is not solely verbs which initiate and complete structure building. As we shall see in section 4.2, the verb-centred view cannot offer a satisfying account of the nature of incrementality in verb-final languages despite the fact that they comprise more than half of the world’s languages. What this implies practically is that native speakers of verb-final languages do not andcannot understand what is being said before the final verb is encountered. This is hard to believe, particularly given the frequency with which verbless utterances are encountered in everyday language use. As Nordlinger and Sadler (2006) among others discuss, it seems that the existence of verbless clauses is language universal. In this book, I argue that not only verbs but also morphological cases or pragmatic pressure-driven principles such as locality and prosody to certain extent are responsible for incremental structure building. In particular, I consider particles in Korean as ‘little predicates’ in virtue of their structure-unfolding ability. The argument in this book shares the insights of Phillips (1996, 2003), but instead of assuming that a structure is constantly and incrementally revised – in other words, built and destroyed – I assume that an initially-only drafted structure is monotonically updated as the structure grows progressively.

Syntax for not-yet-complete sequences

Raising the issue of incremental processing in structure building poses another challenge to orthodox syntactic discussions. Does syntax need to be concerned only with ‘completely finished’ structural sequences? Consider (4) again from Stowe (1986), repeated here as (23). As we have seen earlier, Stowe reports that native speakers of English show slowdown at us in the sentence in (23b). I said earlier that the moment of Perspective Shift 21 strangeness that English native speakers will experience as they encounter us in (23b) is not accidental but what we need to pay attention to.

(23) No slowdown at us: a. My brother wanted to know if Ruth will bring us home to Mom at Christmas.

Slowdown at us: b. ?? My brother wanted to know who Ruth will bring us??home to at Christmas.

Within the verb-centred perspective, it is hard to think of what needs to be explained and even how we could approach the problem. Yet, within an incremental perspective, where establishing on-going structure is also a target of explanation, we indeed are committed to characterizing the syntax of not-yet-complete structures as above. In order to provide an explanatory account of structure building for not-yet- complete structures, we need to have syntactic architecture which assumes a step- wise mechanism of structure building, and which details the process of structure building at each point of derivation, regardless of the position of a verb. Often, as we shall see from Chapter 4 onwards, in explaining similar type of compositional patterns, it is assumed that the upcoming structure is to be built ‘before’ even getting to the end (see the explanations in Combinatory Categorial Grammar, Chapter 4 (Steedman, 2000, Baldridge 2002). Yet, I think the best way of capturing the incremental growth of a structure is by having the notion of ‘underspecification’ and subsequent update as the backbone of the architecture as in Dynamic Syntax (DS, Cann et al. 2005). What this book aims to do is not just to provide a competing grammar for contemporary generative grammar. The strict comparison between the generative frameworks and the syntactic architecture I am going to propose is not possible because we are not looking at the same object within the same angle and perspective. That is, they are looking at the asymmetry between the spoken and the unspeakable structure. Yet, I am going to put more focus on the asymmetry between the spoken and the speakable-yet-unspoken structure, though I aim to incorporate the former asymmetry too in this architecture of the grammar I am proposing.

1.4. Chapter summary While maintaining the spirit of the generativists, I aim to draw attention to the areas of natural language syntax which have been ignored so far, because of the ‘static’ viewpoint on linguistic structure building, as well as the ‘biased’ ideas promoted by the competence and performance distinction. One of the main goals of this book is to show that the speakable-yet-unspoken structures indeed reflect another aspect of linguistic competence, which I call procedural competence – dynamic aspects of innate knowledge of language. I will show that a linguistic theory can provide a more elegant, explanatorily adequate analysis when a dynamic view is adopted both for already explained phenomena and for phenomena that are puzzling for more static 22 Pragmatic Syntax frameworks. I believe that to capture/explain procedural competence, the putative grammar should assume a dynamic, non-static syntactic architecture. Most linguistic theories, however, do not have any mechanism for incorporating the dynamic growth of a structure or the resource-sensitive nature of syntactic choice in the grammar formalism itself. As we shall see in Chapter 4, this creates a serious problem when one tries to explain the empirical challenges posed by verb-final languages, since a verb alone is assumed to carry all the combinatory information for a sentence’s composition. Within this view, building an incremental, partial structure is expected to be impossible in verb-final languages because verbs come last therein. Yet, indeed, a growing body of empirical evidence shows that this is not the case. Native speakers of those languages can indeed incrementally build a structure just like native speakers of English. Explaining how this is possible creates a vast challenge for most static, verb-centred grammars and consequently brings forward the necessity for an alternative grammar which can more adequately address those challenges. 2

Economically Motivated Syntax

Quickly, simply and unambiguously

In this chapter, I will show that structural variations are not accidental but are economically motivated, unless intended otherwise. In other words, native speakers do not produce all the logically possible well-formed strings with equal frequency in real language use, but strongly prefer the structural alternatives that are most ‘economic’ in the process of building each structure in order to maximize efficiency in structure building. This, I believe, is the hidden, yet real source and motivation of structure building. I say that efficiency is the hidden motivation, since in recent Chomskian paradigms morpho-syntactic features are regarded as the only valid structural motivations to consider. Yet, in fact, it is not just morpho-syntactic features but the pragmatic pressure to achieve efficiency that guides diverse patterns of linguistic structures. The desire to cling to morpho-syntactic features in fact originates from the need to build a framework with a solid, concrete and syntactically visible trigger for each variation. Nevertheless, it is too much to rely on a rather limited set of morpho-syntactic features to provide an explanatory account of the efficiency- driven nature of syntactic variations. As we shall return to in Chapter 3, it is surprising how few languages in the world in fact have gender, case or number – the supposedly prototypical morpho-syntactic features. In this chapter, we will see in particular the following three factors to be considered in making economic choices in structural variations.

(1) Factors of economic choices

(i) Length matters: short distance is strongly preferred in resolving any grammatical dependency.

(ii) Simplicity matters: a non-complex structural option is strongly preferred in resolving any grammatical dependency.

(iii) Non-ambiguity matters: native speakers develop a structure-building routine in order to avoid any ambiguity.

Perhaps, we can say that the motto of structure building in terms of cost-saving economy is realized in building a structure ‘quickly, simply and unambiguously’. The economic choices in syntactic productions are readily observed when we consider 24 Pragmatic Syntax step-by-step, incremental structural growth in natural language syntax. Notions such as economy and locality have always been at the heart of grammatical theory, as we shall see in Chapter 4. Nevertheless, barely any account has been given as to why this is the case, and it is unclear what the implications of such findings are in relation to the ideal speaker’s linguistic competence. Often, they are presented as being independently motivated rather than from the basic design principles of each theory. I want to tackle this point, arguing that explaining economic choices should be at the very centre of syntactic architecture and must be properly explained within the basic set-up. In this chapter, I propose (2) as the goal or aim of processes of syntactic structure building.

(2) In human communication, native speakers aim to optimize their syntactic structure building (both production and comprehension) by achieving the proposition as quickly as possible with minimized structure-building effort, whenever possible.

In the following sections, I will show how efficiency is achieved through short-distance preference (Section 2.0), through simple-structure preference (Section 2.1) and also through establishing non-ambiguous structural routines for each interpretation (Section 2.2).

2.0. Distance matters Simply speaking, distance matters in syntactic variations. In particular, any sort of grammatical dependency is preferred to be resolved as quickly as possible. Subject-verb distance is also preferred to be minimized wherever possible. This observation does not just hold in the case of English alone but also in languages like Korean or Japanese, known as strict verb-final languages. Hawkins (1994) shows a series of typological evidence for this claim. Let us consider the examples we discussed in Chapter 1 again. (3) is from Stowe (1986) and (4) from Wasow (2002). The cause of unnaturalness in both examples is due to the expectation of resolving grammatical dependency as soon as possible. As discussed in Chapter 1, in (3b) this expectation is discouraged because us fills the gap which who is expected to fill. (4b) is strange because of the increased time in recognizing the phrasal verb pick up.

(3) Efficiency asymmetry

No slowdown at us:

a. My brother wanted to know if Ruth will bring us home to Mom at Christmas.

Slowdown at us:

b. ??My brother wanted to know who Ruth will bring us?? home to at Christmas.

(4) Frequency asymmetry

Frequently observed:

a. Pat picked up a very large mint-green hard cover book. Economically Motivated Syntax 25

Hardly observed:

b. ??Pat picked a very large mint-green hard cover book up.

The distance issue is puzzling in contemporary syntactic theory. Simply, it is because there is no length restriction – which is prosodic in nature – assumed in syntactic configuration. As we now turn to, however, Hawkins (1994) argued for the role of this length effect in explaining syntactic choices – particularly in explaining competing word orders.

Grasp the structure as soon as possible: Hawkins (1994, 2004)

The essence of Hawkins’ (1994) claim and the works afterwards is to assume that humans build syntactic structure in the most cost-saving manner and this is reflected in the use of language, evidenced by sufficiently sized corpora. In particular, he showed that the structure which reveals its overall skeleton as quickly as possible is strongly preferred. Consider (5). Hawkins argued that (5a) is preferred to (5b) simply because you can grasp the structural skeleton more quickly in this way.

(5) a. The man vp[waited pp1 [for his son]pp2[in the cold but not unpleasant wind]].

(the structure can be grasped once the underlined section has been read/heard)

b. The man vp[waited pp2[in the cold but not unpleasant wind]]pp1 [for his son]].

(the structure can be grasped once the underlined section has been read/heard)

Hawkins’ insight is backed up by a series of synchronic and diachronic data as well as large corpora investigation (see Hawkins 1994, 2004, for an overview). It is surprising how much empirical data this simple principle (which does not seem to be syntactic at all) could explain. Nevertheless, Hawkins’ way of calculation is flawed because it calculates merely the number of words, without considering the prosodic length. What would happen if one word is significantly long in terms of syllable length?

Audible length matters: One breath condition

Let’s take one example in English. A phrasal verb pick up with an intervening object was found around 3,971 times in the 100 million words British National Corpus. In principle, any number of words could appear between pick and up in English. Yet, 99.5% of the time, only one or two lexical items with one syllable occurred between pick and up. No examples were found with an object that has more than four words between pick and up. Native speakers never produce any arbitrarily long grammatical dependency. Rather, what they produce is in accordance with prosodic constraints. In my observation, it seems that, when possible, it is preferred that the two lexical items that show grammatical dependency should be pronounced in the same prosodic unit. This, I call the one breath condition. 26 Pragmatic Syntax

One ‘breath’ often coincides with the Intonational Phrase (IP). According to Shin et al. (2012), in the case of Korean, an Intonational Phrase contains about seven syllables. This in other words means that crucial phrasal constituents tend to be produced within the length of seven syllables. If an expression becomes too long, which happens in the case of Sino-Korean vocabulary, native speakers of Korean tend to cut them into smaller expressions but repeat the case particle to ensure that they all form one semantic constituent. As we shall see in Chapter 3, even spontaneously inserted expressions tend to keep this one breath condition. In Sejong Spoken Corpus, the nominative particle -i/-ka occurred 52,542 times. In principle, there is no way to limit the length of a NP. Yet, interestingly, words with three or four syllables comprised 73% of the total occurrence of nominative NPs (three- syllable words 17,066 times and four-syllable words 214,344 times.) The average length of nominative NPs was 4.7 syllables, including nominative particles – which are all one syllable. In other words, NPs that had nominative particles had an average of 3.7 syllables. Table 2.1 shows the number of syllables for nominative NPs. Likewise, NPs with -eykey, -hanthey (‘to’), -uro (‘towards’) occurred 9,376 times in Sejong Spoken Corpus. Words of three, four or five syllables comprised 93% of the total occurrence of nominative NPs (three-syllable words: 2,585 times, four-syllable words: 3,874 times and five-syllable words: 2,297 times). The average length of nominative NPs was 6.1 syllables, including the two-syllable particles (i.e. -eykey, -hanthey (‘to’), -uro). In other words, NPs that had those particles had an average of 4.1 syllables. Table 2.2 shows the average length of an NP string without the particle. What the above tables show is that the length of constituents is often within the limit of one IP or smaller unit that fits wholly within one breath. I think this, as we shall revisit in Chapter 8, is the basis of multiple nominative/accusative constructions in Korean and Japanese. That is, one of the important reasons for native speakers of Japanese/Korean to use multiple case-marked constructions is to be able to produce the case-marked NPs in one breath. Note that multiple nominative/accusative phenomena often occur when the first NP in such a sequence is relatively long.

Table 2.1. Average syllable length of NP with nominative particle Economically Motivated Syntax 27

Table 2.2 Average syllable length of NP (with -eykey, -hanthey (‘to’), -uro (‘towards’) particles)

Though the actual length may differ from language to language, this sort of length consideration plays an important role in syntactic production. That is, far from being arbitrary, native speakers seem to produce syntactic structure in accordance with their prosodic structure. Similar observations can be made about phrasal verbs and idioms. Cross-linguistically, one can hardly think of idioms or phrasal verbs that go beyond the limit of one Intonational Phrase.

2.1. Simplicity matters Not only is length in the linear sequence a factor that plays a role in processing but non-complex, simple structuring is strongly preferred in structural variations. In other words, grammatical dependency is preferred to be resolved within its ‘local’ structure instead of ‘non-local’ structure or any arbitrary structure. For instance, consider (6). The sentence-initial expression On Sunday in (6) can be interpreted in principle both in the matrix clause (i.e. time of hearing the news) and in the embedded clause (i.e. time of going home).

(6) On Sunday I heard that Chris went back home.

In the BYU-BNC, temporal expressions such as on *day (on Monday, on Sunday, etc.) occurred 228 times at the sentence-initial position. In all those examples, sentence- initial expressions were invariably interpreted within the matrix clause. Sometimes, non-optimal structural choices yield ungrammaticality. Consider examples from Carnie (2002:319). In both raising and wh-island constructions, ungrammaticality results when an element tries to move to a landing site higher than the ‘closest potential one’ (underlined here). We will return to this discussion in Chapter 4. (7) shows the case of raising and (8) shows the wh-island construction. 28 Pragmatic Syntax

(7) *[ TP Marki seems that [TP it is likely [ti to have left]]].

first available position

(8) *[ CP Who i did [TP Mark claim [CP what j [TP ti loved tj]]]].

Consider one more example. To whom in (9) can also in principle be interpreted within any level of clausal embedding. However, it seems that the matrix clause interpretation, which is to be the local option, is strongly preferred.

(9) a. To whom does the zebra say that the giraffe was eating a large strawberry?(matrix clause interpretation of to whom)

b. To whom does the zebra think that the giraffe wasgiving a large strawberry? (embedded clause interpretation of to whom)

In order to explore how native speakers interpret to whom, I conducted a questionnaire study as follows:

Interpretation of to whom in complex clause

This questionnaire contained 18 experimental items, in whichto whom could potentially be interpreted in the matrix or in the embedded clause as in (10). 36 unrelated filler items were intermixed with the experimental items. 34 students, aged 11–19, who are native speakers of English, volunteered to take the test.1 They were asked to answer the following questions in their answer sheets after looking at each picture in Figure 2.1.2

(10) To whom does the zebra say that the giraffe was giving a strawberry?

a. If to whom is interpreted in the matrix clause, the answer should be the rabbit.

b. If to whom is interpreted in the embedded clause, the answer should be the elephant.

Around 84% of the time, the participants preferred to whom to be interpreted within the matrix clause, although to whom can be interpreted in both the matrix and embedded clause. To further explore the interpretation of sentence-initial to whom, Economically Motivated Syntax 29

Figure 2.1 Matrix clause reading or embedded clause reading?

I also extracted the sentence-initial to whom from the BYU-BNC. The results were as follows, the number in the brackets denoting the occurrence: To whom is (12), to whom does (5), to whom did (5), to whom was (3), to whom are (8), to whom will (3), to whom would (7), to whom could (1), to whom might (1), to whom can (2). As we can see, sentence-initial dative wh-expressions are not so common and in most examples, only one structure was indeed available for the sentence-initial expression to whom. In the correction-like situation, one can often hear a sentence where wh-expressions like to whom are added at the very end as in (11).

(11) (Sorry, hang on) the zebra says that the giraffe was giving a strawberry to whom?

In this case, to whom will be interpreted in the embedded clause. The strong preference for localized structure building as in (10) is not because say is the first verb that appears in the sequence so it takes to whom as an argument. Note that in verb-final languages, for instance, the ordering of embedded and matrix verb changes. Hence, the matrix verb indeed appears last in verb-final languages. Instead, in this case, say is the first verb which occurs in the local, same structural domain with to whom and that is why to whom is resolved within a template projected by say. Two factors – length and simplicity concerns – interact in structural realizations in order to establish a proposition – as quickly as possible. Yet, most of the time, these two concerns are not conflicting with each other but instead go hand in hand. We will see more examples in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, I will show how to measure the economic structure building within Dynamic Syntax in relation to Hawkins’ calculation. 30 Pragmatic Syntax

2.2. Non-ambiguity matters Another way for economic choices is to develop a structure-building routine that avoids any ambiguity. For instance, if the phrase high school boys and girls is ambiguous in that high school can only modify boys but not girls, English native speakers developed a routine that avoids such ambiguity. That is, the most natural reading of this string is to apply high school to both boys and girls. In particular, we will discuss the following examples in this section.

(i) Location of modifier (ii) Natural coordination vs. accidental coordination (iii) Frozen scope

As we shall see, though prosody plays an important role in structural disambiguation, it seems that native speakers tend to develop independent routines (i.e. alternative structures) when there is any room for ambiguity – before prosodic distinction is needed.

Location of modifier: Clever John’s brother

Smith (2004:144) discusses the possible ambiguity of ‘black cab driver’. The ambiguity arises because the adjective black can modify the cab or the driver of the cab. Consider Figure 2.2.

Black

Black Driver Cab Cab Driver

Figure 2.2. {Black {cab driver}} vs. {{Black cab} driver}

This sort of ambiguity has been discussed extensively and cross-linguistically in the literature. However, structural ambiguity such as this, which has been discussed so often in linguistic textbooks, does not seem to be so productive in real use. Native speakers of British English use ‘black cab driver’ mainly to refer to the driver who drives a black cab. Not only in this particular structure but also in general, local structure-building options are preferred over non-local structure-building options across languages. Let us see the evidence from the English and the Korean corpus. Consider the structures in (12) and (13). In (12a) and (13a), who is clever? Is it John or his brother? And in (12b) and (13b) which is yellow? Is it the box or the top of a box? Can it be Economically Motivated Syntax 31 ambiguous? It seems that invariably native speakers of English will answer that it is John who is clever and it is the box that is yellow. The same is true in the case of Korean too.

(12) a. Clever John’s brother came to the party.

b. Yellow box’s top is missing.

(13) a. Chakhan John-ui tongsayng [Korean]

good John-GEN brother

‘Good John’s brother’

b. Noran sangca-ui ttwukkyeng [Korean]

yellow box-GEN top

‘Yellow box’s top’

Ambiguity of this sort has drawn a significant amount of attention in theoretical linguistics. Researchers have argued about the role of prosody in disambiguating a structure as above. See Jun (2003), among others, for typological evidence for this. Kiaer (2007) argues that in order to apply the modifier not to the immediately following NP as in Figure 2.3(a), there needs to be a strong Intonational Phrase boundary. However, what is quite striking to me is that such ambiguity does not even arise in a structure as in (12) or (13). My hunch is that native speakers will answer the same regardless of the actual sound input in providing a local structure for sequences in (12) and (13). The two types of branch options available are shown in their generic form in Figure 2.3.

(a) Non-local (b) Local option (preferred)

Small

Small A B A B

Figure 2.3. Preference to local structuring

In the Google books corpora, I have found the examples which have the following structures. The * symbol represents a single, arbitrary word.

(14) a. small [*]’s [*]:47,289 times (e.g. small boy’s book)

b. big [*]’s [*]: 108,587 times (e.g. big city’s entrance) 32 Pragmatic Syntax

Skimming through those examples, I hardly found any cases in which non-local structure- building options were preferred – where small and big would be applicable not to the immediate nouns but to the non-immediate nouns. We conclude that again a local option is strongly preferred to its counterpart as in Figure 2.3. It is hard to interpret this result as being merely accidental. A similar result is found in Korean too. In my Sejong Corpus search, structures such as (13a) particularly with the chakhan (‘good’) adjective occurred 310 times, and on no occasion was chakhan applied to the second noun. In fact, I did a further search for the sequence given in (15). The adjectives listed in (15) occurred 1,045,593 times, although this particular structure as in (15) occurred only 182 times. And among those 182 examples, there was not even one instance where the adjective was exclusively applied to the second noun.

(15) Noran/ppalkan/paran/kemun/hayan/etwuwun/yeyppun A ui B

yellow/red/blue/black/white/dark/pretty A GEN B

When native speakers of Korean aim to modify the head noun instead of the immediately following noun, they do not choose a structure as in (12) or (13) but instead, they will choose a structure as in (16). Note that the adjectives chakhan (‘good’) and noran (‘yellow’) are placed before the second NP.

(16) a. John-ui chakhan tongsayng [Korean]

John-GEN good brother

‘John’s good brother’

b. Sangca-ui noran ttwukkyeng [Korean]

box-GEN yellow top

‘The box’s yellow top’

I think the above observation in English and Korean could be applicable to other languages too. Though prosodic break plays an important role in cuing the non-local structure, native speakers rather choose a different structure instead of using the same structure that is distinguishable by prosody alone. In this way, they could minimize any misunderstanding or ambiguity and hence can reach the goal of efficient structure building. A disambiguation strategy such as this is the major driving force of choosing a structure and is far stronger than any feature-driven motivation.

Natural coordination vs. accidental coordination

Coordinated NPs in principle can be treated like one NP. But, this is not the case all the time. Consider the following: Economically Motivated Syntax 33

(17) Five linguists and philosophers came to the talk.

(17) can be ambiguous because five can modify the sum of linguists and philosophers or just the group of linguists. This sort of ambiguity has been also discussed vastly in the literature. However, as we shall see, such ambiguity does not seem to be productive in real language use.

(Naturally) Coordinated NPs as ‘one’ NP Wälchli (2005) discusses two types of coordination: natural and accidental. Natural coordination refers to cases where two conjuncts are ‘semantically’ closely related (e.g. mum and dad, boys and girls) and are expected to co-occur. On the other hand, accidental coordination refers to cases where the two conjuncts are distant from each other (e.g. boys and chairs, apples and three babies) and are not expected to co-occur. If the two NPs form natural coordination, they tend to be interpreted as a whole. But, if they are accidentally put together, they are interpreted independently. There are many instances of natural coordination where two conjuncts are frozen into one concept. This is called a co-compound. The ordering inside a co-compound seems to be fixed, and it is often the case that the two conjuncts are structurally, semantically and prosodically similar to each other. Consider (18). The ordering shown in (18b) is rarely found.

(18) a. boys and girls, bread and butter, mum and dad, heaven and earth

b. ??girls and boys, butter and bread, dad and mum, earth and heaven

Although by definition ordering should not matter in logical coordination due to permutability (i.e. A+B=B+A), sometimes the order is important. For instance, unlike prototypical coordination, sometimes reversing the order between conjuncts changes the meaning. The meanings of the two sentences in (19) are not the same.

(19) a. This train stops at Reading, Slough and London Paddington.

b. This train stops at London Paddington, Reading and Slough.

Flint (2009) presents the 500 most frequently used noun conjuncts in English based on a BYU-BNC search. All of them, in my view, are naturally coordinated and behave as an un-destroyable single unit. Some of the frequently used NPs are given in (20). Note that the average number of syllables is one or two and that, most of the time, the two nouns of a given conjunct have a similar number of syllables.

(20) Men and women (1,950), England and Wales (1,634), Health and safety (1,040), Trade and industry (820), Research and development (719), Goods and services (639), Science and technology (612), Mr and Mrs (596), Law and order (584), Education and training (532), Name and address (501), Mum and dad (493), Women and children (487), Bed and breakfast (477), North and South (434), Husband and wife (404), Oil and gas (391), Terms and conditions (388), East and West (376), Profit and loss (361), 34 Pragmatic Syntax

Management and business (338), Boys and girls (337), Family and Friends (329), Bits and pieces (328), Education and science (326), Brothers and sisters (318), Town and country (317), Day and night (314), Radio and television (274), Ladies and gentlemen (265), Hardware and software (264), Time and money (263), Women and men (249), Strengths and weaknesses (243), Mother and father (242), Life and death (239), Fruit and vegetables (233), Industry and commerce (222), Towns and cities (218), Art and design (217), Fish and chips (214), Theory and practice (211), Customs and excise (208), Time and effort (205), Head and shoulders (203), Bread and butter (199), Rules and regulations (199), Salt and pepper (196), Arms and legs (195), Schools and colleges (194)

Due to their strong ‘unity’, those NPs are often treated as ‘one’ NP. Hence, if modifiers precede the coordinated NP, it tends to be applied to the NP as a ‘whole’.

(21) High school boys and girls came to the party.

(Both boys and girls are high school students.)

In the Google books corpora, I found the following coordinated NPs which are followed by the prepositional phrase starting with in the. Hardly did any examples have an interpretation where each conjunct is interpreted separately; instead, it is natural to interpret both conjuncts in the same situation or location.

(22) boys and girls in the … (18,040 times), men and women in the … (58,038 times), friends and relatives in the … (2,653 times)

Numeral modifiers tend to yield ‘collective’ readings (23a) rather than ‘distributive’ readings (23b).

(23) About twenty to thirty boys and girls came to the party.

a. The total number of boys plus girls is about twenty to thirty.

b. The total number of boys is about twenty to thirty and the total number of girls is about twenty to thirty.

Similar results are found in Korean too, which we now turn to.

Questionnaire study: Collective vs. distributive reading in natural and accidental coordination Two types of questionnaires (A/B) were given to 47 native speakers of Korean aged 15–16. In the A-type test, the two conjoined NPs were naturally coordinated (i.e. boys and girls). In the B-type test, the two conjoined NPs were accidentally coordinated (i.e. students and firemen). In both types of test, students were asked to answer a question like (24) which reveals how they have interpreted the conjoined NPs – either distributively or collectively. Mixed readings were also possible where the numeral expressions applied only to the first conjunct. Economically Motivated Syntax 35

(24) a. NPs are naturally coordinated:

sey-myeng-ui nam.haksayng-kwa ye.haksayng [Korean]

three-CLhuman-GEN male.student-CONJ female.student

Three boys and girls ate a hamburger. One hamburger costs 1,250 won. All the hamburgers were paid for by the head teacher. How much did the head teacher have to pay?

b. NPs are accidentally coordinated:

sey-myeng-ui nam.haksayng-kwa kyengchal [Korean]

three- CLhuman-GEN male.student-CONJ policemen

Three students and policemen ate a hamburger. One hamburger costs 1,250 won. All the hamburgers were paid for by the head teacher. How much did the head teacher have to pay?

The result of this test is as follows. When the conjuncts were naturally coordinated, the collective reading was dominant (71%). However, when the conjuncts were accidentally coordinated, the mixed reading was dominant (43%), and the collective reading was chosen only 33.2% of the time. It is noticeable that the collective reading was halved with accidental coordination, compared to natural coordination.3 According to the Sejong Corpus, the following examples in (25) showed collective readings. Sometimes, numeral expressions that come after the conjunct show the same collective reading, as in (25d). If a distributive reading is intended, distributive expressions such as kakkak ‘each’ or the particle ssik tend to occur.

(25) a. Supayk.myeng-ui enronin-kwa kyoswu [Korean]

several.hundred CLhuman-GEN journalist-CONJ professor

‘Several hundred journalists and professors’

b. 15 myeng-ui uisa-wa pyenhosa

15 CLhuman-GEN doctor-CONJ lawyer

‘15 doctors and lawyers’

c. 88 kay-ui susca-wa kiho

88 CLthing-GEN number-CONJ symbol

‘88 numbers and symbols’ 36 Pragmatic Syntax

d. Myelchi-ces-kwa saywu-ces-ul kakkak 1kg-ssik

anchovy-sauce CONJ shrimp-sauce-ACC each 1kg-each

‘1kg each of anchovy sauce and shrimp sauce’

The apparent lack of ambiguity between collective, distributive and mixed readings in co-ordination also shows that a disambiguation strategy to increase processing efficiency is encoded in the grammar. The above example also shows how semantic closeness plays a significant role in structural variations.

Comitative construction: Accidentally coordinated NPs Often, as Levin (1993) shows, coordinated structures can be paraphrased as a comitative with construction. See (26). Reciprocal predicates such as meet have the following patterns of alternation.

(26) a. Jill and Sarah met.

b. Jill met with Sarah.

c. Jill met Sarah.

However, the meaning of each sentence in (26) may not be exactly the same, although the propositional meaning of the three variants is the same. According to my BYU-BNC corpus search in English and Sejong Corpus search in Korean, the more accidental the nature of coordination is, the more likely native speakers are to choose a comitative with construction over a coordinated construction. At the same time, it is more likely for them to choose a coordinated structure when the two conjuncts are semantically closely related to each other, forming a natural coordination.

Evidence of unity: Preposition and particle sharing In English, when two conjuncts are syntactically, semantically and prosodically similar or equivalent, they prefer to share the preceding prepositions. (This seems to be opposite in the case of French.)4 Consider the following. (27a) and (27b) are both perfectly grammatical and can mean exactly the same thing (i.e. one event in which John is giving a book to two people simultaneously).

(27) a. John gave a book to Mary and Sue.

b. John gave a book to Mary and to Sue.

However, it seems that in cases where two conjuncts are not equivalent, native speakers tend to repeat the preposition as in (28a) rather than share the preposition as in (28b).

(28) a. I would like to give thanks to my mum and also to the people who helped enormously from the beginning. Economically Motivated Syntax 37

b. I would like to give thanks to my mum and also the people who helped enormously from the beginning.

(29) shows the result of a BYU-BNC search for prepositional phrase coordination. As we can see, ‘don’t repeat’ seems to be the default option in English, all other things being equal. We assume that the meaning difference between the ‘repeat’ and ‘non- repeat’ options is marginal.

(29) BYU-BNC: Coordination (two conjuncts are proper nouns)

Preposition Repeat Don’t repeat/share

For 37 (for A and for B) 514 (for A and B)

Of 71 (of A and of B) 1,098 (of A and B)

To 47 (to A and to B) 364 (to A and B)

Additionally, NP conjuncts that share the definite articlethe have been found 5,211 times, whereas NP conjuncts which do not share the definite article occurred about 920 times. It seems that the more closely related the two conjuncts are in their meaning and the more they appear to form one semantic unit, the more common it is that they share the article – as in the bread and butter versus the bread and the wine. The conjoined noun the health and safety was found 5,206 times. It seems that in this case, the meaning of each conjunct is subsumed under the newly created meaning through coordination. Similarly, case particles are preferred to be shared in Korean when the two conjuncts are semantically, syntactically and prosodically similar. Consider (30) and (31). As in English, though both forms are grammatical, in coordination, there is a strong preference not to repeat case particles.

(30) a. Jina-wa Mina-ka hakkkyo-ey kasseyo. [Korean] : preferred

J-CONJ M-NOM school-at went

b. Jina-ka kuriko Mina-ka hakkkyo-ey kasseyo

J-NOM CONJ M-NOM school-at went

‘Jina and Mina went to school.’

(31) a. Yuna-ka sakwa-lul Jina-wa Mina-hanthey cwuesseyo. [Korean]: preferred

Y-NOM apple-ACC J-CONJ M-DAT gave

b. Yuna-ka sakwa-lul Jina-hanthey kuriko Mina-hanthey cwuesseyo.

Y-NOM apple-ACC J-DAT CONJ M-DAT gave

‘Yuna gave an apple to Jina and Mina.’ 38 Pragmatic Syntax

This observation is supported by data extracted from corpora. (32) shows results from the Sejong Corpus. Though in principle, case particles can be repeated, as in (30b) and (31b), they rarely are, as (32) shows. Looking closely at the 420 examples where the dative case particle is not repeated, it is hard to find any example where the semantic relation between the conjuncts is accidental rather than natural.

(32) Particle Sharing in Coordinated NPs

Repeat Don’t repeat/share

NOM 4 (A-NOM and B-NOM) 14,669 (A and B)-NOM

DAT 2 (A-DAT and B-DAT) 420 (A and B)-DAT

In the following, I will also show how scope relations in each structure are frozen in the actual language use.

Frozen scope

Scope ambiguity between negation and other operators has also been frequently discussed since the inception of generative syntax and semantics (see May 1977, 1985). However, again what has been undoubtedly regarded as ambiguous does not seem to be really ambiguous because of crystal clear routines in English and Korean grammar. Let us first consider the distribution of total and partial negation in English. The distribution of total/partial negation reflects English native speakers’ strong tendency to avoid any ambiguity. Consider the following.

(33) a. All (students) did not come to Kim’s party. [partial negation]

b. Not all (students) came to Kim’s party. [partial negation]

In principle, (33a) should be ambiguous. First, it could mean that some of the students came to Kim’s party, but not all. This is known as partial negation. These sentences can also mean that nobody turned up to Kim’s party. This is known as total negation. Though both readings are plausible, native speakers rarely understand these sentences as meaning that nobody came to the party (i.e. total negation). To infer total negation, native speakers of English would choose one of the constructions given in (34) instead.

(34) a. No students came to Kim’s party. [total negation]

b. There isn’t any one who came to Kim’s party. [total negation]

A search of the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) strongly supports this observation, as shown in (35). Native speakers of American English showed a clear preference towards either total or partial negation for each structure. Economically Motivated Syntax 39

(35) COCA Result on Total/Partial Negation in English

Expression Occurrence Preference

All plus not 328 partial negation (100%)

Not plus all 10,817 partial negation

Not plus any 3,066 total negation

Every plus n’t or not 0 N/A

Not plus every 1,566 Partial

English native speakers must have tentatively encoded knowledge relating to total/ partial negation along the lines of the following formula: no or not any is for total negation, but not all or all not is for partial negation. Notice that sentences like the one in (36), found frequently in linguistics textbooks due to their very evident ambiguity, are hardly ever found in the corpora. According to my BYU-BNC search, only one example has been found, and that was taken from a linguistics textbook.5

(36) Grammatical, yet never used (Every plus Not)

Every student didn’t come to Kim’s party.

Notice that one cannot regard the sentence in (36) as ungrammatical, although it is never used. This shows the gradient and multidimensional nature of mental grammar, which we will turn to in Chapter 4. Grammatical-yet-hardly-used structures, I think, belong to the non-core, peripheral parts of the grammar. The following examples also show that the scope relation between negation and other operators is fixed rather than flexible. The sequences of the two sentences in (37a–b) are not natural. This is because one of the logically possible readings (i.e. the reading given in (ii)) is very weak or rarely used. If the readings (aii) and (bii) are as readily available as the readings of (ai) and (bi), (37a–b) should sound ok.

(37) a. ???Mary didn’t come yesterday because she was sick. She was very well.

(i) The cause of absence is sickness.

(ii) The cause of absence is not sickness.

b. ????Mary isn’t late all the time. She is so punctual.

(i) Mary is usually late, but not all the time.

(ii) Mary isn’t late. This is true all the time.

Of course, negation can have a wide scope reading as in (38) with the appropriate prosody, particularly in a sarcastic context. (38) means that the reason of coming is something else than the speaker’s own desire. 40 Pragmatic Syntax

(38) I didn’t come here because I wanted to.

In the BYU-BNC, a structure with ‘n’t [**] because’ occurred 379 times. Most of the time, the causal phrase was not under the scope of negation. In other words, interpretations like (38) were rare. Consider some of the examples found in the BYU- BNC as in (39).

(39) a. Stella did n’t go because she was under age, and besides no one had thought to ask her.

b. I could n’t go because I fell off my horse one day and broke my leg.

c. I did n’t go because I was suddenly seized by an overwhelming passion for him.

d. I did n’t go because Harvey and I are through.

e. And someone said he did n’t go because he thought it meant we weren’t confirmed!

Similar observations can be found in Korean too. Just as in English, the reading given in (40ii) rarely occurs contrary to the observations generally made in theoretical linguistics (see Nam 1999 for instance). Almost without exception, native speakers will say (41) instead of (40), with a contrastive topic particle -un, when the (ii) reading is intended.

(40) Mom-i apha-se hakkyo-ey oci an-ass-eyo. [Korean]

body-NOM sick-because school-at come NEG-PAST-DECL

(i) The cause of absence is sickness. (√)

(ii) The cause of absence is not sickness. (X)

(41) Mom-i apha-se hakkyo-ey an-on-kess-un ani-yeyo.

body-NOM sick-because school-at come NEG-come-thing-TOP NEG-DECL

(i) The cause of absence is sickness. (X)

(ii) The cause of absence is not sickness. (√)

Song (1971) argued that sentences like (42) are ambiguous and can have both readings (i) and (ii). The scope of negation in Korean has been widely discussed since that time. Nevertheless, potentially ambiguous sentences like the one in (42) are not ambiguous in real use. Economically Motivated Syntax 41

(42) Sonnim-i ta oci-an-ass-ta/mos-hay-ss-ta

guest-NOM all come-NEG-PAST-DECL/NEG-do-PAST-DECL

(i) No guests came: we will call this total negation (All >> Not)

(ii) Some guests came, but not all of them: we will call this partial negation (Neg>>All)

When native speakers aimed to represent total negation, they preferred sentences such as those given in (43) instead of the one in (42). Conversely, when they aimed to represent partial negation, they preferred sentences like the one in (42).

(43) Sonnim-i hana-to/cenhye an/mos-wassta

guest-NOM one-even/at.all NEG came

(i) No guests came.

(ii) *Some guests came, but not all of them.

To investigate patterns of interpretation, I have extracted negative sentences with different types of numeral quantifiers or adverbs from the Sejong Corpus. Consider the following:

(44) Total/partial negation preference: Sejong Corpus search results

Form Occurrence Total/Partial Preference

ta plus Neg (long) 145 Partial negation (135/145 times)

Cenhye 2,968 Total negation only

han-salam/myeng/pwun-to 178 Total negation only

Cokumpakkey 22 Partial negation only

As shown in (44), the ta (‘all’) plus negation form was most often interpreted as partial negation. Total negation was produced using negative polarity items such as cenhye (‘at all’). Consider Figure 2.4. The basket to the left contains what has already been eaten and the basket on the right contains the remaining food. Simply, when asked to answer the question after looking at the picture, native speakers of Korean systematically used the ta-an (‘all-NEG’) form for partial negation and the hanato-an (‘one-even-not’) form for total negation. Hence, if the question is whether the bear ate all the bananas, native speakers strongly preferred to use the sentence in (45a) instead of the one in (45b). However, if the question is whether the bear ate all the apples, they strongly preferred (45b) over (45a). Notice that some but not all of the bananas have been eaten, while none of the apples have been eaten. 42 Pragmatic Syntax

Figure 2.4. Total/partial reading

(45) a. Ani, ta an-mekesseyo.

no all NEG-ate

‘No, he didn’t eat all (of them).’

b. Ani, hana-to an-mekesseyo.

no one-even NEG-ate

‘No, he didn’t eat all (of them).’

The data we have observed so far show an example of grammar achieving efficiency through setting structural routines for each interpretation. We have seen English and Korean cases only, yet I presume that this will be the case in other languages too. The driving force to yield a non-ambiguous structure is hard to explain without considering pragmatic motivation for producing a structure in an efficient manner.

2.3. Chapter summary In this chapter, we have seen that structural variations are not arbitrary but are economically driven. In particular, we have discussed the roles of three factors in structural realizations.

(1) Factors of economic choices

(iv) Length matters: short distance is strongly preferred in resolving any grammatical dependency.

(v) Simplicity matters: a non-complex structural option is strongly preferred in resolving any grammatical dependency.

(vi) Non-ambiguity matters: native speakers develop a structure-building routine in order to avoid any ambiguity. Economically Motivated Syntax 43

Evidence from different corpora in English and Korean shows that what has been known as ambiguous is not ambiguous in actual language use, and in one way or other grammar has fixed its interpretation in order to increase efficiency of structure building (via unambiguous structuring). In this chapter, we have briefly alluded that economy in structure building can be measured both length-wise and simplicity-wise. I will show how the two criteria can be used in Chapter 5.

3

Expressively Motivated Syntax

On-the-spot need to express: Beyond cost-saving concern

As we shall see in this chapter, together with concern for economy, the on-the-spot demand to express a particular dimension of meaning becomes an important source of structural realization. We will see that different structures are motivated in order to reveal different dimensions of meanings beyond propositional content. In particular, I propose that the addition of ‘on-the-spot’1 or expressive meanings is at the core of syntactic variation. Especially, we come to this conclusion by observing what is known as syntactic odds and ends such as supplements, which include appositives, parentheticals along with expressives, including epithets and honorifics. Undoubtedly, as discussed in Chapter 2, cost-saving is one of the most important concerns and motivations of any structural realization. Yet, if we were to take cost- minimizing as the only concern, the very next puzzle would be the vast number of data that are rather uneconomically motivated. For instance, in the BYU-BNC, expressions which have supplements as in (1) after the pronominal subjects were frequently observed. In the BYU-BNC, about 3,063 examples were found where a supplement clause is inserted between a pronominal subject and a verb. Note that the use of supplements which causes longer distance between subject and its host verb may not yield an economic choice in Hawkins’ type of calculation. (1) is from BYU-BNC.

(1) He, while agreeing with the general rule, was prepared to consider an exception from it although not that the time was right to do so.

Syntactic odds and ends

Here, we will discuss what expressive motives trigger structures as in (2) and (3). These have often been considered as syntactical odds and ends that do not even deserve a proper treatment or attention. (2) and (3) are from Potts (2005:6).

(2) Supplements a. I spent part of every summer until I was ten with my grandmother, who lived in a working class suburb of Boston. 46 Pragmatic Syntax b. After first agreeing to lend me a modem to test, Motorola changed its mind and said that, amazingly, it had none to spare.

(3) Expressives a. ‘We bought a new electric clothes dryer, and I thought all there was to it was plugging it in and connecting the vent hose. Nowhere did it say that the damn thing didn’t come with an electric plug!’ (expressive attributive adjective) b. saami ha-l-maʒduub nəse l-mawʕad

Sami 3-the-idiot-SM forgot.35M the-appointment

‘Sami, this idiot, forgot the appointment.’ (Aoun et al. 2001:38, (37a))

(Lebanese Arabic epithet) c. Yamada sensei-ga o-warai-ni nat-ta.

Yamada teacher-NOM HON-laugh-DAT be-PERF

‘Professor Yamada laughed.’ (Shibatani 1978:54, cited in Toribio 1990:539)

(Japanese subject honorific)

In the literature, such structures were discussed always as peripheral or marginal structures and consequently have been relatively understudied. See the quote below.

The structure and interpretation of appositives, parentheticals, epithets, and other ‘supplements’ is one that few formal linguists have dared to enter. Those who have entered it have typically been led by the facts to one of two rather negative conclusions: formal theories of natural language syntax and semantics are either doomed to provide at best an incomplete explanation of linguistic form and meaning or, at the very least need to be complicated in quite radical and ad hoc ways. (extract from Christopher Kennedy’s appraisal for Potts 2005)

However, I argue that we can actually have a glimpse of how on-the-spot or expressive meanings motivate and shape structures by carefully observing these odds-looking structures. Their existence and moreover prevalence are far from being accidental. We cannot say that structures listed in (1)–(3) are mere stylistic variations. There is a series of clear and substantial evidence that syntactic behaviours of those odds and ends occur in a consistent and systematic manner. I believe syntactic odds and ends provide a key insight in understanding natural language syntax and this is what I am going to model in this chapter. Simply, the way in which those syntactic odds and ends are realized in natural language clearly shows how the whole system works. In fact, I think not only structures in (1)–(3) but also various structures considered as the core of syntax as in (4) can be better accounted when expressive motivation for each structure is taken into account. Expressively Motivated Syntax 47

(4) (pseudo) cleft, ellipsis, left-dislocation, right-dislocation, subject-verb inversion, left- adjunction, long-distance movement, intervention effect, cliticization, island condition

In this book, however, I will focus on the types of structures listed in (1)–(3), leaving the expressive motivations for structures in (4) for future research.

Syntax of expressives and speaker-commitment (speaker- absent syntax is unthinkable)

This chapter is inspired by Potts’ (2005, 2007) insight on multidimensional nature of meanings. Often, the dimensions of meaning beyond propositional meaning have been put aside, as those meanings have been considered insignificant and marginal. Contrary to these commonly held beliefs, Potts (2005) has provided a new way of looking at meanings, revealing their multidimensional nature. Further to Potts’ (2005) claim, I aim to extend the scope of expressives into particles and prosody, arguing for their roles as CI (Conventional Implicature) functors – that is ‘colouring’ the meaning of the proposition. (This is in contrary to Kaplan and Zaenen (1989), who says that ‘truth is immune to epithetical color’ (Potts 2007:3).) Potts distinguishes supplements (e.g. appositives, parentheticals) and expressives (e.g. epithets, honorifics). But, in this chapter I will use the term expressive to indicate both types of structure. It is because both types of structures are motivated in order to meet particular dimensions of expressive needs. Perhaps, the noticeable difference is that thesupplements realize expressiveness through orders but expressives realize particular expressiveness through case morphology and prosody. Most of all, I will show the importance of (often invisible) speaker-considerations in syntactic structures. Speaker-absent syntax is unthinkable. Korean provides a good example because it is much harder for a speaker to hide himself/herself even in simple structures in Korean unlike in languages like English. Consider (5). Each example in (5) shows speaker commitment and/or speaker’s attitude to the hearer.

(5) (i) English

Teacher Kim is coming.

(ii) Korean a. Kim-sensayng.nim-i o-n-ta.

K-teacher.honorable-NOM come-PRES-DECL

‘Teacher Kim is coming.’ (The speaker is not necessarily expressing his/her deference towards teacher Kim and the hearer is not senior to the speaker.) b. Kim-sensayng.nim-i o-si-n-ta.

K-teacher.honorable-NOM come-HON-PRES-DECL 48 Pragmatic Syntax

‘Teacher Kim is coming.’ (The speaker is expressing his/her deference towards teacher Kim and the hearer is not senior to the speaker.) c. Kim-sensayng.nim-i oa-yo.

K-teacher.honourable-NOM come-DECLPOL

‘Teacher Kim is coming.’ (The speaker is not necessarily expressing his/her deference towards teacher Kim and the hearer is senior to the speaker. The speaker also wants to reveal politeness or familiarity.) d. Kim-sensayng.nim-i o-s-eyo.

K-teacher.honourable-NOM come-HON-DECLPOL

‘Teacher Kim is coming.’ (The speaker is expressing his/her deference towards teacher Kim and the hearer is senior to the speaker. The speaker also wants to reveal politeness or familiarity.)

Particle and prosody as CI functors

Based on Potts’ (2005) work on reinterpreting the notion of Conventional Implicature (CI), I argue that ‘speaker commitment’ is another crucial source for structural decisions. As said, speaker-absent syntax is impossible. Though I concentrate on English language data in this chapter, I will briefly show how case morphology and prosody are used as a CI functor, yielding an expressive proposition in Korean. A detailed account of the Korean data will be given in Chapters 6–8. I will start this chapter with Potts (2005) and introduce expressives and CI functors (Section 3.0). Then, I will show that various orders have expressive motivation (Section 3.1), and then briefly discuss how different particles behave as an expressive functor yielding an expressive proposition (Section 3.2). In particular, I propose that prosody plays the same role as an expressive CI functor like morphological particles (Section 3.3). In addition, I discuss the limit of binary feature-based accounts in explaining the expressive nature of syntactic variation (Section 3.4).

3.0. Potts (2005, 2007): Search for another dimension of meaning At-issue vs. on-the-spot meaning (created by CI application)

For the last three decades since Grice (1975), semantists and pragmatists have mainly been concerned with propositional meaning. However, Potts (2005) argued for the necessity of considering the non-propositional, expressive dimensions of meaning. He showed that there are two types of meaning, namely (i) at-issue (inherently lexical) meaning and (ii) commitment (inherently pragmatic) meaning. In the tradition of contemporary semantic and pragmatic research, as Potts points out throughout his book, commitment meaning, which comprises an important part of Conventional Expressively Motivated Syntax 49

Implicature, has been understudied or simply put aside as being unimportant. Potts (2005:193) quotes Kaplan (1989:555–6 m.71), ‘I do not see that the existence of the pseudo de-re form of report poses any issue of theoretical interests to make it worth pursuing.’ Potts, however, proves that this kind of meaning, often assumed to be peripheral, marginal or additional, is at the very centre of linguistic meaning. He also argues that sometimes commitment meanings – particularly those of expressives – are so powerful that speakers cannot even use them without committing themselves to their content. The abstract properties of Conventional Implicatures from Potts (2007) are given in (6).

(6) a. CIs are part of the conventional meaning of words.

b. CIs are commitments, and thus give rise to entailments.

c. These commitments are made bythe speaker of the utterance ‘by virtue of the meaning of’ the words he/she chooses.

d. CIs are logically and compositionally independent of what is ‘said (in the favoured sense)’, that is independent of the at-issue entailments.

Potts later formulates the CI application as a functional application where the CI meaning always applies to an at-issue meaning to produce a CI meaning. For instance, Potts (2005: 64) views fortunately in (7) as a CI functor applied to the proposition Beck survived.

(7) a. Fortunately, Beck survived.

b. fortunately(survived’(Beck’)):

(survived’(Beck’)) is an expressively underspecified propositional meaning.Fortunately specifies expressive meaning and adds a new dimension of meaning to the proposition. The basic insight is that CI functors take the underspecified (in terms of expressiveness) proposition as their argument and produce an ‘expressive’ proposition. Let us now see the characteristics of expressive meaning. Consider (8) from Potts (2007).

(8) Thatbastard Kresge is famous. a. Descriptive meaning: ‘Kresge is famous.’ b. Expressive meaning: ‘Kresge is a {bastard/bad in the speaker’s opinion.}’

The underlined expressionbastard contributes to a dimension of meaning that is separate from the regular descriptive meaning. That is, no matter whether the propositional meaning of (8) is true or false, the expressive meaning expressed by the word bastard, which reveals the speaker’s attitude towards Kresge, is not affected at all. Consider more examples in (9) from Potts (2005). Similarly, underlined expressions contribute to expressive or speaker’s attitudinal/commitment meanings. 50 Pragmatic Syntax

(9) a. Ed refuses to look after Sheila’sdamn dog.

b. Right after he agreed to help out,that jerk Chuck boarded a plane for Tahiti.

c. Every Democrat with a [proposal for reform]1 claims [the stupid thing]1 deserves public support.

One of the main proposals of Potts (2005) is to show that ‘commitment’ meanings are as crucial as lexical meanings. It is almost impossible for us to utter anything immune to how we as speakers view the event. In exploring the meaning of natural language (particularly spoken language), it is not only impossible but also wrong to extract and study ‘purely’ lexical meaning alone, excluding the real-life dimensions of what constitutes meaning.

Expressives are everywhere

Indeed, expressives are everywhere and in our day-to-day life we speak like football commentators – producing information of a fact-like proposition and our own ‘opinions’. Since the two dimensions of meaning are closely related, sometimes, it is not easy to separate them. But, crucially, we can see here the existence of the multidimensional nature of the utterance. Consider the following, taken from highlights of England vs. Bulgaria (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhRX2oMXQLs). This shows a good example of how propositional and expressive meanings are intermingled unconsciously.

Gerrard is arriving … oh … just found his route to goal blocked, now here’s Angelov … Flag stays down, England were caught a little bit square there, because Petrov at the far side … It’s Angelov, beaten out by Hart. Another important goal by the England goalkeeper. Here’s Gerrard as England try to break. Rooney … has got Woolcott and Defoe alongside him, he plays in Defoe, flag stays down, and it’s two. Tremendous counterattacking play from England. It all started from the save from Hart, and then Rooney teed up Defoe, it’s another delightful finish … through the legs of the goalkeeper, for his, and England’s, second. Petrov … orchestrating things from deep, lovely ball, Jegielka was there, but it’s fallen, for Angelov, oh Hart saves it again, still even Petrov with the follow-up, Cahill got in the way. Oh what a game Joe Hart has had tonight, he’s really played his part here, that is a super stop. Good defending by Cahill as well. Rooney, he had room to turn, and he’s picked out a lovely pass to Milner. Only Jermain Defoe is ahead of him. Here’s Adam Johnson, tries his luck! Well he had the confidence to go for goal, the young substitute … Steven Gerrard was arriving, but Johnson tried his luck with a curler and he was not far away in fairness. England keen for more goals late on.

Interestingly, in both British English and Korean, it seems that if you are describing somebody under the term ‘our’, even negative expressions turn into some ‘affectionate’ Expressively Motivated Syntax 51 expressions. Hence, as in (10), even if you are calling a boy as ‘naughty’ or ‘troublesome’, your overall feeling for the boy remains affectionate if it comes after ‘our’. In this case, we view our as an affectionate CI functor – turning an emotionally neutral proposition into an emotionally affectionate proposition.

(10) a. Our naughty boy

b. Uri malssengkkwureki atul [Korean]

‘Our trouble maker son’

In this book, I extend the scope of expressives from somewhat limited classes into classes of lexical items such as case particles and prosody. In Potts (2005), the target of discussion covers only emotion-related expressions as damn, bastard and the like, as shown in (8) and (9). However, in fact, the range and scope of expressives are much wider and fine-grained. One thing to note is derogatory expressive terms (which Potts discusses more extensively) often seem to be applied at the propositional level rather than the immediately following nouns that they modify. That is, emotive expressions represent the speaker’s attitude towards the event itself rather than his/her emotion/attitude towards the modifying noun. For instance, the word bloody was found 6,818 times in the BYU-BNC and most of the time, it was used to express the speaker’s frustration over the event itself, rather than his/her attitude towards the noun it modifies. Consider (11).

(11) That bloody car is too expensive. a. Descriptive meaning: ‘That car is too expensive.’ b. Expressive meaning: ‘I am frustrated/upset because I cannot afford the car (rather than meaning, I don’t like the car).’

In addition, sometimes expressive contents realize not only the speaker-commitment meaning but also how he/she perceives the hearer. This is particularly so in realizing final particles in Korean, which we will return to in Chapter 7. In Korean, without knowing the speaker-hearer dynamic, it is simply almost impossible to finish a sentence properly. That is, the choice of final particle reveals not only ‘speaker-commitment’ to the proposition but also his/her relation to the hearer. And as Poggi (2009) notes, it is not only emotional expressions but also so-called ‘mind-making’ volitional expressions that can also have expressive dimensions. Tentatively, I propose types of expressives as in (12) in this book. Volitional expressives can also be a kind of modal expressives. Noticeably, I have classified information–structure related notions such as topic and focus as part of expressive meaning. As I shall discuss in Chapter 6, this is because much of the time, so-called topic or focus expressions seem to contribute to the meaning related to speaker’s perception of the event (=on-the-spot meaning) – instead of contributing to the propositional meaning (=at-issue meaning). 52 Pragmatic Syntax

(12) (Tentative) Types of expressives I. Mind-making or emotional expressives (used to denote the speaker’s willingness or feeling) (a) Volitional expressives (b) Emotional expressives II. Attitudinal expressives (used to denote the speaker’s attitude towards the event) (a) Topical expressives (b) Focal expressives (c) Temporal/aspectual expressives (d) Modal expressives III. Relational expressives (used to denote the speaker’s relation with the hearer) (a) Honorific expressives (b) (Im)politeness expressives

Category-wise, it is true that certain parts of speech, such as adjectives, adverbs and interjections, convey expressive meanings more frequently as their dominant meaning than any other categories. Yet, there are examples where other categories such as verbs (often with a particular mood), nouns, or even determiners, articles and demonstratives are used as expressives, particularly with certain intonations. In Chapters 6–7, I will demonstrate the expressive as well as constructive dimensions of particles in Korean. To put it simply, I argue that understanding linguistic meanings involves understanding the dynamics of the different dimensions of meanings and identifying the correct dimension for the context in which an expression is spoken. Before going further, I will show what Potts (2007) proposes as expressive criteria.

Expressive meaning criteria

Potts (2007) claims the following properties as expressive criteria.

(13)

1. Independence:

• Expressive content contributes a dimension of meaning that is separate from the regular descriptive content.

2. Non-displaceability:

• Expressives predicate something of the utterance situation.

3. Perspective dependence:

• Expressive content is evaluated from a particular perspective. In general, the perspective is the speaker’s, but there can be deviations if conditions are right. Expressively Motivated Syntax 53

4. Descriptive ineffability:

• Speakers are never fully satisfied when they paraphrase expressive content using descriptive, i.e. non-expressive, terms.

5. Immediacy:

• Like performatives, expressives achieve their intended act simply by being uttered; they do not offer content so much as inflict .it

6. Repeatability:

• If a speaker repeatedly uses an expressive item, the effect is generally one of strengthening the emotive content, rather than one of redundancy.

In the following, I will show how different orders, particles and prosodic patterns realize particular expressive dimensions. All of them have the above properties. That is, the added, speaker-commitment meaning is independent from the propositional meaning and is sensitive to how and when the order/particle/prosody is used (=independence, non-displaceability, perspective dependence). They also have on- the-spot motivation that can be paraphrased as immediacy in Potts’ terms. And it is almost impossible to describe the set of expressive meanings represented by those orders/particles and prosodic patterns simply based on binary, feature-based accounts (=descriptive ineffability). I return to this in Section 3.4. My view, however, diverges slightly from that of Potts’ (2005, 2007) account of how these apparently redundant expressions are interpreted. Potts briefly states that ‘since the utterance situation is in near constant flux, there is much less a chance of redundancy than there is with regular at-issue assertion about a described situation’ (Potts 2005:184). However, the repeated use of commitment-clear expressions is not surprising, but common in spontaneous speech. And often, repetition not only strengthens emotive contents but also reveals different dimensions of expressive meanings or incrementally and continually realizes particular meaning dimensions of the utterance during the course of speech. For instance, think about the use of you know or I mean in English, as demonstrated in (14). Expressions such as you know or I mean in (14) (taken from BYU-BNC) seem to be examples of ‘on-the-spot’ meanings (with little ‘at-issue’ meaning). The repeated use of these expressions does not strengthen any particular meaning, but draws attention of the hearer continually and incrementally during the course of speech.

(14) a. He’s not brilliant looking, but he’s got a fantastic mind and you know that’s what I really like.

b. Eh, yeah. Yeah. Continually, continually. But I mean we also, we, I mean we’re providing a service for them. 54 Pragmatic Syntax

In the next section, I will show how on-the-spot meanings are realized via different syntactic structures, particles and prosody.

3.1. Expressive orders and comma intonation Generally, particular orders are chosen (among many and theoretically infinite alternatives) not only based on cost-saving calculation, as we discussed in Chapter 2, but also in order to express particular meaning dimensions. These two causes have been often ignored in the syntactic literature. This is because though their contribution in structural realizations is obvious and crucial, both motivations seem to be pragmatic and therefore regarded non-syntactic by nature. Contrary to this orthodox view, I argue that what is needed is to admit that morpho-syntactic feature-based accounts of structural variations of this type are fundamentally flawed and limited: syntactic causes do not have to be syntactic.

Comma intonation as CI functor

In this section, I will discuss the expressive meaning revealed by particular orders being intonationally set apart from the main structure. Potts (2005) views such a set- apart tone as a comma intonation and treats it as a syntactic feature, which yields a Conventional Implicature. He views the semantics of the feature COMMA as a functor for a limited class of expressions from at-issue to CI content. Consider (15) from Potts (2005: 66) and Figure 3.1.

(15) Lance, (comma intonation) a cyclist,

Lance, a cyclist, DP

[NP DP COMMA]

Lance D0 NP

a cyclist Figure 3.1. Structural role of comma intonation Expressively Motivated Syntax 55

However, the significance of comma intonation needs reconsideration. Even in English, it seems that comma intonation needs further classification based on its syntactic function and prosodic property. (Potts does not discuss the prosodic nature of comma intonation.) Consider (16) and (17). (16) is from Jamie Oliver’s cooking show.2 The examples in (17) are from Potts (2005). (17g) is from the BYU-BNC.

(16) Let’s have a look at these beans.

These beans, I’m really happy with. [fronting] (Jamie Oliver, 30-Minute Meals, 23 January 2011)

(17) a. Amazingly, they refused our offer. [initial position]

(speaker-oriented adverb)

b. Thoughtfully, Ed destroyed the evidence for us. [initial position]

(topic-oriented adverb)

c. Just between you and me, Aldo is a dangerous spy. [initial position]

(utterance-modifying adverb)

d. Ames, a successful spy, is now behind bars. [Ongoing medial position]

(nominal appositive)

e. Ames was, as the press reported, a successful spy. [Ongoing medial position]

(As-parenthetical)

f. Ames, who was a successful spy, is now behind bars. [Ongoing medial position]

(supplementary relative)

g. I don’t think it’s contagious, really. (BYU-BNC). [final position]

The comma intonations used in (16) and (17) are not only prosodically different from each other but also different in terms of how they glue together the to-and-fro structures. Yet, on the whole, all comma intonations share the following properties: first of all, they glue the two expressions to form one incrementally built expression. At the same time, they signal that though the local structure is complete, the overall structure is not yet complete. In this book, I further develop Potts’ view on comma intonation and propose a number of syntactic tones. Also, I show that the major syntactic role of intonation is as a grouping/chunking device. We will discuss the following types of orders with comma intonation.

(18) a. Fronting and comma intonation E.g. Amazingly, John gave all his money to a charity. 56 Pragmatic Syntax

b. Adding/stacking and tone copy

E.g. Ames, who was a successful spy, who I think worked for FBA, is now behind bars.

c. Commenting in the middle and comma intonation

E.g. I’d slotted in, by mistake, a tape on which I’d recorded some sixties pop music for a party, and which I’d never run back. (BYU-BNC)

d. Commenting at the end and finishing-off tones

E.g. I don’t think it’s contagious, really. (BYU-BNC)

In looking at natural language syntax, basic structural units are sometimes presented in a less natural order: less natural in the sense that it may not be as frequently used in real speech as if spoken in an isolated sentence, outside a particular spoken context. That is, expressions are often fronted, added or stacked together, instead of following the dominant or canonical word order. I argue that different syntactic positions (e.g. the initial, ongoing/medial and final positions) reveal the different expressive dimensions.

Fronting and comma intonation Let us first think about the source and meaning of fronting and comma intonation. As we shall now turn to, initial positions may be occupied by what has been characterized earlier as a ‘reminder’, something relative to which the rest is a comment. Consider (16), repeated here as (19), as well as Figure 3.2. These beans is fronted because this expression has been mentioned earlier and the following sentence is about these beans. Note that a prosodic boundary – comma intonation – follows these beans (circled in the figure).

(19) Let’s have a look at these beans.

These beans, I’m really happy with. [fronting] (Jamie Oliver 30-Minute Meals, 23 January 2011)

In other cases, as we can see underlined in (20), particular fronting, known as long- distance dependency, does not appear to have been planned, but seems to have occurred as a result of the interjectory constituent. (20) is taken from Haegemann (2005: 332).

(20) Who do you think is the more moderate politician? (Guardian 25 September 2003, p. 9, col. 6)

The cause of long-distance dependency needs to be reconsidered in this respect. Consider (21) from Haegemann (2002: 332–33). It is not a coincidence that all the underlined expressions in (21) result in the division of the wh-expression and the relevant predicate. That is, without such intervening expressions, no long-distance dependency would arise between the wh-expression and the predicate. It is also noticeable that the underlined expressions behave like interjections or parentheticals. Expressively Motivated Syntax 57

Figure 3.2. Comma intonation for the fronted expression (19)

(21) a. It baffles me as to who Tony Blair imagines will work in the universities of the future. (Guardian 27.11.2002, p. 9, col. 8, letter to the editor from Hannah Cooke, Broadbottom, Cheshire) b. Who do you think is the more moderate politician? (Guardian 25 September 2003, p. 9, col. 6) c. What do you think was the great appeal of the Tramp? (Guardian, Review, 1 November 2003, p. 12, col. 3) d. What did they think they were making with those girls in there? (Guardian, 13 September 2003, p. 14, col. 2) e. At the end of the day everybody eats meat … What do you think your cat or dog eats? Where do you think that meat comes from? Where do you think Pedigree Chum comes from? (Observer Magazine, 7 September .2003, p. 41, col. 1) f. Where does the Chancellor think the party is going? (Based on Guardian, 27.9.2003, p. 4, headline) g. Who does he think he is? (Guardian, 8 October 2003, p. 14, col. 4)

h. Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them … which do you think you were? (Guardian, G2, 27 October 2003, p. 6, col. 2) i. Of Pam Teare … Lord Hutton asked: ‘From what source or sources did you think the name would leak?’ (Guardian, 21 August 2003, p. 8, col. 3) j. Why do you think the Daily Mail and others have invested so much effort in discrediting me personally? (Guardian, 30 September 2003, G2, p. 11, col. 5) 58 Pragmatic Syntax

On the other hand, native speakers tend to use the initial position of utterances in presenting the dominant expressive dimension. In the BYU-BNC, I found the following -ly ending adverbs which were fronted together with the word speaking in the utterance-initial position. The ordering in (22) reflects frequency, that is strictly speaking was the most frequently used in the corpus. Most of them do not contribute to the at-issue dimension of the meaning but to on-the-spot meaning, which is mainly related to the speaker’s attitude towards the proposition.

(22) -ly speaking (to my (=speaker’s) view)

Strictly, broadly, roughly, relatively, technically, properly, figuratively, practically, historically, humanly, actually, only, comparatively, metaphorically, politically, realistically, statistically, morally, socially, basically, frankly, literally, loosely, objectively, really, personally, financially, medically, geographically, genetically, formally, emotionally, economically, crudely, psychologically, sociologically, spiritually, anatomically, barely, biologically, chemically, correctly, deliberately, currently, hardly, ideologically, intellectually, logically, legally, obviously, philosophically, psychically, simply, stylistically, theoretically, virtually, professionally, procedurally, probably, pointedly, plainly, physically, photographically, pedagogically, parliamentarily, ontologically, officially, occasionally, numerically, necessarily, musically, meteorologically, merely, mathematically, maritally, mainly, largely, imperially, ideally, idealistically, honestly, heavenly, graphically, geomorphologically, geologically, firstly, genealogically, frequently

Sometimes, the meanings of the above adverbs change according to the position in which they occur. Consider the following.

(23) a. To them it’s no big deal. But John likes the stars, surprisingly. (BYU-BNC)

b. To them it’s no big deal. But, surprisingly, John likes the stars.

(23a) is from BYU-BNC. The difference between (23a) and (23b) is not in their propositional meanings, but in their expressive meanings – that is the speaker- commitment meanings. Surprisingly in (23a) sounds more like an overall, additional comment from the speaker, whereas surprisingly in (23b) sounds more like the speaker’s dominant expressive mode at the given stage of speaking.

The utterance-initial positions are often filled by attitudinal expressions. According to the results of analysing data from BYU-BNC, fronted expressions with comma intonation are mostly attitudinal adverbs. This is shown in (24), which lists the most frequently used fronted expressions with comma intonation.

(24) However, for example, well, indeed, so, now, thus, nevertheless, moreover, finally, in addition, then, of course, furthermore, similarly, right, meanwhile, secondly, instead, again, also, for instance, unfortunately, anyway, here, therefore, in particular, still, consequently, alternatively, firstly, okay, later, yet, even so, today, clearly, besides, that is, In general, further, accordingly, in short, there, certainly, hence, thirdly, conversely, eventually, equally, rather, sometimes, nonetheless, fortunately, why, obviously, sadly, suddenly, ironically, otherwise, overall, once again, additionally, at present, interestingly, Expressively Motivated Syntax 59 naturally, perhaps, alright, yesterday, actually, initially, inside, at first, likewise, earlier, generally, recently, inevitably, once, elsewhere, often, incidentally, at least, ideally, lastly, all the same, afterwards, outside, none the less, subsequently, normally, typically, usually, ultimately, surprisingly, thereafter, occasionally, traditionally

Adding/stacking and tone copy We now turn to examples where similar expressions are stacked with copied tones. This phenomenon is well observed in spoken syntax. Consider the examples in (25) and (26). As these examples show, relative clauses can often be stacked to add information. In that case, the same tone is copied to the other stacked clauses. Figure 3.3 shows a tone copy used in (26).

(25) The sole, which I caught yesterday, which was caught in Scotland, was delicious.

(Kempson 2003)

(26) Ames, who was a successful spy, who I think worked for FBA, is now behind bars.

Though the way in which stacked structures are realized may slightly differ from language to language, it seems that a tone copy with a repeated particle or lexical item is one of the main ways of cuing structural stacking. This is the case for the majority of multiple nominative/accusative constructions in Korean, as shown in (27) and (28). We shall discuss this in more detail in Chapter 8.

(27) Jina-kanamtongsayng-imeli-ka coh-tay-yo. [Korean]

J-NOM younger.brother -NOM brain-NOM good-said.that DECLPOL

Lit. ‘Jina’s younger brother is bright.’

Figure 3.3. Copied tone for (25) 60 Pragmatic Syntax

(28) Sakwa-lulFuji-sakwa-lulhana-lul cwusey-yo. [Korean]

apple-ACC Fuji-apple-ACC one-ACC please.give-DECLPOL

‘Please give me one Fuji apple.’

Commenting in the middle and comma intonation

Expressions can also be inserted with comma intonation. Those expressions are often commentary, directly reflecting the speaker’s view. Consider (29).

(29) I’d slotted in, by mistake, a tape on which I’d recorded some sixties pop music for a party, and which I’d never run back. (BYU-BNC)

Comments such as the underlined phrase in (29) often appear with comma intonation and a short pause at the beginning and also at the end. Interestingly, the sort of interjectory constituents, as underlined, often have a limited length. In the BYU- BNC, interjectory constituents with one word occurred 89,538 times, two words 2,309 times, three words 216 times and constituents with four words occurred only 20 times. Only one example was found in the BYU-BNC with an interjectory constituent of five wordsand is given in (30) underlined.

(30) These could, probably more easily in early rather than in later man, have been powerful enough to cause him to seek a substitute for his natural father or mother when they were no longer available to him, and he was in need.

That is, expressives also observe what I called the ‘one breath condition’. However, in spoken discourse, the length effect as above – which is similar to what we have observed in the case of heavy NP shift in Chapter 2 – seems to form a crucial characteristic of expressively motivated syntactic constituent(s). Simply speaking, it is to put one’s thought (expressive content) in a single breath. This aspect of syntactic production has been understudied and regarded as something irrelevant to the structural realization. However, in spoken syntax, in spontaneous production of syntactic structures, this simple idea of putting one thought, expressed as a syntactic constituent, in one breath – in one Intonational Phrase – seems to be one of the most important bases of syntactic variations. Now, let us turn to expressions occurring at the final position.

Commenting at the end and finishing-off tones

Consider the following.

(31) I don’t think it’s contagious, really. (BYU-BNC)

Final positions with comma intonation and finishing-off tones are used to add an overall comment for the preceding proposition. Native speakers of English also Expressively Motivated Syntax 61 use this added, final slot in order to avoid any scopal ambiguity. Consider the following.

(32) a. John didn’t attend all my lectures.

b. John didn’t attend – all my lectures.

(32a) could be ambiguous in that it could mean that John did not go to any lecture at all or just some of them. Yet, (32b) is not ambiguous and means that John did not attend any class. Constituents that come after the end of a sentence are also limited in length. In the BYU-BNC, post-sentential constituents with one word occurred 17,786 times, two words 637 times, three words 126 times and constituents with four words occurred only 18 times. Only three examples were found in the BYU-BNC with an interjectory constituent of five words; an example is given in (33).

(33) The poetry is direct and unadorned, occasionally rather too much so.

One breath condition

As we have seen so far, expressions that appear at the peripheral positions, or supplements in Potts’ terms, tend to have a prosodic length limit. For instance, according to BYU- BNC, the average length of left-peripheral, medial and right-peripheral clauses are only one or two words with one-syllable word in most cases. Very few examples show more than three words at each position. Table 3.1 shows the number of words at each periphery in the BYU-BNC. The numbers refer to the number of occurrences in the corpus. The above distribution cannot be explained without looking at a specific prosodic constraint: the production of one thought/meaning in one Intonational Phrase and said in one breath. It seems that the one breath condition works in both economical motivation and expressive motivation. That is, both economically well-built structural units and spontaneously inserted structural units all tend to be produced in accordance with this one breath condition (Figure 3.4).

Table 3.1 Number of words at left, medial and right periphery

Number of words Left (before comma Medial (before and after Right (after comma intonation) comma intonation) intonation) 1 437,099 (96% of 17,786 (97% of 89,538 (96% of all the time) all the time) all the time) 2 15,412 637 2,309 3 1,079 126 316 4 131 18 20 5 26 3 1 62 Pragmatic Syntax

Figure 3.4. One breath condition

3.2. Particles as a CI functor

I view particles as a CI functor. Though particles in inflectional languages show similar dimensions of expressiveness, I think at least the assumption that particles are CI functors can be readily applicable to agglutinative languages. A set of particles in these languages denote not only propositional, constructive meaning but also expressive meanings. That is, whether to use the particle or not is decided by expressive motives. This speculation is motivated by Potts and Kawahara’s (2004) and Kim and Sells’ (2007) view on Japanese/Korean honourification. They argue that the essence of the meaning of honorifics is not defined truth-conditionally but instead, Japanese and Korean honourification represents a set of expressive meanings. Kim and Sells in particular argued that the so-called subject-honourification particle -si- in Korean is not determined lexically as is the case for number and gender agreements in Indo- European languages. For instance, in (34), both sentences are natural, if they are uttered in the ‘right’ context. That is, whether or not si- - is attached is not dependent on the semantic properties of the subject noun. Also, propositional meaning is not touched by the use of -si- in (34).

(34) a. Kim-sensayng.nim-i o-n-ta.

K-teacher.honourable-NOM come-PRES-DECL

‘Teacher Kim is coming.’

b. Kim-sensayng.nim-i o-si-n-ta.

K-teacher.honourable- NOM come-HON-PRES-DECL

‘Teacher Kim is coming.’

In the following, I will show the nature of particles being a CI functor through examples of the so-called plural marker -tul in Korean. Kiaer (2011) claims that the level of meaning which so-called plural marker -tul in Korean represents is beyond Expressively Motivated Syntax 63 being truth-conditional and is instead ‘expressive’ and context-dependent. This paper shows that it is misguided to assume -tul as a lexically defined plural suffix and the -tul attachment is a kind of number agreement. Consider Figure 3.5. In English, description of Figure 3.5 would be unanimously bears are giving apples to rabbits. That is, bear, apple and rabbit all need to be plural marked. However, in Korean, all three – bear, apple and rabbit – can be realized with or without tul.

Figure 3.5. Animacy in TUL attachment

But, the use of -tul simply shows the speaker’s willingness to express a rather vague plurality of the argument. I say vague plurality because often when the speaker uses -tul, it is when concrete numeral information is lacking or the speaker does not want to let the information be known. In the Sejong Corpus, -tul very often co-occurs with quantifying expressions that also express vagueness such as yele- (‘several’), as in (35a). However, -tul does not occur with specific/numeral quantifying expressions such as those in (35b).

(35) a. Yele salam-tul

several person-TUL

‘Several people’

b. ??Se myeng-ui uisa-tul

three CLhuman-GEN doctor-TUL

‘Three doctors’ 64 Pragmatic Syntax

Kiaer (2011) shows that in fact, the countable/uncountable distinction hardly plays any role in the attachment of -tul in Korean. Particles in Korean behave like -tul in the sense that the omission or doubling of particles does not contribute much to the propositional meaning but to the speaker-commitment meaning. I believe this intuition can be applied to particles in general cross-linguistically – at least in agglutinative, verb-final languages such as Turkish, Mongolian and Japanese. I will provide some detailed analysis on Korean particles in Chapters 6 and 7. Indeed particle doublings are often observed in those languages. Consider the example from Turkish, where causative particles are doubled (Göksel and Kerslake 2005).

(36) Su-lar-ı durmadan temizlikçi-ye balkon-dan aşaği ak-ıt-tır-ıyor. [Turkish]

water-PL-ACC continuously cleaner-DAT balcony-ABL down flow-CAUS- CAUS-IMPF

‘S/he is always getting/making the cleaner (to) run the water down off the balcony.’

Expressive contents are revealed not only by orders and particles but also by prosody, as we shall now turn to.

3.3. Prosody as a CI functor Prosody plays an important role both in building a structure and in conveying a particular expressive meaning dimension. As said, the role of prosody seems to be much more important than ever acknowledged. In this section, I will briefly argue on the nature of syntactic tones: first of all, I argue that rising tones and partial, incomplete tones bring the structural motivation to continue overall structures – unlike falling tones. Second, I also claim that boundary tones (either rising or falling) play a role as a wrap-up prosody and make the incomplete- looking sequence into a complete proposition. In short, fragments with boundary tones are autonomous and can function by themselves as a complete proposition. This view is in contrast to the commonly held belief that fragments are broken pieces of a complete structure, and we cannot explain how they function without postulating the original, complete structure. In addition, when the same tone is copied over again and again, it signals the corresponding information to form one incrementally built structure-meaning unit.

Rising, incomplete/partial tones: Driving force to continue

Roughly, we can think of the following types of tones that are crucial in having systematic and consistent force in structural realizations. Consider (37). Non-boundary tones are the ones where boundary tones are only partially realized. Expressively Motivated Syntax 65

(37) Syntactic functions of tones:

(i) Boundary tones

(a) Rising tones (i.e. local structuring is complete, yet overall structuring will continue)

(b) Falling tones (i.e. local structuring is complete)

(ii) Non-boundary tones:

Partial, incomplete tones (i.e. local structuring is incomplete and overall structuring will continue)

(iii) Copied tones (i.e. stack the structures or meanings from left to right, draw attention)

Among the tones in (37), rising tones and partial, incomplete tones bring the expectation that the overall structuring is not yet complete. These tones add the clear expressive meanings such as ‘I (=speaker) want to continue structure building’. Compared to rising and partial, incomplete tones, the combinatory force for continuation in the case of falling tones could be weak. Simply, the hearer will not necessarily expect the further growth of a structure if he/she uses falling tone. In (38), the completeness of information as well as the need to continue a structure is decided by the tonal property.

(38) a. Chris: John came. (falling tone): the speaker (Chris) will not expect anything necessarily from the hearer.

b. Chris: John came? (rising tone): the speaker (Chris) will expect the hearer to say something.

c. Chris: John met…. (incomplete, partial tone): the speaker (Chris) will either himself/herself continue or wait for the hearer’s response

Prosody as propositionalizer: Fragments are autonomous

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of fragment is ‘A part broken off or otherwise detached from a whole; a broken piece; a (comparatively) small detached portion of anything. Or, it means a detached, isolated, or incomplete part; a (comparatively) small portion of anything; a part remaining or still preserved when the whole is lost or destroyed.’ This definition could be misleading, giving an impression that so-called fragments are just part of a whole sentence and they cannot function by themselves as they are. If we ignore the audible part of syntactic input, it is natural to assume a full, complete sentence, where all arguments are explicitly realized, is the only legitimate object in discussion of syntactic structures. Anything which does not fit into this category is viewed as a fragment or only a partial representation of the complete sentence. Yet, 66 Pragmatic Syntax such a line of thinking often faces problems when we target to model more natural data. Sometimes, people use fragmentary units even without knowing what the complete sentence would look like. The simple idea I am proposing here is that prosody may make the non-sentential or sentential constituent into a full proposition. This view is not novel (see Dalrymple et al. 1991, among others), but my contribution is to argue that it is prosody that triggers this process at least in the case of Korean. Instead of assuming that something has been elided by syntactic operations, quite conversely, I argue that an apparently incomplete sequence of expressions gains status as a proposition via ‘wrap-up’ prosody. For instance, in the case of Korean, there are nominalizing particles such as -um or -ki. However, it seems to me that the role of ‘wrap-up’ prosody is more crucial and frequent than nominalizers in terms of transferring incomplete-looking information into a full proposition. In addition, though known as strictly verb-final language, expressions could occur after the final verb – rather freely in Korean, as long as they are located closely to the verb and pronounced together with the verb. We will come back to this in Chapter 4. Hence, I call wrap-up prosody, which coincides with the IP boundary most of the time, a ‘propositionalizer’. Earlier in Chapter 1, we have seen examples where the IP boundary makes the apparent lack of argument legitimate – making the transitive verb into the intransitive verb. The idea of looking at prosody as a propositionalizer has started from this observation. There is another type of tone: copied tones. Copied tones imply not only structural clustering but also the incremental reflection of expressive meanings. Repeated tones express incremental/reinforced reflection of a particular expressive meaning intended. We will return to this issue in Chapter 8.

Left-to-right incremental composition of expressives

Potts (2005) does not give an example which has a sequence of expressives, nor does he discuss how to structure those expressives. However, it is not surprising to have a sequence of expressives, and sometimes these are even contrasted with one another. Consider (39) and (40). In reading (39), imagine you are scanning a sentence. Each compositional step subscribed in (39) is shown in (40). (40) then shows the modes of composition for expressives that I am proposing:

↑ ↑ (39) Jamesstep 1( ), unbelievably step 2( ), well in fact I was thinking about the possibility ↑ ↑ ↑ at some pointstep 3( ), however( )step 4, still surprisingly( )step 5…

(40) Left-to-right composition of expressives step 1: James step 2: unbelievably (James) step 3: well-in fact… (unbelievably(James)) Expressively Motivated Syntax 67 step 4: however(well-in fact…(unbelievably(James))) step 5: still-surprisingly(however(well-in fact…(unbelievably(James))))

Incremental understanding of expressives makes good sense. As we shall see soon, generative linguists made an assumption that a sequence of expressives satisfies functional heads in the projection quite ‘independently’ (Cinque 1999, Rizzi 1997). However, it is more intuitive to think that it is incrementally understood than completely independently understood. Indeed, appositives like expressive constructions are not just reflecting a mere set of meanings but inevitably represent incrementally, accumulated meanings. I think the tonal properties as discussed earlier play an important role in the flow of structure building in dialogue, as we shall return to in Chapter 5. Simply, in dialogue, whether to continue the dialogue or not is decided by context and prosody rather than by structural requirements. And incremental clustering following the order of hearing and speaking seems to be the basis of such structural flow.

3.4. Limitations of feature-driven accounts Both the expressive and economic nature of structure building is difficult to explain in binary, feature-based accounts – adopted in most syntactic frameworks. As discussed in Chapter 2, cost-saving modes of structure building were altogether underestimated until very recently. Capturing the ‘descriptively ineffable’ nature of expressive motivation in structural realization is indeed another big obstacle for feature-based binary accounts. Basically, feature-based accounts in explaining expressive motivations are limited because (i) they cannot capture/explain the multidimensional, gradient nature of structuring and also, (ii) their emphasis is only on morpho-syntactic features. For example, in understanding different orders, researchers tried to adopt notions such as topic and focus in consideration of information structure. However, my view is that the ‘multidimensional’ nature these orders represent with prosody is hard to capture and explain by postulating a set of static lexical features. Hence, it is wrong to assume that all fronting is topicalization. As discussed in this chapter, fronting reveals not only information-structural concern (i.e. newness/oldness of information) but also the speaker’s dominant view on the proposition. Or simply, fronting could be used as a ‘reminder’. There have been various attempts to model multidimensional nature of meaning representations realized in syntactic structure. Indeed, in theoretical syntax, following Rizzi (1997) and Cinque (1996) among others, many have argued that functional heads for such informational units are situated at the left periphery of a structure. However, there are numerous examples where we can see that the source of fronting is unrelated to any of the functional head contents proposed by Rizzi (1997) or Cinque (1996). (41) is from Cinque (1999:106), which shows the hierarchical relations between left- peripheral expressions. 68 Pragmatic Syntax

(41) The universal hierarchy of clausal functional projections (Cinque 1999:106)

[Moodspeech-act frankly

[Moodevaluative fortunately

[Moodevidential allegedly

[Modepistemic probably

[Tpast once

[Tfuture then

[Modirrealis perhaps

[Modnecessity necessarily

[Modpossibility possibly

[Asphabitual usually

[Asprepetetive again

[Aspfrequentative(I) often

[Modvolitional intentionally

[Aspcelerative(I) quickly

[Tanterior already

[Aspterminative no longer

[Aspcontinuative still

[Aspperfect(?) always

[Aspretrospective just

[Aspproximative soon

[Aspdurative briefly

[Aspgeneric/progressive characteristically

[Aspprospective almost

[Aspsg.completive(I) completely

[Asppl.completive tutto [Voice well

[Aspcelerative(II) fast/early

[Asprepetetive(II) again

[Aspfrequentative(II) often

[Aspsg.completive(II) completely ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Fundamentally, this type of hierarchical approach is limited in explaining the spontaneous and rather limitless nature of expressive motives, contributing to multidimensional meanings of a sentence. In addition, in this hierarchical relation, there is no interaction between different expressive meanings. However, as we have seen earlier, a set of expressives interacts – particularly – in a left-to-right manner, enriching the propositional content step-by-step.

3.5. Chapter summary Expressive motivation competes with economic motivation in language use. Humans not only want to convey what they want to say in the cost-saving economic manner but also want to convey particular expressive meanings which colour the propositional content. Both motivations are crucial in understanding the essential knowledge of human language. If indeed economic motivation is the only driving force of syntactic Expressively Motivated Syntax 69 structuring, then it will be hard to explain the raison d’être of most supplements, expressives and the like. Instead, humans tend to juggle it in a way that meets both aims quite happily. Hence, I propose the goal of structure building as in (42), where the first part manifests expressive motivation and the second part manifests economic motivation.

(42) The aim of any syntactic structure building is as follows: in human communication, native speakers aim to optimize their syntactic structure building (both production and comprehension) by achieving (a) the meaningful/expressive proposition (b) as quickly as possible with minimized structure-building effort, whenever possible.

In Chapter 5, I will provide a Dynamic Syntax account to fomalize the functional motivations in (42). A prosodic constraint, namely, one breath condition seems to work in fulfilling both cost-saving and expressive aims. That is, speakers tend to put not only the local structural array within one breath but also supplements and expressives.

4

Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages

Trouble-making OV languages: Are they the exceptional minority?

In this chapter,1 I will discuss the challenges of verb-final, OV (object-verb order) languages which also allow relatively flexible orderings. Compared to VO languages which display verb-object order or verb-initial order, other syntactic properties of OV languages have been regarded as exceptional. However, OV languages with flexible word order indeed comprise more than 50% of world languages. Hence, if we regard syntactic properties of those languages as due to exceptional features, we will not achieve explanatory adequacy. Figure 4.1 is a map showing the distribution of the OV and VO languages from Dryer (2011). This map is provided by the WALS http://wals.( info/chapter/81), accessed on 30 May 2011. In Figure 4.1, the VO order is found in Europe and North Africa and among Semitic languages of the Middle East, but the OV order predominates over much of Asia, New Guinea and Australia. As the figure shows, the number of OV languages is even slightly bigger (i.e. 713) than that of VO languages (i.e. 705).

Figure 4.1. Distribution of OV vs. VO languages (WALS, Map 81) 72 Pragmatic Syntax

Although OV languages with flexible ordering are not at all a minority, both in theoretical syntax and in processing studies, the role of orderings in OV languages has been underestimated until recently, particularly in the major discussion on syntactic architecture. Very often, OV syntax has been viewed only as a mirror image of VO syntax. One example can be found in the discussion on scrambling as we now turn to.

Puzzles of explaining freedom in OV syntax

Many OV languages have seemingly flexible orderings, known as scrambling. Since the term was first introduced by Ross (1967),scrambling has been known to be somewhat mysterious to explain because of its many non- or quasi-syntactic attributes. The syntactic attributes which scrambling shows are quite different from other kinds of movement: (a) scrambling is optional; (b) it is not feature-driven – that is not driven by the presence of any morphological trigger; and (c) it is semantically vacuous (Saito 1989). Crucially, these three characteristics are strongly against the spirit of the current minimalist framework (Chomsky 1995), in which movement is regarded as a last resort operation and applied only when it is necessary, and in the presence of some morphological trigger. Various solutions have been suggested to explain this problem – in both the transformational and non-transformational traditions. Sabel and Grewendorf (1999) even assume that there is a scrambling feature as such, which is uniquely responsible for this type of syntactic variation. On the other hand, to solve the arbitrary application of scrambling, Miyagawa (2001, 2003, 2005) assumes that all scrambling operations are obligatory, either EPP-2driven or focus-driven. However, it is not easy to justify that fronting in OV syntax is generally driven by these two motivations. The causes of variation are much more fine-grained and multidimensional as seen in Chapter 3. Saito (1989) proposed so-called radical reconstruction, a process of undoing scrambling at LF, as a unique property of long-distance scrambling. He assumes that there is no semantic input in such a reconstruction process (i.e. it is semantically vacuous). The validity of radical reconstruction is still controversial, since this sort of movement is optional and the morpho-syntactic motivation for it is very weak. The term ‘scrambling’ itself is to some extent misleading because it assumes that there is one basic order and the other orders are ‘scrambled’ from that basic order. Syntactic theories have been eager to find the morpho-syntactic causes of the variation from the basic order to other orders, yet have not reached a satisfactory conclusion in my view. This, I think, is mainly because the cause of word-order variation is pragmatic in nature instead of being purely morpho-syntactic. Here, we need to pause and re-evaluate the reliability of morpho-syntactic cues, in particular whether seeking the answers from those features as the basic syntactic device is the right move to make. If word-order variation in more than half of world languages is not morpho-syntactically driven, or hard to explain with morpho-syntactic cues, I wonder whether, indeed, we need to conclude that the appropriate solution must involve such stipulated features. Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 73

Incrementality in both VO and OV languages

Quite independent of the discussions held in theoretical syntax, as well as in the parsing theory, OV languages have been regarded as puzzling. Basically, it has been assumed that the way to understand a linguistic sequence may differ between the OV languages and VO languages. The simple idea is that native speakers of OV languages may not be able to understand linguistic sequences in a stepwise, incremental manner because the verb, which has all the combinatory information, comes only at the very end. In recent studies, however, a growing amount of evidence shows that it is not only in languages such as English, where a verb appears relatively early on within the sentence, that sentence structures are built incrementally, but also in verb-final languages, where some might assume the structures remain un-built until the verb is reached (see Aoshima et al. 2003, for instance). Though it sounds intuitive that linguistic structures are built incrementally – regardless of the location of a verb – this idea was not generally welcomed in contemporary syntactic architecture, where it is assumed implicitly or explicitly that it is the verb alone which contains all combinatory information. Therefore, the findings on incremental structure building in verb-final languages – rather than inspiring the field – were often underestimated, simply taken to represent non-essential knowledge of language. As we shall see in Section 4.2, it is hard to capture and explain the real nature of structural growth, encapsulated as incrementality, in such a verb-centred perspective. In this chapter, I demonstrate that the essential task of any syntactic theory is to provide an explanatorily adequate model of incremental structure building in verb-final languages. Particularly, I believe that the linguistic competence which helps native speakers to understand how a structure is built bit-by-bit just as they perceive the linguistic sequence, which I named procedural competence, forms the key part in the knowledge of language. Moreover, I argue that the gap between OV syntax and VO syntax can be bridged by looking at the way a structure is built in real time and hence ‘incrementality’ is at the heart of procedural competence shared by both the OV and VO language types, indeed by all languages. In the following, I will first discuss the evidence for incremental structure building based on well-known cases in Japanese (Section 4.0). Then, I move on to the discoveries in Korean (Section 4.1). I will also discuss what attempts have been made in different grammatical theories to capture and explain the incrementality in verb-final languages (Section 4.2), and then go on to propose the necessity of having a process-oriented framework in capturing the procedural nature of linguistic competence (Section 4.3). I also consider some of the typological implications of the previous discussion (Section 4.4).

4.0. Evidence of incrementality in Japanese As said, in the majority of works concerning language processing it has been implicitly assumed that native speakers of verb-final languages may not be able to understand a linguistic sequence in an incremental manner, as the verb containing all the combinatorial information only comes at the very end (see Pritchett 1992, among 74 Pragmatic Syntax many others). Although such a line of thinking may appear unnatural and unintuitive, this was the dominant view held for some time. However, challenging evidence started to appear in the form of Inoue and Fodor (1995) and Mazuka and Itoh’s (1995) pioneering works. Inoue and Fodor (1995) showed that in a sentence as in (1) below, a Japanese speaker may experience a mild surprise effect (i.e. delay) when the first verbtabeta (‘eat’) is encountered, because the parser is expecting a verb that takes all three NPs as its arguments. The significant slowdown that would be experienced in a reading of (1) after facing the transitive verb shows that the sequence of NPs preceding the verb projects a structural template where all the NPs can be interpreted together.

(1) Bob-ga Mary-ni ringo-o tabeta?? inu-o ageta.

B-NOM M-DAT apple-ACC ate dog-ACC gave

‘Bob gave Mary the dog that ate an apple.’

Similarly, Mazuka and Itoh (1995) studied the eye-movements of Japanese native speakers as they parsed sentences. They demonstrated that Japanese native speakers find double centre-embedded sentences starting with a sequence such as (2a) extremely difficult to read, relative to sentences starting with other case-marked NP strings as in (2b).

(2) a. NP-NOM NP-NOM NP-NOM: extremely difficult to understand

???Yoko-ga Hiromi-ga Asako-ga??? …

Y-NOM H-NOM A-NOM

b. NP-NOM NP-ACC NP-DAT: easy to understand

Yoko-ga Hiromi-o Asako-ni …

Y-NOM H-ACC A-DAT

Mazuka and Itoh (1995) argued that the comprehension asymmetry as in (2) is caused because a -ga marked nominative NP constantly unfolds a new structure. The difficulty in understanding sequence (2a) is due to a number of ‘incomplete’ sentences projected by the -ga marked NPs. (However, as we shall discuss later in Chapter 8, the repeated use of a nominative particle is not the main source of difficulty. That is, nominative particles do not always unfold a structure.) If a structure were not built incrementally, no significant difficulty should be encountered in (2a), compared to (2b), at such an early stage in structure building. The fact that Japanese native speakers would have difficulty in understanding three nominative NPs at the pre-verbal position means that a structure was indeed built incrementally. Consider the following example from Kamide and Mitchell (1999): Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 75

(3) NP-NOM NP-DAT NP-NOM: Sandwiched dative NP

Kyooju-ga gakusei-ni toshokanshisyo-ga kasita mezurasii ko-monjo-o miseta.

Prof-NOM student-DAT librarian-NOM lent unusual ancient-manuscript-ACC showed a. ‘The Professor showed the student the unusual ancient manuscript which the librarian had lent to the student.’ (preferred) b. ‘The Professor showed the unusual ancient manuscript which the librarian had lent the student.’

In (3), the dative NP gakusei-ni (‘to the student’) is sandwiched between two nominative NPs. In principle, the dative NP gakusei-ni can be interpreted together with the preceding nominative NP (Kyooju-ga) or the following nominative NP (toshokanshisyo- ga). However, Kamide and Mitchell showed that native speakers of Japanese preferred to interpret the dative NP together with the preceding nominative NP in the matrix clause as in (3a). They argued that the strong preference for leftward association is evidence of a sentence structure being built incrementally, following the linear order. According to my Japanese informants, in examples like (1) and (3), it would be much more natural to have an Intonational Phrase boundary after the dative NP. Consider (4) below, where % is a prosodic boundary marking. Without the prosodic boundary, the sentence sounds very unnatural when spoken:

(4) Bog-ga Mary-ni % ringo-o tabeta inu-o ageta.

B-NOM M-DAT apple-ACC ate dog-ACC gave

‘Bob gave Mary the dog that ate an apple.’

Figure 4.2. Prosodic break after the dative NP 76 Pragmatic Syntax

Because of the prosodic boundary – which is invisible in written syntax – the possible surprising effect which Inoue and Fodor observe is rarely found in the real data of use. The same is true of Korean as I shall show soon.

4.1. Incremental structure building This section will examine incremental structure building in Korean with some corresponding examples in English. By doing so, I aim to further our understanding of the properties and core grammar of verb-final languages in general. The following issues will be addressed and I have outlined the main questions that are to be discussed.

(a) Freedom at left and restriction at right:

Why are expressions at the left periphery interpreted more freely than those at the right?

(b) Early association at the left periphery:

Why do native speakers strongly prefer early syntactic association and localization (i.e. put all arguments in the same local structure if possible)?

(c) Dislocation mystery and context sensitivity:

At the same time – though putting the argument in the local domain is strongly preferred – why do native speakers use any sort of dislocation (sometimes even across a clause boundary)?

(d) Resolving empty category:

How do native Korean speakers resolve an empty category? Why is such a process so easy for them? Why is no ambiguity found?

(e) Structure–meaning–prosody: Incremental interaction:

How do structure/meaning/prosody work together during the structure-building process?

The data gathered for this chapter include comprehension/production test results as well as corpus search results. When necessary, corresponding data in English are provided too.

Freedom at left and restriction at right

In Korean, expressions at the left periphery can be interpreted more flexibly. For instance, a sentence-initial dative NP komtoli-hanthey (‘to the bear’) in (5) can be interpreted in the two possible structures hosted by a verb malhaysseyo (‘said’) (=5a) or mantule-cwukessta (‘make-give’) (=5b). Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 77

(5) Two possible interpretations at the left periphery

Komtoli-hanthey thokki-nun talamcwi-ka mass-iss-nun cake-lul mantule- cwuessta-ko bear-DAT rabbit-TOP squirrel-NOM taste-exist-ADN cake-ACC made and gave-COMP malhaysseyo. said a. A rabbit said to a bear that a squirrel made a delicious cake for him (=a rabbit). b. A rabbit said that a squirrel made and gave a delicious cake to a bear.

Similarly, when the dative NP is located between the topic-marked NP and the nominative NP as in (6), the string can be understood in more than one way.

(6)

Thokki-nun komtoli-hanthey talamcwi-ka mass-iss-nun cake-lulmantule-cwuessta-ko rabbit-TOP bear-DAT squirrel-NOM taste-exist-ADN cake-ACC made gave-COMP malhaysseyo. said a. A rabbit said to a bear that a squirrel made a delicious cake for him (=a rabbit). b. A rabbit said that a squirrel made and gave a delicious cake to a bear.

However, such possible ambiguity disappears when the dative NP komtoli-hanthey (‘to the bear’) comes at the sentence-final position as in (7). The (7b) reading would be rare or impossible.

(7)

Thokki-nun talamcwi-ka mass-iss-nun cake-lulmantule-cwuessta-ko malhaysseyo rabbit-TOP squirrel-NOM taste-exist-ADN cake-ACC made gave-COMP said komtoli-hanthey bear-DAT a. A rabbit said to a bear that a squirrel made a delicious cake for him (=a rabbit). b. ??A rabbit said that a squirrel made and gave a delicious cake to a bear. 78 Pragmatic Syntax

In the following, in order to probe the robustness of the locality effect at the right periphery in Korean, I have conducted a grammaticality judgement test:

Grammaticality judgement for post-verbal sequences Thirty-three students volunteered to participate in the test. The aim of this test was to investigate whether native speakers incorporate the right peripheral, post-verbal expressions into ‘any’ arbitrary level of structure as in left periphery. They were given 30 sentences. Half of the sentences were like (8a) and the other half were as in (8b). They were asked to mark the naturalness of the sentences. The most natural sentence is marked 3, the okay sentence is marked 2 and the awkward sentence is marked 1.

(8) a. Transitive verb–ditransitive verb sequence, plus dative NP

Hena-nun Jina-ka sakwa-lul mekessta-ko malhaysseyo Mina-hanthey.

H-TOP J-NOM apple-ACC ate-COMP said M-DAT

Intended reading: ‘Hena said to Mina that Jina ate an apple.’ b. Ditransitive verb–transitive verb sequence, plus dative NP

???Hena-nun Jina-ka sakwa-lul cwuessta-ko sayngkakhaysseyo Mina-hanthey.

H-TOP J-NOM apple-ACC gave-COMP thought M-DAT

Intended reading: ‘Hena thought that Jina gave an apple to Mina.’

The results of this test were that when a verb sequence as in (8a) was given, 70% of the time, native speakers classified the sentence as very natural. Yet, when a verb sequence as in (8b) was given, native speakers classified the sentence as natural only 34% of the time. (Statistically, t-test results confirm that the type of verb sequence plays the most significant role in the determination of the sentence’s naturalness (p < 0.005).) The locality effect observed here at the right periphery is closely related to prosodic unity between the verb and the post-verbal expression.

Prosodic unity between the verb and post-verbal expression Though Korean is regarded as a strictly verb-final language, it is very easy to find right- peripheral expressions as in (9), particularly in spoken Korean. In the Sejong Spoken Corpus, among the 2,267 occurrences of -yo, the most frequently used sentence-final ending particle, in 1,946 cases (i.e. 86% of the total number of occurrences), -yo was followed by the post-verbal element. In such cases, post-verbal expressions and -yo ending verbal expressions were often in the same prosodic domain. Consider (9) and Figure 4.3 from Park (2003) again, which shows the prosodic unity between the verb and post-verbal expression. Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 79

(9) Etise mandu-ni ku-kapang?

where make-Q the-bag

‘Where did they make it, the bag?’

Figure 4.3. Pitch track from Park (2003)

The circled line is drawn by me and it refers to an intonational unit between the verb and the post-verbal argument. As we can see, the boundary marking (%) does not occur after the verb but after the post-verbal NP. Prosodically, this intonational unit is close to the Intonational Phrase. I think the restricted interpretation of right-peripheral expressions is closely linked to the fact that it forms one prosodic unit with the immediately preceding verb. It is hard to imagine an expression whose interpretational domain goes beyond its prosodic domain.

Left–right asymmetry Why is it the case that expressions at the left or sentence-initial position allow for more flexibility in terms of selection of host structure compared to the expressions at the right or sentence-final position? If structure building is insensitive to left–right order, then regardless of whether the expression comes at the beginning or at the end, the interpretational possibilities should remain the same. This was not the case at least in Korean. Simply, at the beginning of structure building one cannot precisely imagine how the structure will turn out to be like as there will be many structure-building options. Yet, as the structure grows further, we can grasp the overall structure even though the structure building is still ongoing. Hence, the number of outstanding structure- building possibilities gradually decreases. And as the end approaches, such freedom decreases to a minimum. 80 Pragmatic Syntax

As we shall see in Section 4.2, it is however not easy to explain the type of left– right asymmetry using a binary feature-based framework, since structural freedom decreases gradually rather than all-at-once. The fact that structural freedom decreases from left to right even in a verb-final language like Korean clearly shows that a syntactic structure is gradually being built from left to right, rather than waiting for a verb and remaining unbuilt until that point. Left–right asymmetry of structure building has been a puzzle in grammatical theory, ever since it was first discussed by Ross (1967) as a Right Roof Constraint. It occurs to me that the phenomenon as such is not a reflection on specific aspects of English or Korean syntax. Instead, I argue that this phenomenon is a manifestation of a general or universal aspect of natural language syntax: that is a linguistic structure grows, or is developed, following the linear order from left to right. This component of syntactic competence is hard to capture in the grammar formalism if the left-to-right, dynamic growth of a structure in its architectural design is ignored. We will return to this in Section 4.2.

Early syntactic association at the left periphery

In the preceding section, we observed that expressions occurring at the left periphery have more freedom than those at the right periphery. Nevertheless, as we shall see now, even at the left periphery, interpretation is not chosen arbitrarily. Instead, the most local structure, that is, the first-available structure is chosen as a default option. For instance, the sentence-initial, left-peripheral expression is strongly preferred to be interpreted within the first-available, closest leftward structure in the left-to-right, time-linear understanding, rather than in any arbitrary structure. Consider (10). As discussed in Chapter 2, the interpretation of on Sunday in (10) can be ambiguous. That is, it could refer to the time when I heard the information or the time Chris went back home.

(10) On Sunday I heard that Chris went back home.

However, in fact the interpretation of sentence-initial expression is not that free in reality. In the BYU-BNC, temporal expressions such as on * day (on Monday, Sunday, etc.) occurred 228 times at the sentence-initial position. Yet, in all examples, sentence- initial expressions were interpreted in the ‘first’ available structure, that is as a part of a matrix or a root clause in the case of English. This is the same in the case of Korean as we shall turn to. Consider (5) again, repeated as (11).

(11) Two possible interpretations at the left periphery

Komtoli-hanthey thokki-nun talamcwi-ka mass-iss-nun cake-lul mantule-cwuessta-ko bear-DAT rabbit-TOP squirrel-NOM taste-exist-ADN cake-ACC made gave-COMP malhaysseyo. Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 81 said a. A rabbit said that a squirrel made and gave a delicious cake to a bear.

(a bear is interpreted in the embedded clause, in which a squirrel is a subject) b. A rabbit said to a bear that a squirrel made a delicious cake for him (=a rabbit).

(a bear is interpreted in the matrix clause, in which a rabbit is a subject): strongly preferred

Sentence-initial dative NP can be interpreted in the structure hosted by mantule- cwukessta (‘will make and give’) (i.e. 11a) as well as malhaysseyo (‘said’) (i.e. 11b). However, native Korean speakers strongly prefer the (11b) reading, where the initial dative NP komtoli (‘bear’) is interpreted in the same structure projected by the topic- marked NP thokki (‘rabbit’). In order to explore this phenomenon, I have conducted a simple listening test, discussed below.

Listening test Thirty-three native speakers of Korean were asked to answer a question such as (12b) after hearing (12a). Sentences were read out by their class teacher who was asked to do so naturally without any further instructions.

(12) a. Komtoli-hanthey thokki-nun talamcwi-ka mass-iss-nun cake-lul

bear-DAT rabbit-TOP squirrel-NOM taste-exist-ADN cake-ACC

mantule-cwuessta-ko malhaysseyo.

made and gave-COMP said

(i) A rabbit said that a squirrel made and gave a delicious cake to a bear.

(a bear is interpreted in the embedded clause, in which a squirrel is a subject)

(ii) A rabbit said to a bear that a squirrel made a delicious cake for him (=a rabbit).

(a bear is interpreted in the matrix clause, in which a rabbit is a subject)

b. Talamcwi-ka nwukwu-hanthey masiss-nun cake-lul mantule-cwuessta-ko-yo ?

squirrel-NOM who-DAT delicious-ADN cake-ACC made-gave-COMP-Q

‘Who did the squirrel make the cake for?’ 82 Pragmatic Syntax

In (12b) if the answer is a bear, it shows that reading (i) has been chosen. However, if the answer is a rabbit, it shows that reading (ii) was chosen. 96% of the time, native speakers invariably answered a rabbit, choosing reading (ii) rather than reading (i). In the following section, I will provide evidence demonstrating native Korean speakers’ strong preference for early syntactic association in both comprehension and production.

Comprehension-and-production test: Strong preference for the first-available structure The aim of this test was to investigate whether native speakers of Korean understand and also plan the utterance incrementally or not, by observing their interpretation of a dative NP nwukwu-hanthey (‘to whom’). Two groups participated in the test. One group consisted of high school students (aged 17–18, 118 participants) and the other was a group of primary school students (aged 7–9, 20 participants). Both groups were asked to look at the picture below and answer the questions as in (13) (Figure 4.4).

(13) Condition A: The NP that dative NP follows is a nominative NP

Dative NP subject(NOM) subject-object-verb Verb

Nwukwu-hanthey ellwukmal-i kirin-i ttalki-lul cwun-ta-ko hayss-e? who-DAT zebra-NOM giraffe-NOM strawberry-ACC give-DECL-COMP said-Q

Figure 4.4. Listener or recipient? Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 83

(i) ‘To whom did the zebra say that the giraffe was giving a strawberry to the elephant?’ (Expected answer: a rabbit) (ii) ‘To whom was the giraffe giving a strawberry, according to what the zebra said to the rabbit?’ (Expected answer: an elephant) Condition B: The NP that dative NP follows is a topic-marked NP Dative NP subject(TOP) subject-object-verb Verb

Nwukwu-hanthey ellwukmal-un kirin-i ttalki-lul cwun-ta-ko hayss-e? who-DAT zebra-TOP giraffe-NOM strawberry-ACC give-DECL-COMP said-Q (i) ‘To whom did the zebra say that the giraffe was giving a strawberry to the elephant?’ (Expected answer: a rabbit) (ii) ‘To whom did the giraffe give a strawberry, according to what the zebra said to the rabbit?’ (Expected answer: an elephant)

In principle, sentence-initial dative NPs can be interpreted anywhere: they can be interpreted in the same or different clause with the following NP. However, the result of this comprehension test shows that in both groups native speakers strongly prefer to interpret the dative NP as belonging to the same clause with the following nominative or topic-marked NP. Among high school students, this tendency was observed in 87% of cases for the condition A and 86% for the condition B. As for primary school children, such tendency was observed 97% of the time for the condition A and 93% for the condition B. No significant difference was observed between the conditions A and B. After the comprehension test, the same students participated in the production test. The high school students had to look at pictures like Figure 4.4 and then had to write a question, inducing the answer already written in their questionnaire. The answer was either the recipient animal or the animal listening to the story. As for primary school children, they were paired in twos, and were instructed to ask a question to the other student, inducing the answer circled in their pictures. The answer could also be either the recipient animal in the bubble or the animal listening to the story. The primary school children’s question and answer practices were recorded for further prosodic analysis. Both groups’ production test patterns show some interesting results. Let us first look at the results from high school students. Table 4.1 shows the structural sequences observed in their production and how they have associated the NPs in the sequence. In each sequence, ambiguous readings are plausible – that is the dative NP can be associated with the preceding NP or the following NP. However, native speakers unanimously preferred to associate the dative NP with the preceding NPs or the immediately following topic-marked NP, which all indicate that dative NPs prefer to be attached/built in the first-available structure. When the dative NPs are not used in the left-peripheral position, about 45% of the time (1,807 occurrences), the participants placed the dative NP just before the host verb. 84 Pragmatic Syntax

Table 4.1 Early association at left periphery

NP sequences Occurrence Preferred association

Nom-Dat-Nom 424 {Nom-Dat}-Nom

Dat-Top-Nom 134 {Dat-Top}-Nom

Top-Dat-Nom 1,486 {Top-Dat}-Nom

Let us also look at the data we gathered from the 7-to 9-year-old children. When the answer was the animal listening to the story, indicating the matrix clause reading of the wh-dative NP, the wh-dative NP occurred mostly in the left periphery (83% of the time) as in Figure 4.5. (S1 means the first lexical item in the sentence.) However, when the answer was the recipient animal inside a bubble, inducing the embedded clause reading of the wh-dative NP, the wh-dative NP occurred most likely just before a verb or after a verb (87% of the time) as in Figure 4.6. Simply, Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show that native speakers tend to place the dative NP in a non-ambiguous position: if they intended a matrix clause reading, then they put the NPs in the left-peripheral

Figure 4.5. Location of wh NP when matrix reading is induced (sentence-initial positions)

Figure 4.6. Location of wh NP when embedded reading is induced (just before a verb or post-verbal positions) Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 85 positions, but if they intended an embedded clause reading, they put the NPs near the verb in the embedded clause. What is striking here is that in both groups, even if left-peripheral dative NPs can be interpreted freely at any level of embedding, native speakers systematically and consistently prefer to locate the dative NP in a non-ambiguous position where the first-available structure is clearly either the matrix or the most embedded clause. The distribution of the dative NP such as this is difficult to capture or explain in the tenet of traditional generative grammar, where the native speakers’ motivation to avoid any ambiguity, which is the real source of variation, is ignored. It is hard to draw any feature-driven motivation for the distribution, given that exactly the ‘same’ dative NP prefers different positions. It is improper to assume that the patterns of syntactic distribution observed as above are merely a stylistic variation.

First-available structure At the left periphery, where structural ambiguity could arise, native speakers of Korean preferred to resolve the dative NP in the first available propositional structure. This structure is not necessarily a matrix clause or a particular level of embedded clause. It is the first available,closest leftward structure in the left-to-right, time-linear understanding perspective. Consider (14). Even if the first two lexical items are the same with the condition A sentence of (15), the sentence-initial dative NP and the following nominative NP are most likely to be interpreted in an embedded clause this time; that is, reading (14i) is much preferred to (14ii), unless the prosodic break intervenes between the sentence-initial dative NP and the following nominative NP. Compare (14) and (15).

(14) First-available structure is the embedded clause

Nwukwu-hanthey ellwukmal-i ttalki-lul cwun-ta-ko kirin-i hayss-e? who-DAT zebra-NOM strawberry-ACC give-DECL-COMP giraffe-NOM said-Q

(i) ‘To whom was the zebra giving a strawberry, according to what the giraffe said to the rabbit?’ (embedded clause reading): much preferred

(ii) ‘To whom did the giraffe say that the zebra was giving a strawberry to the elephant?’ (matrix-clause reading)

(15) First-available structure is the matrix clause

Condition A: Dative NP Subject(NOM) Subject-Object-Verb Verb

Nwukwu-hanthey ellwukmal-i kirin-i ttalki-lul cwun-ta-ko hayss-e? who-DAT zebra-NOM giraffe-NOM strawberry-ACC give-DECL-COMP said-Q 86 Pragmatic Syntax

(i) ‘To whom did the zebra say that the giraffe was giving a strawberry to the elephant?’ (matrix-clause reading): much preferred (ii) ‘To whom was the giraffe giving a strawberry, according to what the zebra said to the rabbit?’ (embedded clause reading) The difference found in (14) and (15) in terms of the first-available structure for the sentence-initial dative NP shows that the first available, closest leftward structure cannot be defined in a top–down or bottom–up architecture. Rather, it can only be defined properly within a left-to-right architecture. It is not easy to theorize syntactic competence, expressed through early syntactic association, using non-linear, static grammar formalisms as we shall see in Section 4.2. Note that the association of the sentence-initial dative with the following nominative NP occurs far before knowing whether this nominative NP projects a matrix clause or an embedded clause. In Chapter 5, I will show how early structuring as above following the linear order becomes possible by assuming that case particles indeed project a partial structure. Early association or cluster formation also occurs, however, between other case- marked NPs such as accusative and dative NP. Consider (16).

(16) NP-ACC NP-DAT NP-TOP NP-NOM Ppalkan sakwa-lul nwukwu-hanthey tangnagwi-nun kirin-i cwukoissta-ko malhay? red apple-ACC who-DAT zebra-TOP giraffe-NOM gave-COMP is.saying

(i) ‘To whom is a zebra saying that a giraffe is giving a red apple?’ (matrix clause reading) (ii) ‘According to a zebra, to whom is a giraffegiving a red apple?’ (embedded clause reading) (16) is ambiguous. If (16i) reading is chosen, the dative NP can be interpreted in the matrix clause together with the following topic-marked NP tangnagwi (‘zebra’). On the other hand, if (16ii) reading is chosen, the dative NP is interpreted in the embedded clause together with the preceding accusative NP. Schematically, this is given in (17).

(17) Two options of clustering a. (red apple-ACC) (who-DAT zebra-TOP): Dative NP matrix clause reading b. (red apple-ACC who-DAT) (zebra-TOP): Dative NP embedded clause reading

To investigate the natural interpretation of sentences with structures like (16) or (17), a questionnaire study was conducted as follows:

Comprehension test Twenty-nine Korean children aged between 7 and 9 participated in the questionnaire study. They were asked to answer a question as in (18) after looking at the pictures Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 87 in Figure 4.7. Eighteen experimental items were given with 18 fillers. All items were intermixed. The results of the test show that the children preferred to interpret the dative NP within the embedded clause together with the preceding accusative NP (66% of the time). (As we shall discuss later, this preference shifts when the object given is long or heavy.)

(18) NP-ACC NP-DAT NP-TOP NP-NOM [Korean]

Ppalkan sakwa-lul nwukwu-hanthey tangnagwi-nun kirin-i cwukoissta-ko malhay?

red apple-ACC who-DAT zebra-TOP giraffe-NOM gave-COMP is.saying

(i) ‘To whom is a zebra saying that a giraffe is giving a red apple to a penguin?’ (matrix clause reading)

(ii) ‘According to a zebra, to whom is a giraffe giving a red apple?’ (embedded clause reading)

The corresponding Japanese sentence for (18) is given in (19). The same test was conducted among (adult) native Japanese speakers.

(19) NP-ACC NP-DAT NP-TOP NP-NOM [Japanese]

Akai ringo-o dare-ni shimauma-wa kirin-ga ataeteiru-to itta no?

red apple-ACC who-DAT zebra-TOP giraffe-NOM is.giving-COMP said Q

Figure 4.7. Evidence of early verb-less cluster formation 88 Pragmatic Syntax

(i) ‘To whom is a zebra saying that a giraffe is giving a red apple?’ (matrix clause reading)

(ii) ‘According to a zebra, to whom is a giraffe giving a red apple?’ (embedded clause reading)

The results show that of the 59 native Japanese speakers, 35 of them (59.3%) overall preferred the embedded clause reading, and 24 of them (40.7%) preferred the matrix reading. The syntactic constituent formation with seemingly verbless NP clusters has been a puzzle in syntactic theory, as we shall see in Section 4.2. Nevertheless, native speakers not only accept the sentences with such NP sequences as in (18) and (19) as grammatical, but can also easily understand them and often produce them. In particular, the results for the native Japanese speakers show what the linguistic theory (cf. Koizumi 2000) predicts to be more complicated (19ii – multiple long-distance scrambling) is indeed more preferred in real use to what is predicted as less complicated (19i – single long- distance scrambling). Early structural association by the use of particles is the primary source of incremental structure building in verb-final languages like Korean or Japanese. The question here arises as to why such a syntactic choice is preferred and how we can explain this preference adequately, given that such preference is the reflection of the linguistic knowledge of a native Korean speaker. Left-to-right, incremental structure building maximizes efficiency of such structure building. For instance, in (18), the embedded, ‘clustered’ NP interpretation between an accusative and a dative NP is preferred because real-time comprehensibility is maximized when a structure is clustered as much as possible and built in the same local structure, unless there is need to delocalize structures. (Such a choice can, however, be overridden when the phonological weight of the preceding NP is so heavy that it is hard to phrase (i.e. pronounce) both NPs together. I will come back to this later.) In this section, we have observed that native speakers make syntactic association incrementally just by having a sequence of particles, without the full knowledge of the upcoming structure. However, such an indeterministic nature and subsequent growth cannot be properly captured in most grammar formalisms. In order to incorporate concepts such as first-available or the closest, local structure or early association, one needs to assume an architecture which allows structural indeterminsms of some sort during the process of structure building. Otherwise, as we shall see in Section 4.2, we end up either adding a stipulatory mechanism such as unforced revision (Aoshima et al. 2004) in the grammar or adopting grammar-independent parsing strategies as in Miyamoto (2002).

Dislocation mystery and context sensitivity

In the preceding section, we discussed native Korean speakers’ strong tendency for early syntactic association at the left periphery. Regardless of this, however, long-distance dependency, which may look an inefficient choice in terms of timing of dependency Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 89 resolution does exist cross-linguistically as widely discussed in the syntactic literature. Sometimes, these constructions are even preferred. As discussed in Chapter 3, the underlined interjectory constituent ‘unintentionally’ becomes the source of long- distance dependency as in (20). (20) is from Haegaeman (2005:332):

(20) Who do you think is the more moderate politician? (Guardian 25 September 2003, p. 9, col. 6)

In this section, we will discuss Korean examples where long-distance dependency is chosen in order to increase the listener’s accessibility to the forthcoming structure when a sequence of clauses is given. I argue that in order to fully explain long-distance dependency, the target of natural language syntax needs to be taken beyond a single- sentence level. In other words, the driving force behind long-distance dependency is hard to determine and explain when the context is ignored. Before we go on any further, consider (21):

(21) a. Context

Tosekwan-ey mayil o-nun khi-ku-n salam al-ci? library-at everyday come-ADN height-tall-ADN person know-Q

‘Do you know the tall person who comes to the library every week?’ b. Example with long-distance dependency

Ku-salam-hanthey Jina-ka hwahakchayk-ul pillyecwuess-tay. the-person-DAT J-NOM chemistry.book-ACC lent-said

‘To that guy, Jina said that she lent her chemistry notebook.’ c. Example without long-distance dependency

Jina-ka hwahakchayk-ul ku-salam-hanthey pillyecwuess-tay.

J-NOM chemistry.book-ACC the-person-DAT lent-said

‘Jina said that she has lent her chemistry notebook to that guy.’

Structures like (21c) are much more frequent than structures like (21b) if no context like (21a) is given. However, when a context such as (21a) is provided, (21b) becomes more natural than (21c). (21b) is an example with long-distance dependency. One thing to note is that (21b) does not look like a case of long-distance dependency because an embedded clause subject as well as the complementizer -ko is dropped and the matrix verb is simplified. 90 Pragmatic Syntax

Examples like (21b), which have been considered within generative grammar hard to understand and hardly exist (Seraku 2012 p.c.), are indeed very natural and easily observed in spoken Korean; that is, dislocating context-sensitive, anaphoric expressions to the front is very natural in Korean, even if sometimes this involves fronting a lexical item across a clause boundary from its local verb as in (21b). Native speakers tend to front the given lexical item to help listeners link the previously given sentence and the ongoing sentence. In this way, dislocation or long-distance dependency can also increase the efficiency of real-time understanding and can be understood as the extension of left-to-right growth of a syntactic structure at the cross-sentential level. This seems to be the basis of dislocation or what is known as long-distance dependency. It is hard to grasp the driving force of dislocation or long-distance dependency at a single-sentence level. I think one of the reasons that long-distance scrambling is considered rare is because the frequent subject-dropping so common to Korean is often ignored. In particular, if the matrix and subordinate clause subjects are the same, it is strongly preferred that one of them is dropped. That is, what is rare is not fronting expressions but explicitly using a sequence of nominative case-marked subjects in a row together with the fronted expression. In the following, we will see how native speakers of Korean judge the grammaticality of a sequence as the sentence proceeds from left to right, regardless of the existence of long-distance dependency.

Grammaticality judgements are made during the process of structure building In this section, we will discuss some examples which show that grammaticality judgements are made in an incremental manner. From the hearers’ perspective, it is hard to imagine that they detect any kind of long-distance dependency from the very beginning of a sentence, particularly in wh-in situ, OV languages like Korean. Whether the lexical item is to be interpreted in the following local/immediate or non-local/ non-immediate structure, I think it is natural to assume that native speakers build a structure and judge it in a step-wise, incremental manner. Consider (22). Both sentences in (22) sound strange because of the possible gender mismatch between the two underlined nouns. In Korean, certain relational nouns such as a brother or a sister are gender-sensitive. That is, in (22),enni (‘sister’) is appropriate if she is the sister of a female. Simply, a man cannot use enni (‘sister’) to refer to his sister. I have underlined the expressions under discussion and their host structure. Minkwu is a male name and Jina is a female name.

(22) a. Simple clause

??Caki enni-hanthey Minkwu-nun Jina-ka chayk-ul ilkoissta-ko malhayssta. [simple clause]

self sister-DAT M-TOP J-NOM book-ACC is.reading-COMP said

Intended reading: ??‘Minkwu said to her sister that Jina is reading a book.’ Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 91

b. Complex clause

??Caki enni-hanthey Minkwu-nun Jina-ka chayk-ul senmwulhayssta-ko sayngkakhayssta.

self sister-DAT M-TOP J-NOM book-ACC is.presenting-COMP thought

Intended reading: ‘Minkwu thought that Jina gave a present to her sister.’

In (22), the sentence-initial dative NP Caki enni-hanthey (‘to self-sister’, from a female’s perspective) is interpreted in the matrix clause in (22a) but in the embedded clause in (22b). In principle when the dative NP is interpreted in the embedded clause as in (22b), there should not be any gender mismatch because the embedded clause subject Jina is a female name. However, regardless of the landing site difference where the dative NP is to be interpreted, both sentences sound strange exactly at the same time of parsing the underlined sequence due to a gender mismatch. Similarly, in (23), dative NP caki nwuna-hanthey (‘to self-sister’ from a male’s perspective) is interpreted in the matrix clause in (23a) and in the embedded clause in (23b). However, again regardless of the landing site difference where the dative NP is to be interpreted, both sentences sound natural.

(23) a. Caki nwuna-hanthey Minkwu-nun Jina-ka chayk-ul ilkoissta-ko malhayssta.

self sister-DAT M-TOP J-NOM book-ACC is.reading-COMP said

Intended reading: ‘Minkwu said to his sister that Jina is reading a book.’

b. Caki nwuna-hanthey Minkwu-nun Jina-ka chayk-ul senmwulhayssta-ko sayngkakhayssta.

self sister-DAT M-TOP J-NOM book-ACC is.presenting-COMP thought

Intended reading: ‘Minkwu thought that Jina gave a present to his sister.’

The above set of data shows that anaphoric resolution occurs as we go on – in an incremental manner. Native speakers – without waiting to the end of a structure – build a structure and judge its grammaticality during the process of structure building. Indeed grammaticality judgements in (22) and (23) are observed far ahead of the time when information such as the type of sentence (i.e. declarative, question, relative clause, etc.) or the number of embeddings becomes available.

Resolving empty category

Understanding how humans retrieve the meaning of invisible expressions has also been at the centre of linguistic arguments and has been essential to its architectural design. One of the crucial concerns in contemporary theoretical linguistics is whether 92 Pragmatic Syntax to assume the ‘presence’ of linguistic expressions when they are not visible. Although the theory has changed radically since the inception of generative grammar, one of the key assumptions in Chomskian grammars is to postulate the psychological reality of those invisible expressions; and the possible interpretation of the empty expressions has been the main target of generative syntax. In this section, however, I want to focus on native speakers’ systematic and consistent resolution of empty categories. Based on this observation, I want to claim that native speakers of Korean drop expressions easily but systematically in order to avoid any possible ambiguity in resolving the empty category. Yet, before going further, let us think about the empirical basis for postulating invisible categories in syntactic theory. Having such a category does not just affect the interpretation of the missing linguistic items only, but it further influences how we perceive the completeness or incompleteness of linguistic units such as a constituent, phrase or sentence. In the most up-to-date generative syntax, accounts such as ‘PF deletion or zero-morpheme realization due to stylistic variation’ have been given as a way of explaining somewhat dubious cases where anticipated expression do not appear in the sequence. However, I believe that in order to support such an account we need to have solid arguments and ways of defining stylistic variations. As we shall see now briefly, in fact, subject-less ness seems to be more common than having an explicit subject.

Subject-less-ness ‘Subject-less’ sentences in English are considered strange unless they are imperatives. However, in other languages, they are both well-formed and common. According to the WALS on-line data base, composed by Dryer (2008), we can find languages with optional pronouns in subject position as in (24). Consider also Table 4.2, drawn from Dryer (2008).

Table 4.2 Pronominal subject realization

Number of languages Some example languages

Obligatory pronouns in subject 77 (only 12%) Dutch, English, French, German position

Subject affixes on verb 409 (61%) Arabic, Spanish, Basque and most African languages

Subject clitics on variable host 33 Polish

Subject pronouns in different 64 Georgian, Xhosa position

Optional pronouns in subject 61 Korean, Japanese position

Mixed 30 Finnish, Irish

Total 674 Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 93

(24) Optional pronouns in subject position

Awtuw, Burmese, Chang, Chantyal, Djapu, Epena Pedee, Garo, Goemai, Gumbaynggir, Gurung, Guugu Yimidhirr, Hawaiian, Hup, Imonda, Japanese, Jingpho, Kabiyé, Kayah Li (Eastern), Kayardild, Khalkha, Khmu’, Klamath, Korean, Korku, Kxoe, Ladakhi, Lahu, Lalo, Lampung, Lezgian, Malayalam, Mandarin, Mangghuer, Maori, Martuthunira, Masa, Maybrat, Meithei, Minangkabau, Mlabri (Minor), Mokilese, Mon, Nakanai, Nar-Phu, Nishi, Niuean, Nivkh, Rapanui, Rumu, Sapuan, Suena, Thai, Timugon, Urak Lawoi’, Vietnamese, Warrgamay, Wirangu, Yidiny, Yindjibarndi, Yoruba, Yuwaalaraay

Table 4.2 shows that having no visible subject is in fact more common than having explicitly expressed subjects such as in English. In terms of pronominal subject realization, languages which behave like English comprise only 12% of all the investigated languages. Nevertheless, theories regarding the syntactic status of subject(s) have all been made based on languages like English. The following quote from Dryer (2008) reflects this view well:

The distinction between languages in which subject pronouns are required and those in which they are not is sometimes described in terms of a notion of ‘Pro Drop’ (see, e.g., Chomsky 1981: 240ff.). Under some implementations of this idea, for at least some languages, it is claimed that there is underlyingly a pronoun in subject position that is deleted in sentences lacking a subject pronoun. However, given the fact that languages that require a pronoun in subject position are fairly infrequent, there is a danger of such an approach being Anglo-centric, analysing other languages as being underlyingly like English despite their superficial differences.

In addition, increasingly, pronoun subjects are becoming omitted even in languages such as English. This phenomenon is spreading due to the influence of computer- mediated communication (Greiffenstern 2010).

Non-ambiguous interpretation of empty categories Now, let us turn to the question of how native speakers of so-called pro-drop languages resolve empty, invisible categories. Although freedom of interpretation is assumed, the way to resolve empty categories is in no way arbitrary. Consider the Japanese example in (25), from Tsujimura (2007:257). Preferred readings are from my Japanese informants.

(25) a. Taro-ga [Hanako-ga pro nagutta]-to itta. [Japanese]

Taro-NOM Hanako-NOM hit-COMP said

‘Taro said that Hanako hit [pro] (Taro or someone else).’

Preferred reading: ‘Taro said that Hanako hit him (=Taro).’ 94 Pragmatic Syntax

b. Taro-ga [pro Hanako-o nagutta]-to itta. [Japanese]

Taro-NOM Hanako-ACC hit-COMP said

‘Taro said that [pro] (Taro or someone else) hit Hanako.’

Preferred reading: ‘Taro said that he (=Taro) hit Hanako.’

Tsujimura (2007:257) notes that the interpretation of the null anaphora marked as pro in (25a, b) can be Taro or someone else in a given context. However, the interpretation does not seem to be so free. In (25), it is hard to imagine the null expression to be interpreted as someone else other than Taro. If the individual referred to is the same, native speakers of Japanese will not have omitted the subject at all. Tsujimura’s footnote is worth considering as it shows directly the contrast in judgement between theoretical linguists and ordinary native speakers (emphasis added): ‘… Kuroda (1965a), Huang (1984), and N. Hasegawa (1986) all take the position that the null anaphora in the embedded object position cannot be interpreted as referential with the matrix subject. Contrary to this claim, a number of native speakers find such an interpretation perfectly acceptable.’ (Tsujimura 2007:329) Consider (26) and (27). It is very unlikely that Korean or Japanese native speakers would produce sentences such as (26) and (27) when either the null/empty subject or object does not refer to the agent of reporting (speaking) or hitting.

(26) a. Kom-i [saca-ka pro ttayriessta]-ko malhayssta.[Korean]

bear-NOM lion-NOM hit-COMP said

(i) ‘The bear said that the lion hit him (=the bear).’

(ii) ??‘The bear said that the lion hit someone else (not the bear).’

b. Kom-i [pro saca-lul ttayriessta]-ko malhayssta.

bear-NOM lion-ACC hit-COMP said

(i) ‘The bear said that he (=the bear) hit the lion.’

(ii) ??‘The bear said that someone else (not the bear) hit the lion.’

(27) a. Kuma-ga [raion-ga pro tataita]-to itta.[Japanese]

bear-NOM lion-NOM hit-COMP said

(i) ‘The bear said that the lion hit him (=the bear).’

(ii) ??‘The bear said that the lion hit someone else (not the bear).’

b. Kuma-ga [pro raion-o tataita]-to itta.

bear-NOM lion-ACC hit-COMP said Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 95

(i) ‘The bear said that he (=the bear) hit the lion.’

(ii) ??‘The bear said that someone else (not the bear) hit the lion.’

Considering this phenomenon from a functional perspective, it seems that languages allowing optional subjects have reasons for doing so. On the other hand, if the interpretation goes against the general pragmatic rule of interpretation, then the subject is no longer optional and must be spelled out. For example, if the lion is not hitting the bear, but for instance the giraffe or another animal, although such an argument can be easily dropped in Korean, native speakers will never say (26a). Consider (28). The Japanese example (28) is modified from Seraku (2012). (29) is a corresponding Korean example. Both (a) and (b) readings are logically possible in (28) and (29), but again the true and dominant reading is (b), where the person who is doing the running is Tom not someone else. If the intended reading were (a), the other subject would have to be spelled out.

(28) Tom-ga [hashitteiru no]-o mita. [Japanese]

T-NOM [is.running PRON/COMP]-ACC saw

(a) ???‘Tom saw someone who is running.’

(b) ‘I saw Tom’s running.’

(29) Tom-i [ttwinun-kess]-ul poassta [Korean]

T-NOM [is.running-PRON]-ACC saw

(a) ???‘Tom saw someone who is running.’

(b) ‘I saw Tom’s running.’

The point I am making here is that what has been regarded as ‘free’ interpretation of those so-called null/empty expressions is not actually free but firmly fixed in each language. The driving force of such fixing is the pragmatic pressure to produce a linguistic outcome that can be efficiently understood in communication without intrusive ambiguity. A similar tendency can be observed in the interpretation of anaphoric expressions. Consider (30) and (31). Complicated sentences such as (30) and (31) are frequently discussed in theoretical linguistics. This type of sentence is intriguing because of the possible ambiguity that arises in the interpretation of zibun (‘self’) in Japanese or caki (‘self’) in Korean, as they can refer to either Ziro or Taro:

(30) Taro i-ga Hanako-ni [Zirooj-ga zibuni/j-o hihan-sita]-to itta. [Japanese]

Taro-NOM Hanako-to Ziro-NOM self-ACC criticized-COMP said

‘Taro said to Hanako that Ziro criticized self.’ (Tsujimura 2007:271). 96 Pragmatic Syntax

(31) Taro i-ka Hanako-eykey [Zirooj-ka cakii/j-lul pinanhayssta]-ko malhayssta. [Korean]

Taro-NOM Hanako-to Ziro-NOM self-ACC criticized-COMP said

‘Taro said to Hanako that Ziro criticized self.’

However, in reality there is rarely such ambiguity in both languages. In the Sejong Spoken Corpus, I have found 2,270 examples with caki (‘self’), and in the SLILC, I have found 115 examples. Of those examples, in no case were there more than two possible, context-prominent persons who caki could refer to.

Structure–meaning–prosody: Incremental interaction

As was mentioned earlier, syntactic choices are hard to explain with purely structural considerations. In our provisional architecture of grammar, I propose that structure and meaning together with prosody interact incrementally from left to right during the process of structure building. With this view, we can capture how semantic information can continually influence each step of syntactic structure building. In the following section, we will in particular examine how prosody influences the process of structure building.

The role of prosody in structure building Using eye-movement methodology, Ko (1997) showed that Korean native speakers opt for the sandwiched dative NP between two nominative NPs as in (32) to be interpreted in the matrix clause together with the preceding nominative NP. Exactly the same observation was made in the case of Japanese, as we have learned earlier from Kamide and Mitchell’s (1999) example.

(32) NP-NOM NP-DAT NP-NOM bought-REL NP-ACC V: (a) reading is strongly preferred emeni-ka yeyppun maknayttal-eykey samchon-i sacwu-n cha-lul mwulleycwuessta mother-NOM pretty youngest.daughter-DAT uncle-NOM buy+give+rel car-ACC handed-down

(a) ‘Mother handed down to the pretty youngest daughter the car which uncle bought.’

(b) ‘Mother handed down the car, which uncle bought to the pretty youngest daughter, to somebody.’

Ko used the expression opt for, yet did not give a clear account of why reading (a) is preferred to reading (b). Kamide and Mitchell (1999) also do not explain why this is the case. As we shall discuss in Section 4.2, Aoshima et al. (2004) argued that the choice Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 97 of reading (a) is ‘somehow default’ and, in order that reading (b) be achieved, ‘unforced revision’ needs to take place. However, if an IP boundary tone (%) occurs after the first nominative NP, the dative NP is strongly preferred to be interpreted together with the following nominative NP, rather than with the preceding nominative NP as schematically given in (33). Native speakers can clearly and easily associate the two NPs before the end of a sentence.

(33) (NP-NOM % (NP-DAT NP-NOM): (b) reading is strongly preferred emeni-ka % yeyppun maknayttal-eykey samchon-i sacwu-n cha-lul mwulleycwuessta mother-NOM pretty youngest.daughter-DAT uncle-NOM buy+give+rel car-ACC handed-down

(a) ‘Mother handed down to the pretty youngest daughter the car which uncle bought.’

(b) ‘Mother handed down the car, which uncle bought to the pretty youngest daughter, to somebody.’

Structural commitment, using such prosodic information as this, arises incrementally right from the beginning of a sentence. In other words, prosodic information is incorporated into the structure building right from the beginning of structure building rather than only at the completion point. The role of prosody is therefore essential in explaining the early syntactic association. As briefly discussed in Chapter 1, Fodor and her colleagues argue that implicit or hidden prosody is responsible for the different structure-building preferences found in various languages (see also Jun (2003) for a detailed discussion). The essence of Fodor’s challenge is that structure-building preferences across languages can be explained when factors beyond morpho-syntax, such as prosody, are taken into account. I adopt Fodor’s challenge and will propose that the dynamics of syntactic structure building can be fully explained by bringing prosody into the picture. In the following section, I investigate the lengthening effect in syntactic structure building using a questionnaire study.

Lengthening effect in syntactic structure building Twenty-nine 7 to 9-year-old children participated in a test designed to bring out the role of prosody in disambiguation. They were asked to answer a question after looking at the appropriate picture as in Figure 4.8. The pattern of their answer shows that they phrased the same NP-ACC NP-DAT NP-TOP sequence differently according to the length of NP-ACC; that is, when the preceding object NP (NP-ACC) is phonologically heavy (with two modifiers), the dative NP (NP-DAT) is strongly preferred to be interpreted in the matrix clause together with the following topic marked NP. The participants chose the dative NP to be interpreted together with the preceding direct object only 39% of the time. 98 Pragmatic Syntax

Figure 4.8. Matrix clause reading or embedded clause reading?

(34) Matrix reading is preferred (Long Object with two modifiers):

Long NP-ACC (NP-DAT NP-TOP)

{Ppalkass-ko mekumciksure-wun sakwa-lul} nwukwu-hanthey kom-un tangnagwi-ka red-CONJ delicious-ADN apple-ACC who-DAT bear-TOP donkey-NOM cwukoissta-ko malhay? is.giving-COMP is.saying

(a) ‘To whom is a bear saying that a donkey is giving a red and a delicious apple?’: to whom has a matrix clause reading (strongly preferred)

(b) ‘According to a bear, who is a donkey giving a red and a delicious apple?’: to whom has an embedded clause reading

However, when the object is short with only one modifier as in (35), the children preferred to interpret the dative NP together with the preceding accusative NP (66% of the time).

(35) Embedded reading is preferred (Short Object with one modifier):

(Short NP-ACC NP-DAT) NP-TOP Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 99

{Ppalkan sakwa-lul}{nwukwu-hanthey tangnagwi-nun}kirin-i cwukoissta-ko malhay? red apple-ACC who-DAT zebra-TOP giraffe-NOM is.giving-COMP is.saying

(a) ‘To whom is a zebra saying that a giraffe is giving a red apple to a penguin?’: Expected answer: a rabbit, to whom has a matrix clause reading

(b) ‘According to a zebra, who is a giraffe giving a red apple?’: Expected answer: an elephant, to whom has an embedded clause reading

What causes the shift in preferred answer between (34) and (35) is hard to explain using purely syntactic mechanisms, because structurally the two sentences are the same. Instead, it seems that compared to (35), in (34), the desire to put the two modifier NPs and the object NP in the same prosodic domain must be the source of excluding the dative NP. Simply, putting all of the expressions in the same prosodic domain is too much: it becomes too long and in this case, naturally, the dative NP will be phrased outside. In the case of (35), when the modifier is short, such pressure disappears and as a result, all NPs could be realized in the same prosodic domain. Nevertheless, the crucial point to consider is that the creation of such default prosody is not independent of general structure building. Consider (36). Even if in both cases sentence-initial sequences are made up of three two-syllable names, the default phrasing patterns are different as between (36a) and (36b).

(36) a. {Jina-hanthey Mina-nun} Yuna-ka …

J-DAT M-TOP Y-NOM

b. {Mina-nun}{Yuna-ka Jina-hanthey} …

M-TOP Y-NOM J-DAT

In a similar vein, although prosody plays a crucial role in syntactic structure building, it is sometimes overridden by the native speakers’ tendency to build a syntactic/semantic structure in a local and incremental manner. Even strong prosody sometimes cannot stop this tendency. Let’s take an example. Kang and Speer (2002, 2003) showed that the interpretation of an empty category in Korean is significantly influenced by prosody. Consider (37), which is from Kang and Speer (2002). They argue that the ambiguity of (37) disappears through effective use of prosody.

(37) Minseng-ika amsaltangha-n tosi-lul phakoyhaysse.

M-NOM got.killed-REL city-ACC destroyed

a. ‘(pro) destroyed the city where Minseng got killed’: No IP boundary after Minsengi-ka

b. ‘Minseng destroyed the city where (pro) got killed’: IP boundary after Minsengi-ka 100 Pragmatic Syntax

However, it is very hard to hold Minseng and the upcoming verb amsaltaghan- (‘got killed’) separate even with a strong IP boundary. In other words, reading (37b) is almost impossible to achieve even when some appropriate context is assumed – regardless of the existence of a strong IP boundary. In the Sejong Corpus, I found 53 examples which have a structure like (37), with the passivizing auxiliary verb plus relativizer -tangha-n (‘receive-REL’). In all these cases, no matter whether a strong IP boundary was manipulated or not, the preceding subject was construed as the subject of -tangha-n verbs as in (37a), rather than as in (37b). Similarly, I have found 435 examples which have a structure like (37) with another passivizing auxiliary verb -cwu-n (‘give-REL’). Again, in every instance, the subject was understood as the subject of -cwu-n (‘give-REL’) verbs as in (37a), but never as in (37b). This generalization can be extended to other types of relativizing sentences. Consider (38); (38) can be read as either (38a) or (38b), but never as in (38c) – regardless of any prosodic break:

(38) Jina-ka coaha-nun salam-ul mannasseyo.

J-NOM like-REL person-ACC met

a. ‘I/he/she met a person who Jina likes.’

b. ‘Jina met a person who she likes.’

c. ???‘Jina met a person who likes someone – but not Jina.’

(even if there is a strong Intonational Phrase boundary between Jina and coaha- nun ‘like-REL’)

What this shows is that although prosody is essential in facilitating the appropriate relative clause construal, it cannot block certain incrementally occurring grammatical processes such as anaphora resolution or empty argument resolution. Consider (39); no matter whether the prosodic boundary occurs afterJina-ka or not, it is hard to interpret pay (‘stomach’) as being someone else’s stomach:

(39) Jina-ka % pay-ka aphuta-ko haysseyo.

J-NOM stomach-NOM sick-COMP said

a. ‘Jina (or somebody) said that Jina had a stomach ache.’

b. ???‘Jina said that someone else has a stomach ache.’ (even if there is a strong Intonational Phrase boundary between Jina and pay ‘stomach’)

The components of grammar such as Syntax, Semantics and Phonology interact during the process of structure building incrementally. Native speakers tend to incorporate all the given information in order to build a structure in an incremental manner. I propose the architecture of grammar shown in Figure 4.9 to capture the incremental Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 101

Semantics Syntax Information Morphology Structure

PhonoticsPhonetics Phonology

Figure 4.9. Interaction between grammatical components during the process

interaction between each grammatical component. What is important here is that interaction occurs during the ‘process’ of structure building – rather than only at the very end.

Summary

So far, we have observed the following: native speakers of Korean build a linguistic structure from left to right, incrementally. Hence, leftward expressions have more freedom in terms of interpretation than rightward expressions. Nevertheless, such freedom is not unrestricted. Indeed, even if Korean is known to have relatively free word order, only a very limited set of word orders have been observed. Left-peripheral expressions are, for instance, strongly preferred to be construed within the first- available structure as soon as possible – rather than in any arbitrary structural template. The common trend found in those word orders is the native speakers’ strong tendency to localize all arguments and to resolve any grammatical dependency as quickly as possible. Although the tendency to ‘minimize’ the structure-building domain is strong, native speakers often dislocate expressions from their own clause and place them at the sentence-initial position in order to achieve a certain pragmatic effect such as emphasis. Incremental structure building implies incremental interaction between the separate components of grammar. We have seen how different grammatical components interact during the process of structure building. The essence of syntactic competence which these observations reflect is the native speakers’ left-to-right, incremental structure building at a sentential level as well as at a cross-sentential level. Yet, as we shall see, it is not easy to capture this incremental growth property within a static grammar. 102 Pragmatic Syntax

4.2. Explaining incrementality Locality and efficiency in the generative tradition

As we saw Chapter 1, the essence of Chomskian grammar assumes resource-abundant ideal speakers. Consider the quote again.

Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance. (Chomsky 1965:3)

Nevertheless, from the very beginning, considerations of locality or economy were at the centre of the discussion in generative approaches – either within transformational or non-transformational schemes. For instance, transformational grammar assumes economy from its very beginning, particularly in the process of derivation. The first attempt at a Chomskian concept of economy is found in Chomsky (1975). A related rule is called subjacency. This remains true in the current Minimalist Program, in which, according to the Minimal Link Condition described in (40) from Carnie (2002:319), if the movement does not take place in the ‘first’ available site but in some other arbitrary place, it becomes the source of ungrammaticality in a sentence. The Minimal Link Condition is also called Shortest Move (Chomsky 1993) in the same spirit.

(40) Movement must target the closest potential position.

Consider examples from Carnie (2002:319), presented as (7) and (8) in Chapter 2. In both raising and wh-island constructions, ungrammaticality results when an element tries to move to a landing site higher than the closest potential one.

(7) *[ TP Marki seems that [TP it is likely [ti to have left]]].

first available position

(8) *[ CP Whoi did [TP Mark claim [CP what j [TP ti loved tj]]]].

The above data show that violation of optimal derivation causes (not just mere unnaturalness but) ungrammaticality. Given that the ideal speaker is defined as being resource-abundant, it is interesting to see that the ideal speaker is also forced to produce a sentence in such a radically optimal, economic manner. If the ideal speaker has no problem of resources, why does efficiency matter so much? Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 103

There is nothing as obvious as the Minimal Link Condition in the non- transformational, declarative frameworks such as Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) or Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). Nevertheless, we can find some equivalent conditions, detailed below, which share the same spirit with the locality principle. (41) is the principle of economy of expression in LFG.

(41) Principle of Economy of Expression (Bresnan 2001:91)

All syntactic phrase structure nodes are optional and are not used unless required by independent principles (completeness, coherence, semantic expressivity).

There is no rule specifying economy in HPSG either. However, as Sag (2007), among others, demonstrates, there is a growing consensus for the need to specify locality in the HPSG framework in order to be able to explain a number of grammatical phenomena (see Sag 2007 and his more recent works).

Performance-grammar correspondence hypothesis On the other hand, processing-based accounts have frequently elaborated on economy or efficiency of understanding, without raising any deeper question as to the status of mental grammar (see works such as Gibson (1998)). Other works, such as Hawkins (2004), however, aim to provide a processing-based account including wider implications for grammar, so that both corpus and typological evidence can be presumed to be relevant. We have seen how Hawkins explains economic choices in structure building in Chapter 2. I think a Hawkins-style approach is the right one to pursue in terms of establishing a more sensible, empirically sound mental grammar and narrowing the gap between competence and performance, instead of providing an independent processing theory, which has no influence on mental grammar. Hawkins in particular argued that even the highly abstract and fundamental properties of syntax may be derived from simple principles of processing efficiency and complexity. Based on this observation, he proposed the Performance-Grammar Correspondence Hypothesis.

(42) Performance-Grammar Correspondence Hypothesis (PGCH):

Grammars have conventionalized syntactic structures in proportion with their degree of preference in performance, as evidenced by patterns of selection in corpora and by ease of processing in psycholinguistic experiments.

PGCH contains the following grammatical predictions, given in (43).

(43) Grammatical predictions of the PGCH:

(a) If a structure A is preferred over an A’ of the same structural type in performance, then A will be more productively grammaticalized, in proportion to its degree of preference; if A and A’ are more equally preferred, then A and A’ will both be productive in grammars. 104 Pragmatic Syntax

(b) If there is a preference ranking A > B> C> D among structures of a common type in performance, then there will be a corresponding hierarchy of grammatical conventions (with cut-off points and declining frequencies of languages).

(c) If two preferences P and P’ are in (partial) opposition, then there will be variation in performance and grammars, with both P and P’ being realized, each in proportion to its degree of motivation in a given language structure.

Following Hawkins, I also assume that empirical challenges, expressed by either efficiency or frequency, should be properly explained in grammar. Along with PGCH, Hawkins (2004) proposed the following two principles for natural language syntax.

(44) Minimize domains (MiD):

The human processor prefers to minimize the connected sequences of linguistic forms and their conventionally associated syntactic and semantic properties in which relations of combination and/or dependency are processed. The degree of this preference is proportional to the number of relations whose domains can be minimized in competing sequences of structures, and to the extent of the minimization difference in each domain.

(45) Maximize on-line processing (MaOP)

The human processor prefers to maximize the set of properties that are assignable to each item X as X is processed, thereby increasing O(n-line) P(roperty) to U(ltimate) P(roperty) ratios. The maximization difference between competing orders and structures will be a function of the number of properties that are unassigned or misassigned to X in a structure/sequence S, compared with the number in an alternative.

The insight these two principles represent is essential in explaining the kinds of syntactic behaviour that we will discuss in this book. In line with the PGCH, I propose that the processes of grammar induce shifting types over time to allow the requisite flexibility of structure. Hence even the grammar itself is constantly under a process of being re-shaped – cross-linguistically, diachronically and synchronically, by processing and production pressures, to make structure building more efficient and less ambiguous. Efficiency-driven choices become frozen and form patterns and then those patterns become a part of the mental grammar. Efficient choices, however, do not necessarily mean the grammar being either simplified or complexed. In fact, a set of efficient choice seems to have the right balance between simple and complex structures. Finding the right balance is the key to efficient structure building. Part of the goal of this book is to show that the essence of efficiency can be captured by looking at the process of syntactic structure building. For example, locality can be explained well when we assume dynamic, step-by-step structure building. In a static perspective, it is hard to calculate the optimal, most economic decisions. Equally, indeed even more poignantly, explaining efficient and incremental structure building in verb-final languages poses particular challenges, as we now turn to. Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 105

The limit of static, verb-centred accounts: The case of OV languages

Given that a verb carries all the combinatory information for sentence composition, building an incremental, partial structure is expected to be impossible in verb-final languages. Explaining how this is possible brings a challenge in most static, verb- centred grammars and ultimately brings us to urge the necessity for an alternative grammar. In this section, I will review how both derivational and lexical grammars have attempted to explain the puzzling phenomena caused by incremental growth of structure.

Derivational approaches Explaining syntactic unity between NP clusters: ‘Verb-less’ constituents ’Verb-less’ constituents are often found across languages – in both verb-initial and verb-final languages. However, in the tradition of generative syntax, where structural combination starts from the verb and its direct object, it was not easy to explain how a constituent is formed between those NPs without a verb, which is not always adjacent to those NPs. In the following, I will provide two major approaches to explain the syntactic unity of those NP sequences, or clusters.

One movement vs. two movements: Asymmetric grammaticality judgements The first approach is to assume that the peculiar constituency effect in sequences of NPs clustered as a pair is not generated as a whole but moved one by one separately from the basic structure. This was the approach used by Koizumi (1995). In his approach, a string of multiple lexical items in a ‘non-canonical’ order is regarded as the result of multiple applications of (remnant) movement. On the other hand, a string of multiple lexical items in a ‘canonical order’ is regarded as the result of a single application of (remnant) movement. Since the application of more than one long-distance movement yields a subjacency violation (Chomsky 1986), Koizumi predicts the asymmetric grammaticality judgement between (46a and b). Note that the only difference between (46a) and (46b) is the order between the indirect object and the direct object.

(46) a. Applying one long-distance movement: Grammatical

[VPHawai-de Masami-ni prezento-o tv] [John-ga

Hawai-at Masami-DAT present-ACC trace John-NOM

[Kiyomi-ga kattav-to] omotteiru]

Kiyomi-NOM bought-COMP think

b. Applying two long-distance movements: Ungrammatical due to subjacency violation 106 Pragmatic Syntax

[???Prezento-o3 Masami-ni2 Hawai-de1 John-ga

present-ACC Masami-DAT Hawaii-at John-NOM

[Kiyomi-ga t1 t2 t3 katta-to] omotteiru]

Kiyomi-NOM bought-COMP think

Does different order lead to different grammaticality judgements? However, leaving aside the details of his argument, the asymmetric judgements in (46a-b) are not obvious among Japanese and Korean native speakers. Native speakers of Korean and Japanese find sentences such as (46) perfectly grammatical and no difference in grammaticality seems to be observed. Consider (47)–(48) and (49)–(50). (47)–(48) are Korean and (49)–(50) are Japanese sentences. All examples are equally natural and grammatical. Fronted pair of NPs can build a cluster, partial structure, easily without the help of a verb. All examples are interrogative sentences asking about the recipient animal in Figure 4.10.

(47) Direct object–indirect object pair (IP boundary after the indirect object) [Korean]

Ppalkan sakwa-lul nwukwu-hanthey % tangnagwi-nun kirin-i cwukoissta-ko malhay?

red apple-ACC who-DAT zebra-TOP giraffe-NOM is.giving-COMP is.saying

Figure 4.10. Listener or recipient? Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 107

‘According to a zebra, who is the giraffe giving a red apple?’: Expected answer: the elephant, to whom has an embedded clause reading

(48) Indirect object–direct object pair (IP boundary after the direct object) [Korean]

Nwukwu-hanthey ppalkan sakwa-lul % tangnagwi-nun kirin-i cwukoissta-ko malhay?

who-DAT red apple-ACC zebra-TOP giraffe-NOM is.giving-COMP is.saying

‘According to a zebra, who is the giraffe giving a red apple?’: Expected answer: the elephant, to whom has an embedded clause reading

(49) Direct object indirect object pair (IP boundary after the indirect object) [Japanese]

Akai ringo-o dare-ni % shimauma-wa kirin-ga ataeteiru-to itteiru-no?

red apple-ACC who-DAT zebra-TOP giraffe-NOM is.giving-COMP is.saying-Q

‘According to a zebra, who is a giraffe giving a red apple?’: Expected answer: an elephant, to whom has an embedded clause reading

(50) Indirect object direct object pair (IP boundary after the direct object) [Japanese]

Dare-ni akai ringo-o % shimauma-wa kirin-ga ataeteiru-to itteiru-no?

who-DAT red apple-ACC zebra-TOP giraffe-NOM is.giving-COMP is.saying

‘According to a zebra, who is a giraffe giving a red apple?’: Expected answer: an elephant, to whom has an embedded clause reading

Prosodic break plays an important role in cluster formation. Hence, after the sequence of NPs, an Intonational Phrase boundary is observed. Cluster formation observed in such cases as above, which resulted from the incremental growth of a structure, is difficult to capture when static, verb-centred perspectives are adopted. In generative grammar, the constitution of this pair of verbless NPs is regarded as abnormal, though it is very popular in use. It is because the basic architecture assumes that an object forms a VP constituent with a verb first. Although the details of the proposal and framework have been updated, this idea was maintained throughout the development of generative grammar.

Oblique movement: Brand-new movement Takano (2002), on the other hand, argued that seemingly verb-less clusters form what he called ‘surprising constituent’. These can be built under an adjunction-like oblique movement. He claims that in (51), Mary-ni goes through an oblique movement to the sister position of hon-o and forms a surprising constituent, as illustrated in Figure 4.11. NP1 and NP2 were not a constituent at first but become a constituent later. 108 Pragmatic Syntax

VP VP NP1 V’ NP V

NP2 V NP2-Hon-oi NP1=Mary-ni t2 V=ageta Figure 4.11. Cluster formation via oblique movement

(51) John-ga agata-no wa [hon-o Mary-ni] da

J-NOM gave-NM TOP book-ACC M-DAT COP

‘It is a book to Mary that John gave.’

The crucial question within this analysis is whether the invention of a new movement as such would provide an adequate explanation. Given that a structure is built incrementally in Korean and Japanese, partial structure building with NP clusters such as hon-o Mary-ni in (51) seems to be at the heart of Korean and Japanese syntax. If this is so, it might be expected that the existing formal tools should be sufficient to explain syntactic unity as such, instead of having to improvise a new type of syntactic mechanism – out of the blue. I believe the latter solution is missing the essential point and is probably the result of looking at structures of verb-final languages like Korean and Japanese from an English syntax perspective. In other words, what is in reality basic and simple structure building in Korean and Japanese is considered exceptional and surprising, requiring special consideration in the architecture of grammar, for grammar has traditionally been viewed from a verb-initial or verb-centred perspective.

Unforced revision Not only cluster formation, but also early association or any kind of locality effect is hard to explain in the traditional static grammars. Aoshima et al. (2004) adopted an unforced revision device to explain the incremental growth of a structure in Japanese. I will briefly explain their argument in the following section. Aoshima and her colleagues (Aoshima et al. 2003, 2004) argue that in Japanese the sentence-initial wh-dative NP undergoes unforced revision during the on-line structure building, to be interpreted within the ‘most’ embedded clause. Consider their examples:

(55) Scrambled, declarative complementizer: Delay at -to

Dono-seito-ni tannin-wa koocyoo-ga hon-o which-student-DAT class.teacher-TOP principal-NOM book-ACC yonda-to tosyositu-de sisyo-ni iimasita-ka? read-DECL library-at librarian-DAT said-Q

‘Which student did the class teacher tell the librarian at the library that the principal read a book for?’ Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 109

(53) Scrambled, declarative complementizer: No delay at –ka

Dono-seito-ni tannin-wa koocyoo-ga hon-o which-student-DAT class.teacher-TOP principal-NOM book-ACC yonda-ka tosyositu-de sisyo-ni iimasita-ka? read-Q library-at librarian-DAT said-Q

‘The class teacher told the librarian at the library which student the principal read a book for?’

By using a word-by-word self-paced reading test, Aoshima et al. found that Japanese speakers were surprised to encounter a declarative complementizer -to in the embedded clause as in (52) when they have a wh-word at the initial position. Based on this result, they argued that Japanese speakers at first posit a gap in the matrix clause but revise the structure so that a gap is found in the most embedded clause. This shift has been shown schematically Figure 4.12. A gap was initially in the matrix clause but is shifted into the embedded clause, hence lowered. According to Aoshima et al., such shift is ‘unforced’.3 That is, there is no clear cause for this shift. Nevertheless, they still assume that the motivation of such a revision is feature-checking; in other words, Aoshima and her colleagues argue that the slowdown in the embedded clause with a declarative marker is caused because of a failure in feature-checking, and in particular, failure to check the wh feature. Aoshima et al. (2005) argue that this is why referential NPs (e.g. Taroo-ni (‘Taroo-DAT’)) within a sentence-initial position do not undergo unforced revision. However, given that the strength of the wh feature in Japanese and Korean is very weak (Grewendorf 2001), it seems unreasonable to think that native speakers perceive them to be radically different at such an early stage of structure building to motivate unforced revision. Aoshima et al. (2004) also argue that the parser prefers to satisfy requirements brought from the initial dative NP as soon as possible, and thus within the most embedded clause, since in Japanese and Korean the most embedded verb comes earliest and the matrix verb comes last. However, without considering the full picture of a structure, it is impossible to know how many embedded structures are used in the given sentence. We therefore cannot see from which source structure such revision should take place until we reach the end of the structure processing. Moreover, as we observed, dative NPs are strongly preferred to be interpreted within the matrix

CP

Wh-dat Embedded C CP IP

Wh-dat Matrix C NP-subj VP C IP CP V NP-subj VP NP-subj VP gap V gap V Figure 4.12. Unforced revision from a matrix into an embedded clause 110 Pragmatic Syntax clause together with the immediately following topic-marked or nominative NP (see Ko 1997, Kamide and Mitchell 1999). Indeed, the same results were found in off-line experiments by Aoshima et al. Yet, they argued that off-line understanding differs from on-line understanding. I am not convinced why on-line and off-line judgements should contrast with each other without substantial reason. In addition, in both Japanese and Korean, wh-dative NPs can also be used as indefinite NPs. In (54), nwukwu-hanthey (Korean) or dare-ni (Japanese) can be interpreted as either a wh-question word or an indefinite NP – depending on intonation and given context.

(54) a. Nwukwu-hanthey mwulepoassumni-kka? [Korean]

who-DAT asked-Q

‘Who did you ask?’ / Did you ask someone?

b. Dare-ni tazunemashita-ka? [Japanese]

who-DAT asked-Q

‘Who did you ask?’ Did you ask someone?

In (55), on the other hand, nwukwu-hanthey (Korean) or dare-ni (Japanese) can be interpreted only as indefinite NPs.

(55) a. Nwukwu-hanthey ton-ul piliepoci-an-asss-e. [Korean]

someone-DAT money-ACC borrow-NEG-PAST-DECL

‘I haven’t borrowed money from anybody.’

b. Dare-kara-mo okane-o kari-naka-tta. [Japanese]

someone-from- money-ACC borrow-NEG-PAST

‘I haven’t borrowed money from anybody.’

An account such as unforced revision is probably the best explanation that generative grammar can offer. The architecture of generative grammar is basically set up not for an incomplete structure, but a complete, grammatical sentence. Hence, in order to thread incrementality into generative syntax, a provisional, complete structure needs to be assumed even at the beginning. Yet, how can we guess this provisional structure (when the end is not-yet-seen)? As said, this structure is not an arbitrary structure. At the same time, we do not need to have a full knowledge of the structure we are facing in order to have a provisional template in mind. In order to show how a structure grows in an incremental manner, from the beginning of postulating such a structure, it is crucial to assume and consider the ‘earlier-underspecified-but later-to-be specified’ characteristics of natural language syntax. Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 111

Lexical approaches Ruthless reduce-first parser In this section, I will review how lexicalist grammars such as Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG: Steedman 2000) have tried to explain incremental structural growth within their formal frameworks. Among all lexicalist grammars, Combinatory Categorial Grammar in particular seems to be most suitable in explaining the incrementality puzzles in verb-final languages (as well as verb-initial languages). This is because CCG assumes compositionality of a structure as the basis of its grammar design. However, in principle, CCG-type compositionality is not suitable to model monotonic, gradual structural growth. We can find this by looking at CCG treatment of long-distance dependency in verb-final languages. Hoffman (1995) and Baldridge (2002), among others, have provided a CCG analysis on flexible structure building in (relatively) free word-order languages such as Turkish, Toba-Batak and Tagalog. Yet, their analyses fail to provide satisfactory accounts for incremental structure building in the OV languages. Most of all, although the combination is procedural, it is not sensitive to linear order. One of the reasons can be found in its assumption that it is only the verb or head which can initiate any combination (i.e. structure building). This directly yields non-determinism in early structure building in those languages. McConville (2001) tried to reduce such non- determinism and capture incrementality in CCG grammar by proposing a ruthless reduce-first parser. Yet, this ruthless reduce-first parser approach faces the same problem as the unforced revision we discussed earlier. In addition, as we observed in the case of Korean and Japanese, there is little significant difference in terms of partial structure-building procedures (following left- to-right order) for simple and complex sentences. Nevertheless, CCG analyses assume that the two types of structure building are radically different, as the latter required complicated type-shifting. Consider (56) and (57). Hoffman (1995) tried to explain the flexible word order in Turkish as in (56) and (57) by proposing a set-notated category as in (62c), which is the sum of (58a) and (58b):

(56) Ayse kitabi okuyor [Turkish] [SOV]

Ayse-NOM book-ACC read

‘Ayse read a book.’

(57) Kitabi Ayse okuyor [Turkish][OSV]

book-ACC Ayse-NOM read

‘Ayse read a book.’

(58) a. okuyor├(S\NPNOM,) \NPACC

(i.e. the current lexical item is to be combined with accusative NP first then with nominative NP) 112 Pragmatic Syntax

b. okuyor├ (S\NPACC,) \NPNOM

(i.e. the current lexical item is to be combined with nominative NP first then with accusative NP)

c. okuyor├S {\NPNOM,,\NPACC} ← Set-notated category

(i.e. the current lexical item is to be combined either with accusative NP or nominative NP)

However, Baldridge, among others, has found that lexical items are not completely permutable. He solved this problem by adding modality control in the lexicon. The core idea of Baldridge (2002) is to redefine CCG rules so as to be sensitive to those modalities with the aim to capture freedom and restriction in relatively free word-order languages. Consider (59) and (60). (59) is a sentence with long-distance scrambling.

(59) Kitabi Fatma Esraninokuyorokudugunu biliyor [Turkish]

book-ACC Fatma-NOM Esraniin-GEN read know-PROG

‘As for the book, Fatma knows that Esra read it.’

(60) Building a structure for (59)

Kitabi Fatma Esra’nin okudugunu biliyor {np , np } {np , S } npa npn npg Sνacc g a Si n νacc >T < np si (si npn) Svacc a Bx si npa < si

What (60) shows is that for the fronted object kitabi (‘book’) to be understood in the embedded clause, the matrix clause subject Fatma has to be type-raised and then go through forward cross composition into the verbal cluster (see Baldridge (2002) for details). This formal procedure does not seem to reflect any incremental, natural patterns of structure building in Turkish. It is hard to imagine such complex structure- building procedures going through the minds of native speakers as they seek to understand sentences such as (59) at such an early stage after parsing only two words.

Feature-based account on left-to-right growth The simple question is this: can we explain left-to-right growth of a structure using features? If not, why is that the case? If we were to attempt to capture the left-to-right growth property within feature- based accounts, we would soon inevitably face countless, unnecessary features. Karamanis (2001), for instance, tried to explain linear-order sensitivity in Greek by Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 113 specifying the argument’s syntactic position in the lexicon. For instance, the value +FRO denotes that there is a fronted argument involved. However, such an approach fell far short of capturing the linguistic competence shown by the word-order phenomena in Greek. We have observed that initial expressions – no matter what their categories are – have more freedom in choosing their host structure than those expressions appearing close to the end of a sentence. If we adopt the extreme feature-based account as in Karamanis (2001), we would have to specify each lexical item in terms of its syntactic location, which would result in the doubling or tripling of the size of the current lexicon. Given that structure-building freedom also decreases gradually, it would be hard to assign any value of that feature to a lexical item, occurring in the middle of a sentence. I therefore believe that such a feature-based approach, is inadequate to accommodate and explain what is implicit in the data we have discussed. The role of features is nonetheless becoming very important in contemporary theoretical linguistics. In the Minimalist Program, much emphasis is put on morphological forms as a driving force, or as a trigger for a wide range of syntactic operations (Chomsky 2000, 2001). In this approach, lexical items are also regarded as a bundle of features. Simply put, this means that every syntactic configuration should be feature-driven and in every structural variation, there should be a clear, corresponding feature. Though the importance of features is continually increasing, there is in fact no solid theoretical or empirical basis relating to the choice and usage of features. That is, what should be used as a feature is still not clearly defined in any theoretical framework. Nonetheless, features are regarded as the major source of syntactic motivation. I believe that a proper theoretical or empirical justification for the selection and use of features must be established in order to adopt them as the source of structural motivation. In recent theoretical linguistics, often ‘new’ features have been adopted as a last resource when further explanation became impossible within the basic assumptions. Yet, without being rigorous about the selection of features, we will finally end up with ad- hoc explanations with brand-new features in them. In the Chomskian tradition, features are divided further into strong vs. weak features, covert vs. overt features, and interpretable vs. non-interpretable features. However, these terms have become so abstract that it is hard to understand how they can be applied in reality. It is hard to comprehend what ‘interpretable’ actually means and what kind of empirical foundation it has outside the contemporary Minimalist Program. As shown in (61), Kibort (2010) demonstrates that in fact, among all features, the only typically morpho-syntactic features which are relevant to syntax are gender, number, person and case. In other words, these are the features that are crucial to the architecture of syntax.

(61) Feature inventory (Kibort 2010) a. Typically morpho-syntactic features

e.g. Gender, number, person, case 114 Pragmatic Syntax b. Rarely morpho-syntactic, typically morpho-semantic features

e.g. Respect, definiteness c. Only morpho-semantic features

e.g. Tense, aspect, mood, polarity, transitivity, diathesis and voice, evidentiality, question-word dependency, associativity, screeve, other features d. Morphological features

e.g. Inflectional case, stem index, syncretic index, morpho-phonological specification

However, cross-linguistically, how many languages are gender-less, number-less and case-less? In fact, these morpho-syntactic features are not common in non-Indo- European languages. From the perspective of world languages, gender-less languages are more common than languages with a three-way gender distinction as we now shall see. The following data are taken from WALS on-line http://wals.info( ). According to Siewierska, among 378 languages under investigation, more than half of them, that is 254 languages (67%) do not show any gender distinction in independent personal pronouns. Also, according to Corbett (2008), as shown in Table 4.3, 145 languages among 257 languages (56%) show no gender at all. In addition, Siewierska (2008) also shows that 82 languages out of 378 languages (21%) show no person marking in verbs. In languages like Korean or Japanese, I believe that real morpho-syntactic, syntax- related features do not exist, as is the case with many other languages. Given this fact, it does not seem empirically sound to regard the strength of such features as the basis for all language-universal syntactic discussions. Most of all, we discussed in this chapter, a feature-based account cannot capture the ‘multi-dimensional’ nature of natural language syntax. As we shall see in chapters 6 and 7, most of the particles in Korean are hard to consider as a binary feature used as in number/gender/case agreement. I think what we observe in those chapters can be easily applicable to other number-less, gender-less and case-less languages.

Table 4.3 Number of genders

Number of genders Number of languages Some example languages

0 145 Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amele, Arabana, Armenian (Eastern), Asmat, Awa PitCanela-Krahô, Cantonese 2 50 Alagwa, Alamblak, Amharic, Apurinã, Arabic (Egyptian), Arabic (Gulf), Arabic (Syrian), 3 26 English, German, Godoberi, Greek (Modern), 4 12 Archi, Bininj Gun-Wok, Burushaski, More than 5 24 Arapesh, Babungo, Chichewa, Swahili, Yimas, Zulu, Total 257 Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 115

Accounts outside the grammar: Independent parsing-based accounts Miyamoto (2002) showed that case markers are crucial in the incremental processing of Japanese. He argued that although other factors such as animacy and plausibility play crucial roles, it is case markers which provide the most important piece of information. Miyamoto assumed that the parsing model for head-initial and head-final languages should be the same, in terms of capturing incrementality. Nevertheless, Miyamoto did not provide any implication of incremental processing in the architecture of grammar, assuming a clear boundary between grammar and processing. In this book, I dispute this view, arguing that such a parsing strategy – resulting from (incremental) structural growth – should be understood within the architecture of the core grammar. The main reason why the left-to-right growth of a structure is not properly captured or explained in the grammars is because of the static nature of most grammar formalisms, where only a complete sentence is analyzed and the procedural aspects of structural growth are ignored as we have seen in the previous section. In particular, as for verb-final languages, it is even harder for such a static grammar to explain or make any prediction for an upcoming structure, since a verb, which carries all the combinatory information, comes only at the very end. To overcome the limits of (non-linear) static and verb-centred accounts, I argue for the necessity of a grammar formalism which assumes a left-to-right growth property and structural optimization as the backbone of the syntactic architecture in Chapter 5. Within this syntactic architecture, the core phenomena under discussion become the natural consequences of syntactic structure building.

4.3. Towards grammar for procedural competence What the core data we discussed in Section 4.1 reflect is the time-sensitive and also resource-sensitive nature of linguistic competence, which I will call the procedural competence, because it is the competence captured by looking at the procedures of syntactic growth. In this chapter, we have observed that procedural competence is expressed in the following areas of structural optimization: a) left-to-right growth of a structure (both within and across a sentential level) b) early association c) link or associate to the previous context through long-distance dependency d) incremental interaction between components of grammar The essence of procedural competence is expressed through efficiency-driven structuring as we have seen in Chapter 2. That is, the fact that native speakers do not choose any arbitrary structure but what is most efficient ‘during’ the course of structuring is the manifestation of procedural competence. Hence, incremental structuring together with ambiguity-avoiding strategies, which we can capture and explain by looking at the ‘procedures’ of structure building, I believe, are the basis of procedural competence. 116 Pragmatic Syntax

As we have seen in the previous section, however, capturing and explaining these properties in grammar formalisms is not easy on two accounts. The first is due to the long-standing assumption of the gap between competence and performance: for instance, variation in distributional potential along a left–right parameter has been regarded as nothing to do with the core grammar, no matter how significant the distributional asymmetry is, whereas any asymmetry between grammatical and ungrammatical forms has been considered relevant to shaping the core grammar. Hence, adopting a strictly orthodox view of generative grammar, the phenomena we have observed in this section would not even be regarded as something that syntactic theory should explain. Second, as we have observed, non-linear, static grammars are inadequate for explaining the left-to-right growth property of natural language syntax. This brings about the need for an alternative grammar which captures and explains the dynamic nature of structure building in the backbone of its architectural design. Procedural competence essentially assumes step-wise structure building following left-to-right linear order. Therefore, in order to capture procedural competence, what we need is a grammar which can capture the left-to-right growth of a structure; in other words, we need a grammar which has the left-to-right growth mechanism as the backbone of its syntactic architecture. Such a grammar should be able to capture what is happening during the process of structure building – for instance, the awkwardness encountered during the ‘process’ of structure building. Moreover, we need to have a grammar which can explain why only a very limited syntactic choice becomes dominant in real use. By adopting a left-to-right, resource- sensitive grammar formalism, we can not only provide an adequate explanation to account for some puzzling cases but also provide a more elegant and satisfactory account for general linguistic phenomena. So far, linguists’ main concern has been to answer how various syntactic mechanisms will be accounted for in specific grammar formalisms. And they have rarely asked what the causes of variation among grammatical forms are. Indeed, asking such a question was often regarded as belonging to the domain of functional linguistics. In this book, however, I assume that the strict and radical distinction between formal and functional linguistics needs to be set aside. As argued by Hawkins (2004), the distribution of the abstract properties of grammar is inevitably related to the efficiency of those forms in real use. I argue that mental grammar is shaped in such a way that it maximizes the real-time understanding of a linguistic sequence. Otherwise, it is very hard to explain why native speakers of so- called free word-order languages show such a strong preference for a very limited set of word orders when in fact numerous word orders are possible. In the orthodox grammars, where the complete sentence or proposition is regarded as the starting point of syntactic discussion, the inappropriateness of a not-yet-finished structure is hard to explain. Nevertheless, it is crystal clear that native speakers of any language can and do form their syntactic judgement or syntactic structure building from left to right, as the string is heard. In Chapter 5, I will adopt Dynamic Syntax (DS: Kempson et al. 2001, Cann et al. 2005) and provide a formal account on efficiency- driven characteristics of natural language syntax. Challenges of Incrementality in Verb-Final Languages 117

4.4. Beyond Korean: Some typological investigation Although we are mainly discussing Korean data in this book, the challenges posed by verb-final languages are far from trivial. This is, to repeat, because verb-final languages comprise more than 50% of the world’s languages. The major issues and discussions surrounding Korean can be applied to other verb-final languages. Of the top 20 languages (classified by the language population), about half of them – such as Hindi (182 million), Bengali (162 million), Japanese (124 million), Javanese (75 million), Korean (66 million), Telugu (55 million), Turkish (53 million), and Tamil (49 million), are head-final languages, and all of them are in fact from East or South-east Asia. One of the most crucial pieces of evidence for the non-accidental claim for syntactic variations can be observed by looking at word-order variation in world languages; that is, not every order is popular. According to Dryer’s (2008) WALS observation, it seems that among the 1,228 languages under investigation, languages with fixed object- subject-verb languages are only 4 (which is 0.3%) in number: namely, Nadëb, Tobati, Warao and Wik Ngathana. On the other hand, a strikingly huge number of languages take either subject-object-verb (SOV) or subject-verb-object (SVO) orders. Dryer points out that SVO, now a common order in Europe and around the Mediterranean, was less common in the past; Latin, for instance, is a well-known SOV language. Consider Table 4.4 from Dryer (2008):4 One thing to note here is that given the above typological and historical observation, it is rather difficult to justify why SVO-type languages were regarded as the ‘model’ language in postulating linguistic universals. In Table 4.4, we also see that there are languages which do not have any dominant word orders. In fact, among SOV languages, most of them, unlike SVO languages, show some flexibility in ordering as listed in (62).

Table 4.4 Word-order typology

Word order Number Sample languages Subject-object-verb 497 Hindi, Korean, Japanese, Turkish. Subject-verb-object 435 English, French, Mandarin, Spanish. Verb-subject-object 85 Arabic (Modern Standard), Irish, Welsh. Verb-object-subject 26 Chinook, Malagasy, Kiribati. Object-verb-subject 9 Tiriyo, Ungarinjin, Urarina. Object-subject-verb 4 Nadëb, Tobati, Warao. Lacking a dominant word order 172 Dutch, German, Greek.

(62) Abkhaz, Ainu, Alyawarra, Armenian, Arrernte, Assamese, Azeri, Basque, Bauzi, Beja, Bengali, Bhojpuri, Burushaski, Carib, Chaha, Comanche, Diyari, Dongxiang, Eastern Pomo, Evenki, Georgian, Greenlandic (West), Gujarati, Guugu Yimidhirr, Hindi, Huichol, Itelmen, Japanese, Kabardian, Kalkatungu, Kaluli, Kanum, Karakalpak, Khalkha, Kham, Khanty, Kiowa, Koasati, Korean, Koryak, Koryak, Lakota, Lamani, 118 Pragmatic Syntax

Lezgian, Maidu, Marathi, Mekens, Mende, Miskito, Motu, Nivkh, Pashto, Persian, Pima Bajo, Punjabi, Quechua, Rembarnga, Rutul, Selkup, Sinhalese, Takelma, Tamil, Tarahumara, Tariana, Telugu, Teribe, Turkish, Turkmen, Udihe, Urdu, Uzbek, Wappo, Yahgan, Yakut, Yelî Dnye, Yi, Yidiny, Zuni

Indeed, one of the important characteristics of the SOV languages listed (e.g. Hindi, Korean, Japanese, Turkish) is the flexible ordering between expressions. The languages listed in italics either have a ‘very’ free word order or are languages in which word- order variation occurs regularly in given circumstances (e.g. to emphasize a subject or an object).

4.5. Chapter summary In this chapter, we observed that the typical verb-final language Korean proves a serious challenge to most static, verb-centred grammar formalisms. Linguistic phenomena driven by the left-to-right growth of a structure remain the most difficult to account for. Yet, I have argued that this does not mean that the left-to-right growth property is merely a processing property with nothing to do with linguistic competence. Instead, I have argued that what it reflects is another dynamic and procedural aspect of linguistic competence, which I called procedural competence. I also showed that structural growth is not solely driven by syntactic factors but also by non-syntactic factors such as prosody during the process of structure building. The earlier discussion, although based on Korean, can also be applied or extended to verb-final languages in general, which comprise about half of the world’s languages. The empirical challenges which show the resource-sensitive nature of grammar, including the left-to-right growth property, must therefore be captured and explained properly in the tenet of grammar, instead of being regarded as an exceptional or peripheral aspect of syntactic behaviour. Theoretical linguists believed that syntactic behaviour should be explained purely grammar-internally. Yet, as we have seen in this chapter, it is very hard to find any grammar-internal motivation or explanation for the preference asymmetry we observed in various databases. In the following chapter, we will introduce the Dynamic Syntax (DS) formalism, which has resource-sensitivity – particularly expressed through the left-to-right growth of a structure – as the backbone of its architectural design. 5

Formal Tools: Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax

In the previous chapters, we have discussed two major syntactic motivations that are pragmatic in nature. In other words, we observed that native speakers’ syntactic choice is neither arbitrary, nor explainable using grammar-internal constraints. Rather, we have observed that structure building is economically motivated (Chapter 2) as well as expressively motivated (Chapter 3). It was also noted that the morpho-syntactic features are not the main constituents of determining grammatical relations in all languages, as shown by Korean and Japanese examples (Chapter 4). In this chapter, I will show how these two syntactic motivations can be captured and explained by adopting a revised variant of Dynamic Syntax (DS), which allows for two-dimensional meanings – propositional and expressive – to be interwoven nicely. In representing the expressive dimension, I adopt Potts’ (2005) logic of conventional implicature (CI) that we discussed in Chapter 3. Dynamic Syntax is particularly suitable to explain challenges of verb-final languages, which comprise more than 50% of the world languages. In particular, I will show how case particles and prosody are used to project a partial structure in an incremental manner before the verb is available. In the following sections, I will first set out the basics of Dynamic Syntax and show how DS can be used to capture and explain those properties described. Furthermore, I will show how spoken syntax and dialogue challenges can be incorporated together in DS. I aim to provide an accessible, informal introduction of DS, but for more detailed formalism, see Kempson et al. (2001), Cann et al. (2005) and Kempson et al. (2011).

5.0. Formalizing functional motivations: Why dynamic syntax? In this section, we aim to ‘formalize’ the functional motivation to build an expressive, multidimensional proposition with efficiency, as repeated in (1).

(1) The aim of any syntactic structure building is as follows: In human communication, native speakers aim to optimize their syntactic structure building (both production and comprehension) by achieving the meaningful/ expressive proposition as quickly as possible with minimized structure-building effort, whenever possible. 120 Pragmatic Syntax

I adopt Kempson et al. (2001) and Cann et al. (2005) as the basis of analysis in this book. Yet, to fully meet the challenges that we addressed in Chapters 1–4, I argue that the aim of structure building should be slightly revised. For instance, building a proposition is assumed to be the goal of structure building in Kempson et al. (2001) and Cann et al. (2005). But, I would argue that the goal is not just to build a proposition but to do so in the most efficient way possible, and to realize the appropriate, intended expressive dimension of meaning correctly. The discussions so far are, however, theory-neutral and I believe explaining the goal in (1) should be encouraged in other frameworks too. The most important reason for choosing DS as a working framework is because it represents a ‘process-oriented’ instead of a ‘result-oriented’ view. I think a lot of puzzles in syntactic theory can be solved by observing the procedures of structure building. As we shall see soon, static, one-dimensional approaches are limited in capturing and explaining the dynamic nature of structural growth. On the other hand, in the process-oriented view, we can explain why ‘efficient (less costly)’ structure buildings are strongly preferred to their counterparts. In DS, knowledge that we use in understanding a linguistic sequence in real time is understood as the basis of linguistic competence and an intrinsic part of the explanation. Accordingly, we will have a snapshot representation at each step of structure building – following the real-time order of perceiving the linguistic sequence. No obscure, abstract level of representation beyond this left-to-right process is assumed in DS. The key observation about natural language which DS implements is that a structure is perceived/built incrementally from left to right (regardless of the position of the verb). By assuming incremental structural growth, represented as a paired notion of underspecification and update, DS can provide a successful account of the incrementality puzzle, which we now turn to.

5.1. Why should structuring be left to right? As discussed in Chapter 1, Phillips and Lewis (2013) argue that there is very little evidence for implementation independence of human grammatical abilities, and that the motivation for bottom-to-top syntactic derivations is less than overwhelming. Instead, as we have seen in Chapters 1 and 4, even in defining the basic structure-building blocks one needs to assume incremental, left-to-right structure building. Consider again the incrementality hypothesis proposed by Phillips (1996, 2003). In Figure 5.1, AB was once a constituent but not any more in the next stage of structure building.

(2) Sentence structures are built incrementally from left to right.

As discussed in Chapter 4, the heart of the incrementality challenge which Phillips (1996, 2003) brings up as in (2) is hard to explain satisfactorily in either top–down or bottom–up configurations. Left-to-right structure building is intuitive, yet it is not easy for verb-centred grammars to explain how left-to-right structure building is possible, particularly in the case of verb-final languages. With some reason, as Phillips and Lewis (2013) point out, grammatical theories have focused on what the final form is, Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 121

XX

A B A Y

B C

Figure 5.1. Incremental constituency: Build-and-destroy approach Phillips (1996, 2003) ignoring how words are put together. I think, however, that how a sentence is assembled reveals the essence of linguistic competence. In addition, I argue that a left-to-right perspective provides a better empirical coverage than a bottom–up or top–down perspective, and is able to account for not only acceptable/unacceptable sets of sentences but also preferred/avoided sets of sentences. That is, it is not easy for top–down or bottom–up grammars to explain the locality effect of preferring to choose local structure building or the length effect (i.e. the way prosodic ‘size’ influences structural realization), but, as we shall see in this chapter, left-to-right grammar can.

Is grammar a parser? As we have seen in Chapter 4, it was previously often the case that the way in which a structure is built or understood in real time was explained outside the abstract grammar. (See Phillips and Lewis (2013) for an overview.) In other words, within the Chomskian tradition, the structural properties of language were assumed to be characterized completely independently of the dynamics of language processing. By contrast, DS assumes that the competence model is developed on the assumption that it provides the architecture within which the choice mechanisms of performance have to be implemented. What DS claims is that the intrinsic patterns displayed in natural language are best explained in terms of the dynamics of how interpretation is built up in real time. Within this view, knowing a language is defined as knowing how to parse/process or produce it in real time. Although it is not yet completely proved in empirical terms whether parsing and production are incremental in exactly the same way, DS assumes that the systems for parsing and production are built with the same core principles (Purver et al. 2007). Of course, some caution is required in using evidence from parsing or production to assess the nature of structure building, and it is hard to conclude whether grammar is indeed a parser. However, I argue that the core mechanisms of grammar should include how the parser works. As part of this, we shall see from this chapter onwards that left-to-right structure building is captured and explained by assuming that not 122 Pragmatic Syntax only verbs but different grammatical components such as particles project a certain propositional template.

Left-to-right architecture In the following, I will provide a brief introduction of Dynamic Syntax (DS, Kempson et al. 2001, Cann et al. 2005). I will also show how I have adapted the framework to explain economically and expressively motivated syntactic structure building. Dynamic Syntax assumes left-to-right directional derivation. Such an assumption makes it possible to thread left-to-right incremental growth of a structure into the heart of the grammar. Originally, both dependency grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) were also designed to allow incremental left-to-right processing without excessive derivational complexity, as summarized by Bresnan (2007). Yet, both these grammars failed to preserve this insight in their most up-to-date architecture. As discussed in Section 4.2, in principle, most grammars and linguistic theories do not tolerate any structural indeterminism when they provide structural representations. Consider example (3) and Figure 5.2 from Baldridge (2002, 149). Baldridge tried to provide a combinatory categorical account that could be applicable for both short- and long-distance scrambling in a unified way in languages like Tagalog and Toba Batak. In

(3), Kitabi and Fatma are both NPs. However, though Kitabi ’s type is only NPa, Fatma is type-raised as we can see in the circled expression in Figure 5.2. In Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG), for instance, type-raising for the expression Fatma needs to be decided at the time when it is read, yet it is indeed impossible because the whole structure is not yet visible at this early stage.

(3) Kitabi Fatma Esranin okudugunu biliyor [Turkish]

book-ACC Fatma-NOM Esraniin-GEN read know-PROG

‘As for the book, Fatma knows that Esra read it.’

Kitabi Fatma Esra’nin okudugunu biliyor {np , np } {np , S } npa npn npg Sνacc g a Si n νacc >T < np si (si npn) Svacc a Bx si npa < si Figure 5.2. Predetermined type-raising

Put simply, any analysis for an ‘incomplete’ linguistic sequence is taken to be in principle illegitimate. There is no mainstream syntactic theory that is designed specifically to be applicable to ‘not-yet-seen’ structures (see Hausser 1984, Kempson et al. 2001 for some exceptions). This is one of the crucial reasons that left-to-right motivation has not been widely adopted in linguistic theories. It has been implicitly believed that the issues surrounding the incremental or partial growth of an ‘incomplete’ sequence is what a grammar-independent parsing theory should seek to explain, rather than a competence-based linguistic theory. Within the DS architecture, I assume to the Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 123 contrary that the essence of syntactic knowledge lies in the native speakers’ ability to build a partial, provisionary structure – an underspecified, not-yet-complete structure that is soon to be updated – in a bit-by-bit manner from left to right. Let us see how the paired notion of underspecification and update is used in DS.

Early underspecification and subsequent update The essence of DS as a left-to-right grammar lies in the notion of early underspecification and subsequent update. Consider (4):

(4) Underspecified host structure: a. To whom… b. To whom does the zebra say that the giraffe was eating a large strawberry? c. To whom does the zebra think that the giraffe was giving a large strawberry?

In (4a) when the sentence-initial wh-dative NP to whom is read, its host structure is not obvious; in other words, it is not obvious whether it is supposed to be in the matrix clause as in (4b) or the embedded clause as in (4c). Yet, native speakers can at least expect a ditransitive, three-place predicate, even though the upcoming host structure is not-yet-seen. The relevant host structure is decided on as the structure grows. The same intuition is applicable to verb-final languages too, and to these we will turn later. In verb-final languages, a draft structure is often unfolded by case particles and a minimal set of structure-building routines. Although the mechanism that is to be chosen differs from language to language, I argue that the paired notion of underspecification and subsequent update forms the basis of structural growth across languages. In its original set-up, following the relevance theoretic claim made in Sperber and Wilson (1995), DS assumes that the initial and overall goal of structure building is to form a proposition by progressively presenting and combining partial fragmentary information. In this stepwise structure building, detailed structure-building guidelines are only accessible after a certain step in the parsing. DS assumes that various structural requirements are to be met at various stages of incremental processing, rather than all at once. Since the dative-marked expression to whom is present, the valency of an upcoming verb is obvious (i.e. three-place predicate). But the actual verb and its location are confirmed only at a later stage.

Sketch-and-update approach This framework assumes ‘monotonic’ (i.e. un-destroyable) incrementality – where a structure grows incrementally (or gets specified incrementally) from left to right: monotonic in the sense that a structure is not predetermined as in Combinatory Categorial Grammar approach (Steedman 1996, 2000) or is built and destroyed as in Phillips (1996, 2003). In CCG, compositionality as defined over a ‘surface’ string of words is strictly adhered to. Indeed, among all the orthodox frameworks, I think CCG may be the best candidate for modelling incremental structure building. Nevertheless, 124 Pragmatic Syntax as we have seen, since CCG also does not tolerate any structural indeterminism at the point of structure building, complicated type-raising needs to be assumed even at the very beginning of a sentence. At the heart of incrementality lies the fact that a structure is undetermined at the beginning, but that it grows step-by-step. A CCG analysis, on the other hand, can only be specified after a full sentence has been made available; it is therefore inadequate for capturing the left-to-right growth of syntactic structure. I believe Phillips’ style analysis is the best that generative grammar can offer. Nevertheless, as we saw in Section 4.2, the account based on a non-monotonic device such as un-forced revision is not explanatorily sufficient. What DS does is that it replaces Phillips’ claim as given in (5) with the concept of threading indeterminism and the structural growth property into the heart of the grammar as in (6).

(5) Build-and-revise/destroy approach (Phillips)

Sentence structures are built incrementally from left to right. Syntactic relations must respect constituency at the point in the derivation. Constituents may be destroyed as a structure grows.

(6) Sketch-and-update approach (DS)

Sentence structures are built incrementally from left to right. Syntactic relations may be underspecified but will be specified as a structure grows.

By assuming a left-to-right architecture, DS can explain interpretational asymmetry driven by linear order without any stipulation. Intuitively, at the beginning of structure building, a provisional structure will remain largely unspecified. Yet, as the structure develops, it will be updated and become increasingly specified. The freedom in structure building will therefore decrease as a structure grows. It seems that this trend is applicable cross-linguistically, regardless of the location of a verb, as we discussed in Chapters 1 and 4. In the following, I will show how this sketch (=underspecification) and update approach is used in structure building with examples. I will start with English examples and then proceed with Korean examples to show how individual particles may project a partial structure.

5.2. Basic logic in DS First, we will discuss the basic types, relations and logic used in the DS.

Basic types The basic types are defined in Table 5.1. It is a simplified version of types taken from Cann et al. (2005:36). This follows the general practice of formal semantics.Ty here refers to Type function and Fo refers to Formula function. Ty is a ‘type’ predicate/functor which takes a semantic type such as e for an individual term, and produces Ty(e), a type-logical combination used in DS. Fo is a ‘formula’ predicate/functor which takes a semantic content such as Mary’ and produces Fo(Mary’), or abbreviated as Mary’ as its value. Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 125

Table 5.1 Types in dynamic syntax

Type Description Example expression

Ty(e) Individual term Fo(Mary’) Ty(t) Proposition Fo(sing’(John’)) Ty(e→t) (1-place) Predicate Fo(run’) Ty(e→(e→t)) (2-place) Predicate Fo(like’) Ty(e→(e→(e→t))) (3-place) Predicate Fo(introduce’)

Basic relations

It seems that humans understand the flow of information based on anticipating what is given ahead – in an incremental manner. This sequential way of understanding, I suggest, is the essence of cognition. On this basis, DS assumes that the basic linguistic relation is the repeated anticipation and then application of functor-argument, as set out in a tree-structure configuration. The basic observation is that each lexical item precedes such combinatory information and one expression plays the role of a ‘functor’ in terms of building a bigger expression, whereas the other expression plays the role of an ‘argument’. Predicates normally act as functors, but as we shall see sometimes particles also play the role of functor in terms of projecting a structural requirement. As a convention, following Kempson et al. (2001), throughout the book, I will put 0 for the argument relation and 1 for the functor relation. In the following, I will show how a structure is projected in an incremental manner with an English example. Below, α is an argument and β is a functor. The basic functional application will yield a proposition β(α) (Figure 5.3). β(α)

01

α β

Figure 5.3. Binary, functor–argument relation

Unfolding a structure in English

In DS,1 it is assumed that semantic structures can be built by so-called (i) computational actions, (ii) lexical actions or (iii) pragmatic actions. To give a provisional sketch of a simple English clause, we will consider the following example from Cann et al. (2005), repeated below. Consider (7) and the steps in Figure 5.4. 126 Pragmatic Syntax

(7) Hilary met Joan.

Step 1:

?Ty(t), ◊:start off

In structuring a sentence such as (7), the goal of building a proposition is revealed at the outset of structure building. This is given by specifying the goal Ty? (t) where the question mark indicates that it is a goal yet to be achieved. This idea can be traced back to Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 2001). Note that no lexical input is parsed yet: this is the first step (step 1).

Step 2: a) b?Ty(t) ) ?Ty(t)

? Hilary’ ? ? ◊ ◊ : current state

A further computational action is then applied to project a subject and a verb (predicate) from this overall requirement. This is the initial stage of step 2 (2a). When Hilary is parsed, it satisfies the subject requirement as in step 2b.

Step 3: a) ?Ty(t) b) ?Ty(t)

Hilary’H?:subgoal ilary’ ?

? met’, ◊ Joan’,◊ met’

Then, when the transitive verb met is parsed, the structural anticipation for an accusative NP arises from the lexical action of the verb met. This is step 3 (3a), which we will discuss later when we examine the lexical action of the verb met. AfterJoan is parsed, the requirement for a direct object NP is satisfied. This is step 3 (3b).

Step 4: Step 5:

"7\ W PHW¶ -RDQ¶ +LODU\¶ ¸)LQLVKLQJRII

+LODU\¶ PHW¶ -RDQ ¶Ã¸ +LODU\¶ PHW¶ -RDQ ¶

-RDQ¶ PHW¶ -RDQ¶ PHW¶ Figure 5.4. Simplified structure-building sketch in English

Steps 4 and 5 show how the meaning of (7) is composed incrementally from a smaller unit to a bigger unit, yielding a proposition of met’(Joan’)(Hilary’). In Step 4, functional Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 127 application computes the content of the intermediate functor node, as in met’(Joan’). That is, the functor met’ applies to the argument Joan’. In Step 5, functional application computes the content of the top node, as in met’(Joan’)(Hilary’). That is, the functor met’(John’) applies to the argument Hilary’. In this final state of the tree transition, the meaning of a sentence is formed met’(Joan’)(Hilary’), and, as a result, no outstanding expectation/requirement remains. It is assumed that Step 1 is universal across languages. Steps 2–3 may differ in terms of its ordering between verb-final and verb-initial languages. As for pro-drop languages such as Korean and Japanese, it is possible that a verb and verbal endings unfold a complete proposition with underspecified arguments. Yet, on the other hand, when a verb and verbal endings are not yet available, NP clusters can build a partial structure by the use of particles. Compared to computational or lexical motivations, pragmatic motivation in structure building is relatively unexplored in the DS framework (discussed later). Overall, I argue that the goal of building an expressive proposition with minimal structure-building effort is clearly pragmatically motivated and indeed plays a crucial role in structural realization. Below, I will briefly discuss the basis of LOFT (Logic of Finite Trees; Blackburn and Meyer-Viol 1994). This is a logical language that constitutes the core architectural properties of DS. Using LOFT, I will show node relations in a tree particularly by looking at some of the steps in structure building in Figure 5.4. In the DS tree, combinatorial information, as well as structural location and semantic information, is represented as a complete bundle of information. See Figure 5.5 for a detailed description of Step 5 in Figure 5.4 with the included bundle of information shown for each node in the tree. The relation of functor-argument, expressed as a binary branched subtree, is the structural relation that is a core structural assumption of DS. As said earlier, I use the subscripted number 1 for functor relations and the subscripted number 0 for argument relations. Each node drawn as a bundle in Figure 5.5 contains three kinds of information. (i) First, type-logical, combinatory information. This information is expressed by the value of the functor Ty. For instance, the VP slot2 as in Figure 5.5 has a type-

1) Ty(t), Tn(a), Fo(met Joan Hilary

01

2) Ty(e), < 0>Tn(a), Fo(Hilary Ty(e t), < 1>Tn(a), Fo(met Joan ) VP

01

4) Ty(e), < 0>< 1>Tn(a), Fo(Joan Ty(e (e t)), < 1>< 1>Tn(a), Fo(met

Figure 5.5. Bundle of information 128 Pragmatic Syntax logical value of Ty(e→t) indicating an expression which combines with a term of type e (individual) to yield a term of type t (proposition). (ii) Second, there is a tree- node address identifying where the node is positioned in the tree, expressed by the value of the tree-node functor Tn. In other words, each node needs to be fixed in the structural skeleton. This information is expressed by the value of the tree-node functor

Tn. The tree-node address of the VP in Figure 5.5 (node 3) is ↑< 1>Tn(a): follow the functor node (1) from the VP node up along the right branch and reach the top node Tn(a). (iii) Third, the node needs its formula, or semantic content. This information is expressed by the value of the functor Fo. The formula value of the VP in Figure 5.5 is Fo(met’(Joan’)). The following table summarizes the three kinds of information in each node. For the sake of simplicity, Fo(a’) is often annotated asa ’ (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Set of information at each node in Figure 5.5

Node number Type-logical info Tree-node address Semantic info (Ty) (Tn) (Fo)

1 Ty(t) Tn(a) Fo(met’(Joan’)(Hilary)) or met’(Joan’)(Hilary’)

2 Ty(e) <↑0>Tn(a) Fo(Hilary’) or Hilary’

3 Ty(e→t) <↑1> Tn(a) Fo(met’(Joan’)) or met’(Joan’)

4 Ty(e) <↑0><↑1>Tn(a) Fo(Joan’) or Joan’

5 Ty(e→(e→t)) <↑1><↑1>Tn(a) Fo(met’) or met’

Requirement and pointer: Driving force for structure building The driving force of structure building in the DS formalism is a set of requirements, represented as ?α. ?α states that α must hold at the current node at some point in the derivation. For instance, ?Ty(e) requires that the current node will be of type e. At each stage of tree transitions, a parser executes a range of DS actions (i.e. computational, lexical and pragmatic) in order to satisfy a set of requirements (e.g. ?Ty(e)) at a node currently developed. A node under development is indicated by the logical symbol ◊, called ‘pointer’. In DS tree-updates, there is a single active node, and such an active node is marked with the pointer ◊. Let us see now what structure each lexical item may unfold. Consider (8) and Figure 5.6. The lexical action that led to the structure building in Figure 5.6 is given in (8). Each lexical item is assumed to encode an action package to update a tree, and this package is in conditional format: IF, THEN and ELSE. The IF block is a condition to be satisfied by a current node (i.e. node marked by the pointer ◊). The THEN block specifies a set of actions to be performed if the condition in the IF block is satisfied. Finally, the ELSE block specifies a set of actions to be run if the condition in the IF block is not satisfied. Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 129



7QV 3$67 "7\ W 

   

α "7\ HĺW        

"7\ H Ã 7\ Hĺ HĺW  )R PHW¶ 

Figure 5.6. Stepwise structure building via lexical projection of met

The number in brackets in Figure 5.6 corresponds to the number in brackets in (8). As shown below, DS takes a dynamic approach in explaining the semantic and syntactic properties of each lexical item; that is it is assumed that each lexical item triggers a sequence of actions composed of go, make and put predicates.

(8) Lexical action of met:3

Informal description: met is a past form of the verb meet and it is a transitive verb. Hence, it requires a subject and object arguments. met

IF (1) ? Ty(e→t); If the pointer is at a node where there is a requirement for a predicate,

THEN (2) GO(<↑1>); Go to the mother node, following the functor relation

(3) PUT(Tns(PAST)); Decorate this node with tense information

(4) GO(<↓1>); Go down to the functor daughter node

(5) MAKE (<↓1>); Make a new functor daughter node

(6) GO(<↓1>); Go down to the functor daughter node 130 Pragmatic Syntax

(7) PUT (Fo(met’), Ty(e→(e→t)), [↓]┴); Decorate the node with the content of met, the logical type of met and the label [↓]┴, which means that this node is a terminal node

(8) GO(<↑1>): Go to the mother node following functor relation

(9) MAKE(<↓0>); Make a new argument daughter node

(10) GO(<↓0>); Go down to the argument daughter node

(11) PUT (?Ty(e)); Decorate the node with the requirement that this node will be of type e

ELSE (12) Abort

Corpus-based lexical action Lexical actions are defined as conditional actions. Sometimes, a lexical action shows what the default lexical action is for the corresponding lexical item. However, the current DS lacks any reflection of what the default lexical action or the default method of structuring is, as in other theoretical frameworks. What this book contributes to the DS framework is to highlight the necessity of using the corpus or other empirical database in establishing lexical actions, and to provide examples of such usage. For instance, in principle nominative NPs ‘can’ unfold an independent proposition, but looking at the double nominative NP sequences in Korean, proportionally only very few examples were found when the two NPs project indeed an independent structure. Instead, in the majority of cases, the two NPs form one clustered NP to be interpreted in the same propositional template. The contrast becomes more severe in the construction with triple nominative NPs. No example was found in the Sejong Corpus, where triple nominative constructions each project a different, independent propositional template. I will demonstrate this point later. If we invariably encode that a nominative case particle automatically projects a structure, triple nominative NPs should project a structure with double embedding. Therefore, based on our corpus results, we assume that the primary, lexical action of a nominative NP is to unfold an independent structural template only when there is no existing, ongoing structure. This confirms the importance of corpus observation before we make a generalization about lexical items as a whole.

Building an expressive proposition As discussed in Chapter 3, following Potts’ multidimensional theory of Conventional Implicature, I make a slight amendment in changing the goal of structure building in DS from merely postulating a proposition into an expressive proposition. In particular, I argue that particles or prosody are used as CI functors that take the expressively underspecified proposition as an argument and yield an expressive Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 131 proposition. Similarly, Gregoromichelaki (2006) argues the necessity of postulating event terms as part of the initial propositional requirement in DS, arguing that each propositional structure needs to include an event term as an additional argument. We will come back to this soon. However, at this stage, for purposes of simplicity of illustration, I will use ?Ty(t) as the overall goal of structure building. The actual dimensions of expressives and how they are spelt out will be discussed later in this chapter and in Chapters 6 and 7.

5.3. Explaining preference in the grammar In this section, we will show that there are three possible ways of structuring the current node with respect to the ongoing structure. In principle, all three structures can be grammatical. However, localized structure building is strongly preferred to non-localized structure building. Then, we will discuss why there is such a strong asymmetry and how we can explain preference asymmetry such as this. In particular, I discuss the limits of a feature-based account in explaining such asymmetry and further show how left-to-right motivated grammar can be used in searching for the most optimal, efficient grammar.

Three possible ways of structuring

In DS, three methods of structure building are assumed: (i) local/immediate update (via an operation called Local *Adjunction); (ii) non-local/non-immediate update (via an operation called *Adjunction); (iii) a general update (via an operation called Generalized Adjunction). Here the Kleene star (*) is used to characterize an underspecified tree relation. The essence of this relation is identical to the functional uncertainty adopted in LFG (Kaplan and Zaenen 1989), which indicates an iteration of an indefinite number of items (including zero).

The modality ↑< *>Tn(a) is an underspecified tree relation, ranging over any sequence of argument or functor relations. As it stands, <↑*>Tn(a) shows a very weak relation in that the only thing it requires is for this node to be dominated by Tn(a). The rule that builds such an underspecified relation is called *Adjunction and a localized variant requiring resolution within a single predicate-argument structure is called Local *Adjunction. Notice, then, that if we had a left-peripheral NP in a simple clause, whether subject or object, the node for it could be built by the rule of *Adjunction which builds an underspecified relation. *Adjunction creates an unfixed structural relation that may be resolved either locally or non-locally.

*Adjunction Tn(0), … ?Ty(t)

<↑*>Tn(0), ?Ty(e), ? xTn(x), ◊ 132 Pragmatic Syntax

?∃xTn(x) is a requirement that the tree-node predicate Tn should have a value (i.e. the tree-node address should be fixed). But this is by no means the only possibility. The very same NP in a simple clause, whether subject or object, could also contribute content to a node built by a rule called Local *Adjunction which builds an underspecified relation that can only be satisfied locally. This rule is characterized using the same tree relation as above. Diagrammatically, it can be set out in similar style as:

Local *Adjunction Tn(0), … ?Ty(t)

<↑1*>Tn(0)

<↑0><↑1*>Tn(0), ?Ty(e), ? xTn(x), ◊

The concept of local tree is sketched in Figure 5.7, where S stands for subject, DO stands for direct object and IO stands for indirect object.

Tn(0), … ?Ty(t)

0 1

S

0 1

DO

1 0 IO Verb Figure 5.7. Defining locality

This tree shows how the specification of a local tree domain can be satisfied as described by the relation <↑0><↑1*>Tn(0):

At the IO node, <↑0><↑1*>Tn(0) holds, because <↑0><↑1><↑1>Tn(0) holds

And at the DO node, <↑0><↑1*>Tn(0) holds, because <↑0><↑1>Tn(0) holds

At the S node, <↑0><↑1*>Tn(0) holds, because <↑0>Tn(0) holds

According to this definition, all the unfixed nodes that we have seen so far in previous figures are built via Local *Adjunction. Unlike Local *Adjunction, *Adjunction has a much wider application, as it can be resolved at any dominated node within an Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 133 emergent tree as shown in Figure 5.8. For instance, consider the case of a long-distance dislocated lexical item. First, Local *Adjunction creates a type-e-requiring unfixed node for the dislocated item, which needs to be resolved later in some non-local domain. Second, *Adjunction creates a type-t-requiring unfixed node, and the unfixed node for the dislocated item will be subsequently resolved at some node dominated by this type-t-requiring node. Notice that in both cases, the ‘unfixed’ node is characterized with a requirement that it be assigned a fixed tree-node address, or a fixed tree position: this is the requirement ∃xTn(x). Compared to the previous two structure-building options, the application of Generalized Adjunction occurs when the node for the peripheral expression is built first, like in the other processes, but is resolved across any relation whatsoever, including cases where two distinct trees are paired together as a set of trees. Later, we shall introduce a ‘LINK’ relation for pairing adjunct nodes in this way, to be labeled L (L for LINK) in order to explain structural resolution in such a case. In the original design, Kempson et al. (2001) and Cann et al. (2005) assumed that all the three structure-building options are in principle available at any point of structure building as long as their input condition is met. Put simply, DS assumes that, in principle, a dislocated argument can be resolved within its ongoing local predicate- argument structure or in some non-local, non-immediate propositional domain or in a proposition that is not related to the local proposition through a predicate- argument relation (see Kempson et al. 2001 and Cann et al. 2005 for formal details). The availability of these three options highlights the flexible structure building at the left periphery.

Tn(0), … ?Ty(t)

0 1

S

0 1

0 1 0 1

S IO Verb 0 1

0 1

0 1 IO Verb

S 0 1

DO 0 1

IO Verb Figure 5.8. Defining non-locality 134 Pragmatic Syntax

Preference asymmetry: Simplicity and short-length hand in hand

Although all three options are possible, structure-building options which show minimal complexity or minimal distance are strongly preferred cross-linguistically. Consider (9).

(9) Three ways of building a structure forto whom

(i) Partial structure can be built via Local *Adjunction

e.g. To whom does the zebra say that the giraffe was eating a large strawberry?

(ii) The initially unresolved node can be introduced via *Adjunction

e.g. To whom does the zebra think that the giraffe was giving a large strawberry?

(iii) Partial structure can be built via Generalized Adjunction

e.g. To whom does the zebra think the giraffe, who liked the bear very much, was giving a large strawberry?

In (9), (9i) is the most optimal in the sense that to whom is resolved in the first available structure, which is the least complex. In addition, the distance between a filler and a gap is the shortest in (9i) as underlined. (I have underlined the filler-gap dependency domain in (9)). As we have seen in Chapter 1, the optimal choice as discussed here is reflected in the corpus distribution and natural production data as we shall now turn to.

Production and corpus evidence for simple and short structure building As we discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, 84% of the time, native speakers of English interpreted the sentence-initial to whom locally to the matrix clause – in other words, they built the node decorated by to whom using Local *Adjunction as in (9i). In the BYU-BNC, to whom was located about 47 times at the sentence-initial position. And in none of these cases was to whom interpreted in the embedded clause or in the relative clause – but only in the matrix clause. It is also significant that all 47 sentences were simple sentences with no embedding. This time, let us take a look at Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) in Korean. NPIs require a negative environment with a negative host verb as in (10) and (11). Examples are from Sejong Corpus.

(10) Amwu-hanthey-to poyecwuci-an-kess-ta-ko tacimha-n-ta.

anyone-DAT-even show-NEG-VOL-DECL-COMP decide-PRES-DECL

‘I decide not to show that to anyone.’ Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 135

(11) Amwu-hanthey-to ne-ka wassta-koan-malha-lkke.

anyone-DAT-even you-NOM came-COMP NEG-say-will

‘I won’t speak to any one that you came.’

I have searched the NPI amwu and te isang (‘any more’) in the Sejong Corpus. The latter occurred 384 times. Structure-wise, most of the time, they were resolved in the first immediate, local clause. And length-wise, 72% of the time, the negative trigger occurred within the next four words. Likewise, kyelkho (‘never’) occurred 2,193 times in Sejong Corpus. Structure-wise, most of the time, it was interpreted in the first immediate, local clause. And length-wise, 76% of the time, the negative trigger occurred within the next four words. On average, each word contained about one or two syllables. In the Sejong Corpus, the number of words between the NPI word amwuto (‘even anyone’) and the Neg verb was as given in Figure 5.9. 0 means that Neg verb follows immediately after the NPI. Let us take an example of NPIs in English. In English, any or at all are examples of NPIs. Just as in the case of Korean, in this case, not only is the immediate-local structure-building option (via Local *Adjunction) preferred but also the shortest distance between the NPI and its host verb is strongly preferred. According to the BYU-BNC search, in English the number of intervening words between the negation operator and the NPI any was as follows: 1 word 4,892 times, 2 words 736 times, 3 words 526 times, 4 words 197 times, 5 words 115 times. Based on this, I argue that length-wise and structure-wise, the simplest, shortest option seems to be the default, the most optimal choice in structural realizations. This is the case not only in verb- initial languages (e.g. English) but also in verb-final languages (e.g. Korean). We can imagine a case where structural simplicity/complexity is not associated with short or long distance, respectively. That is, a simple structure could end up having a

us 450 rp number of occurrences

Co 400 ng

jo 350 Se 300 250 und in 200 150

instances fo 100

er of 50

mb 0 Nu 0123456789 Number of intervening words between NPI word amwuto and Neg verb Figure 5.9. NPI-Neg verb distance: The case ofamwuto 136 Pragmatic Syntax long distance between the licensor and licensee. However, I think on the whole the two notions of locality are not in conflict with each other. In other words, I can imagine that the most efficient structure will show both levels of efficiency evidenced by preferred structure, where grammatical dependency is expressed as a simple structure with short distance between the operators. Corpus and production evidence we observed in Chapters 1, 2 and 4 support this. Based on these empirical findings, I argue that native speakers of English and Korean – at least – have routinized their grammar to include the specification given in (12). A > B means A is preferred to B and is routinized therefore for A to take precedence over B.

(12) Preference routinized/encoded in the grammar

Structural dependency needs to be resolved immediately – possibly in the most local structure – in other words – as quickly as possible.

Local *Adjuction (i.e. Immediate Growth) > *Adjunction (i.e. Non-Immediate Growth) > Generalized Adjunction (i.e. General Growth)

Minimize Domains (MiD) (from Hawkins 2004)

The human processor prefers to minimize the connected sequences of linguistic forms and their conventionally associated syntactic and semantic properties in which relations of combination and/or dependency are processed. The degree of this preference is proportional to the number of relations whose domains can be minimized in competing sequences of structures, and to the extent of the minimization difference in each domain

Much of the literature concerning language processing argues that preference as such is a property independent of grammar formalism. I counter this claim, arguing that this property is encoded within the grammar; that is the mental grammar is reshaped by processing/production pressures to make it as efficient as possible. Preference as in (12) is clearly observed in spoken syntax. And when a non-immediate option is chosen, there is a clear cue, such as prosody (i.e. boundary tone) or context that helps the listener choose such an option. We have seen a series of evidence for (12) – that is incremental structure building – in verb-final languages like Korean and Japanese in Chapter 4. As Hawkins (1994, 2004, 2007), among others, shows, evidence for this can be found in diachronic, synchronic variations across languages although it is true that empirical investigation still needs to be extended to many other languages with different typological characteristics. Given (12), in this book, I will illustrate the steps of structure building using the structure built by Local *Adjunction, unless stated otherwise; that is the arbitrary node (Tn(a)) is to be replaced by the top node of the local structure (Tn(0)). Indeed, the core grammar is constantly subject to putative change by socio-pragmatic factors or processing pressures to achieve more optimal, efficient design. When the efficiency- Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 137 driven choices are repeatedly and systematically made in the language community, they will form a pattern/routine and then, will finally be grammaticalized so leading to actual language change.

Why is there preference asymmetry and how can we capture/explain it?

We now ask why is there such strong preference asymmetries between possible, grammatical forms? It is because of pragmatic motivation to build an expressive and efficient structure. Matthew et al. (2006) have argued that there is an implicit, pragmatically driven goal for structure building – that is to build a structure with the least effort. I think this implicit goal is indeed the main source of structural variations. Local structure building is preferred because it requires the least structure-building effort. Consider Table 5.3. Suppose that there is a node as in (13), decorated by means of processing the PP to whom in a sentence-initial position.

(13) Ty(e), Fo(WH), ?<↑0>Ty(e→(e→t)), ?∃xTn(x)

The question is what do these decorations mean, and what position in an overall tree can be given at this early stage? Ty(e) means that the formula value on the node denotes an entity of type individual/ entity. Fo(WH) means that this node is decorated with a metavariable WH, content of a wh-word. ?<↑0>Ty(e→(e→t)) requires that when we go up from the argument node (<↑0>), there will be a node decorated with Ty(e→(e→t)). In other words, the structural template has been provided by a three-place predicate. ?∃xTn(x) requires that the current node will have a fixed node address in a tree. In fact, there are three possible ways to fix an originally unfixed node, commensurate with each of the three unfixed-node-building operations, as shown in the lower row of Tables 5.3 and 5.4. Note that the difference between non-local update and general update is that the relevant subordinate structure includes just functor–argument relations (i.e. Non- Local Update) or the relevant structure might include more loosely associated subtrees (i.e. General Update via U adjunction). These must then get listed again as in (14). Among the three addresses as repeated in (14), (14a) represents the simplest option of structure building with minimum structure-building effort. This is why (14a) – the most local option with the least uncertainty – is preferred among all.

(14) a. <↑0><↑1><↑1>Tn(0)

b. <↑0><↑1><↑1><↑0><↑1>Tn(0)

c. <↑0><↑1><↑1><↑0><↑1>Tn(0)

As discussed in Chapter 2, complexity of structure building can be measured also in a word-by-word calculation as in Hawkins (1994, 2004). Consider (15). 138 Pragmatic Syntax

Table 5.3. Local and non-local ways of fixing to whom

Local update (via Local *Adjunction) Non-local update (via *Adjunction)

Tn Ty(t) Tn Ty(t) 01 01 Tn(00) Tn(00) 0 1 0 1 Tn(010) Tn Ty(t) 0 1 0 1 01 Tn(0110) Verb Tn(0110) Verb Tn(0100) 01 Tn(01010) 0 1 Tn(010110) Verb

Tree address of the circled node Tree address of the circled node

< 0>< 1>< 1>Tn(0) < 0>< 1>< 1>< 0>< 1>Tn(0)

Table 5.4. General way of fixingto whom

General update (via Generalized Adjunction)

Tn Ty(t) 0 1 Tn(00) 0 1 Tn Ty(t) 0 1 Tn(0110) Verb

Tn(010L) Ty(t) 0 1 Tn(010L0) 0 1 Tn(010L10) 0 1 Tn(010L110) Verb

Tree address of the circled node

< 0>< 1>< 1>< 0>< 1>Tn(0) Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 139

(15) Three ways of building a structure forto whom

(i) Partial structure can be built via Local *Adjunction

e.g.) To whom does the zebra say that the giraffe was eating a large strawberry? (6 words need to be seen in order to resolve filler-gap dependency)

(ii) Partial structure can be built via *Adjunction

e.g.) To whom does the zebra think that the giraffe was giving a large strawberry? (11 words need to be seen in order to resolve filler-gap dependency)

(iii) Partial structure can be built via Generalized Adjunction

e.g.) To whom does the zebra think the giraffe, who liked the bear very much, was giving a large strawberry? (16 words need to be seen in order to resolve filler-gap dependency)

According to Hawkins’ type calculation, in the case of (15i), 6 words need to be seen in order to resolve filler-gap dependency and as for (15ii), 11 words to be seen and 16 words to be seen in the case of (15iii). Hence, the optimal choice is again (15i). Dynamic Syntax is concerned with a different means of expressing economic structure from Hawkins in that its economy principles do not rely on calculating lengths based on word counts. Though both DS and Hawkins’ length calculations show a different aspect of efficiency expressed through ‘least-effort’. In particular, DS can capture and explain the notion of ‘first-available’ structure unlike any feature-based static approach. Note that sometimes in Korean dialogues, negative host verbs can be found in a different person’s speech than the speaker who initiated its structure, as in (16). (16) is natural and easily found.

(16) A: Acik ku iyaki an-haysse.

yet the story NEG-said

‘I haven’t told the story.’

B: Cengmal amwu-hanthey-to?

really anyone-DAT-even

‘to anybody?’

Within a static perspective of using a feature matrix, it is not easy to capture/explain this flexibility and preference at the same time. That is, the fact that NPIs can find their host structure in ‘any’ structural domain (local or non-local) – yet local options are strongly preferred – is hard to explain just providing the [+Neg] feature to the NPIs especially when the two parts of the structure can be provided by two people. Within 140 Pragmatic Syntax

DS, however, we can postulate the lexical action of NPI amwu-hanthey (‘any-DAT’) as in (17) to capture how the interpretation process is flexible yet biased towards an immediate/local structure.

(17) Lexical action of amwu-hanthey (‘any-DAT’)

IF ?Ty(e)

THEN PUT (?<↑0><↑1*>(Ty(t), NEG): requirement from amwu

PUT(?<↑0>Ty(e→(e→t)): requirement from -hanthey

ELSE Abort

Following (17) the constraint for amwu projects the requirement that there must eventually be a local negative propositional node. The constraint of -hanthey projects the requirement that it be a third argument to a predicate. The node description for sentence-initial amwu-hanthey (‘any-DAT’) will be as in (18).

(18) Ty(e), Fo(any ,), ?<↑0>{Ty(e→(e→t)), NEG-verb}, ?∃xTn(x)

In principle, the description in (18) allows that all three forms of structure buildings are possible. Yet, since we assumed that a localized option is a default option unless otherwise intended, the negative verb is to be found in the first-available structure, whatever the structure is. As said in Chapter 2, it is surprising how much empirical data can be explained by a simple word-by-word measuring device adopted by Hawkins (1994, 2004). Yet, of course, not all words have the same length. Some words are long, while some are not. In the previous chapters, we have seen some lengthening effect, where the purely prosodic length of a word guides different structural realizations. Also, we have seen that native speakers produce expressions that fit within prosodic domains. Hence, I think consideration of prosodic length is essential in Hawkins’ type word-length calculation. So far, we have seen that preference asymmetries are driven due to the desire to minimize any structure-building cost. At this juncture, however, we must note that structures are not just driven to meet the efficiency criterion but also to meet some expressive criterion. Otherwise, we cannot understand prevalent uses of supplements in natural language syntax, which seem to merely increase the distance between the functor and its argument as we have seen in Chapter 3.

5.4. Long-distance dependency and dialogue update: Inter-sentential efficiency As we have discussed, though local structuring is strongly preferred, long-distance dependency is also observed. In DS, long-distance dependency is understood as the ‘process’ of the initially address-unspecified node being later fixed in the structural skeleton. As discussed in Chapter 3, long-distance dependency may look as a non- economic choice within a single clause perspective. However, within an inter-sentential Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 141 perspective, it also represents an economically as well as expressively motivated choice. Consider (19) from BYU-BNC. This type of example is easily found.

(19) Who(m) does he think he is talking to …?

The sentence-initial expressionwhom contributes all the relevant semantic information except the tree node address. On the other hand, talking to contributes all the local propositional information except the relevant direct object argument. The two nodes then are merged together – providing each other with what is needed. Consider Figure 5.10. Note that the procedure of merging the two nodes happens in the middle of structuring – not at the very end. As we shall see in Chapter 9, these core mechanisms can be applied equally in dialogue, without any special dialogue grammar having to be articulated.

5.5. Constructive case: Another source of combinatory force Within Lexical Functional Grammar, Nordlinger (1998) shows that grammatical function may be indicated by case morphology itself, rather than from the so-called phrase structure based on Australian languages such as Warlpiri and Wambaya. Her insight on case markers is highly relevant to the claim I am pursuing in this book. I use the term constructive case– following her insight – to refer to the structural role of particles in unfolding a partial structure. Kiaer (2007) shows that in verb-final languages like Korean and Japanese, the constructive use of case particles and a minimal set of structure-building routines enable native speakers to unfold and update a structure step-by-step, even in the absence of a verb or head. In other words, in languages like Korean, the role of case particles is to project a ‘draft’ structural skeleton, and unless indicated otherwise, the default method of structuring NPs in Korean is to put all the case particles in the ‘same’ propositional template. As we shall discuss in Chapter 8, it is noticeable that even NPs that are case- marked the same do not project independent/different structures. Rather, they build a clustered set of type e nodes in the same structural domain. In the Sejong Corpus, only very few examples were found where the two consecutive nominative NPs became the subject of a different structure. In the majority of cases, double nominatives enriched the same subject type e node, instead of unfolding different structures. Consider Figure 5.11. Each subfigure shows the structural skeleton projected by the corresponding particle and their sequence. The bold lines show the contribution of the corresponding particle. The partial structure built by case particles is then further updated/specified by the forthcoming host verb and verbal endings. Crucially, I have shown that structure building is not initiated by the verb but by case-marked NPs. The role of a verb is to update and specify this partially built structure. Although each NP can contribute the argument of an independent propositional structure, it is most likely to contribute the argument of the ‘same’ propositional structure, wherever possible. In other words, in Figure 5.11 although Tn(a), Tn(b) and Tn(c) could be different, they are in fact 142 Pragmatic Syntax

Tn(0), ?Ty(t)

1 0 0 he’ Tn(a) think’ whom’ 0 1 1 he’ 0 ? talk_to’

Figure 5.10. Marrying the two nodes: Long-distance dependency resolution regarded as the same node. Hence, a sequence like (d) in Figure 5.11 can be built under the same structure without ambiguity. Indeed, if they are built by the process of Local *Adjunction plus the enrichment as provided by each case particle, they will progressively induce a structure for a single proposition-indicating node which is the default case. But, as we shall see, we have to allow for any one of the three options already indicated. This is formulated in (20).

(20) Localized structure building

(i) Tn(a) = Tn(b) = Tn(c) (a = b = c; the same local structure)

(ii) Tn(a) =Tn(0) unless otherwise stated

?Ty(t), Tn(b)

?Ty(t), Tn(a) 0 1 b. ACC: a. NOM: 0 α 0 1

β α verb

d. NOM+ACC+DAT: ?Ty(t), Tn(c) ?Ty(t), Tn(a)=Tn(b)=Tn(c) c. DAT: 0 1 0 1 α 0 1 α 0 1

β 0 1 β 0 1 γ γ verb verb

Figure 5.11. Partial structures projected by (a sequence of) case particles (Korean) Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 143

Typologically, verb-final agglutinative languages like the ones mentioned in (21) may have similar constructive morphology as in Korean.

(21) Georgian, Basque, Black, Blackfoot, Turkish, Tartar, Japanese, Korean, Koasati (a Muskogean language), Malayalam (a Dravidian language), Mongolian, Burmese, Inuktitut, Lakota, Hungarian, Finnish, Luganda, Nahuatl, Quechua, Aymara

5.6. Constructive prosody It is not only particles that have a constructive function in structural realization: prosody also does. We have seen in Chapter 3 particularly the role of prosodic break such as an Intonational Phrase boundary. Kiaer (2007) discusses the ‘delocalizing’ role of the IP boundary in Korean. The gist of delocalizing is that if there is an IP boundary between A and B, then the expression B will not be built in the ongoing structure together with A. The % symbol refers to an IP boundary.

(22) A % B

Within DS, Kiaer (2007) shows that the role of intonation is crucial for indicating non- local structural growth. Based on DS, I tentatively assume that the lexical action of IP boundary (BREAK) is as in (23). The attendant tree display is given in (24).

(23) Entry of the IP boundary (BREAK)

IF ?Ty(t), Tn(a)

THEN IF <↓*>(Ty(x), ?∃xTn(x))

THEN 1

ELSE make(); go(); put(Tn(a))

ELSE Abort

(24) Tree display for the entry of the IP boundary (BREAK)

?Ty(t), Tn(a)

Tn(a)

Informally, the encoding of (23) is as follows. First, if the pointer is at the ?Ty(t) node at the current stage and if there is any underspecified node, then stay there. (The symbol ‘1’ is an instruction to stay at the current node without conducting any actions.) Second, if there is no underspecified node, make a weak dominance relation , 144 Pragmatic Syntax go to the node, and posit the label Tn(a). As shown in the tree display (24), these actions induce a globally unfixed node decorated with Tn(a). This sequence of lexical actions enables the parser to shift into another structure and hence, yields non- local structure building, unless a new unfixed node has already been introduced. See Kiaer (2007) for a more detailed account. In addition, we have seen that the IP boundary is used to close-off structure building or to make somewhat incomplete-looking information complete (i.e. propositionalizer). Prosody is also crucial in representing expressive meanings such as realizing moods. Rising tones together with incomplete partial tones – in fact – serve an important role in deciding the necessity of continuing structure or not, which I believe is much more important than any morpho-syntactic trigger. Consider (25), repeated from Chapter 3.

(25) Syntactic tones (i) Boundary tones: (a) Rising tones (i.e. local structuring is complete, yet overall structuring will continue) (b) Falling tones (i.e. local structuring is complete) (ii) Non-boundary tones: (a) Partial, incomplete tones (i.e. local structuring is incomplete and overall structuring will continue) (iii) Copied tones (i.e. stack the structures or meanings from left to right) In this chapter, we have briefly seen how a structure can be built in an incremental way by adopting a revised variant of Dynamic Syntax. In the next chapter, we can implement incremental architecture in explaining structural properties of particles in Korean.

5.7. Two structures at one go Information grows incrementally. As you hear more, as more information is gathered, more concrete structure is realized. This progress can be captured visually in the timeline, with the structure growing on the basis of left-to-right processing of the string. However, sometimes in spontaneous speech, speakers want to add on-the-spot information in the middle of building up a structure – this is often a characteristic of unplanned, spontaneous speech as we have seen in Chapter 3. In those cases, the two substructures appear to be built up simultaneously. Let us look at one simple example in English. Imagine that you are scanning the sentence (26). Individual steps are indicated to help understanding Figure 5.12. Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 145

Stage 1 Preparing structural skeleton

Tn(a), ?Ty(t)

?Ty(e), ?Ty(e→t)

Stage 2 Parsing John (Step 1 in (26))

Tn(a), ?Ty(t)

<↑0>Tn(a), Fo(John’), Ty(e), ◊ ?Ty(e→t)

Stage 3 LINK introduction: Branching out a subsidiary structure (preparation for Step 2 in (26))

Tn(a), ?Ty(t)

<↑0>Tn(a), Fo(John’), Ty(e) ?Ty(e→t)

–1 <↑0>Tn(a), ?Ty(t), ?<↓*> Fo(John’), ◊

Stage 4 Parsing the relative clause: Filling out the subsidiary structure (Step 2 in (26)) and then going back to the mother structure

Tn(a), ?Ty(t)

<↑0>Tn(a), Fo(John’), Ty(e) ?Ty(e→t)

–1 <↑0>Tn(a), Fo(like’(John’)(Mary’)), Ty(t), ◊

Fo(Mary’), Ty(e) Fo(like’(John’)), Ty(e→t)

Fo(John’), Ty(e) Fo(like’), Ty(e→(e→t))

Stage 5 Parsing the rest of the matrix clause: Step 3 in (26) Near-completion of the mother structure Tn(a), Fo(left’(John’)), Ty(t), ◊

<↑0>Tn(a), Fo(John’), Ty(e) Fo(left’), Ty(e→t)

–1 <↑0>Tn(a), Fo(like’(John’)(Mary’)), Ty(t)

Fo(Mary’), Ty(e) Fo(like’(John’)), Ty(e→t)

Fo(John’), Ty(e) Fo(like’), Ty(e→(e→t)) 146 Pragmatic Syntax

Stage 6 LINK evaluation: Incorporating the two propositions in the form of &-conjunction

Tn(a), Fo(left’(John’)&like’(John’)(Mary’)), Ty(t), ◊

<↑0>Tn(a), Fo(John’), Ty(e) Fo(left’), Ty(e→t)

–1 <↑0>Tn(a), Fo(like’(John’)(Mary’)), Ty(t)

Fo(Mary’), Ty(e) Fo(like’(John’)), Ty(e→t)

Fo(John’), Ty(e) Fo(like’), Ty(e→(e→t))

Figure 5.12. Two at one go: Branching out from mother structure

(26) John step1, who Mary likes step2, left step3.

In (26), there are two propositions – each has a simultaneously built substructure: (i) John left and (ii) Mary likes John. Two events are projected at the same time in an incremental, stepwise manner. Information in the relative clause is in one sense additional information about John and it need not affect the truth-conditional meaning of the main clause, though it may, as in this case, be part of an overall narrative. What, at least, the two structures share is ‘John’ in that both are about John. How could we then best capture the simultaneous and incremental growth of the two structures? In Dynamic Syntax, this intuition is captured as follows. At first, a structural template is projected as usual (see Stage 1). Then, as soon as John is processed, it is recognized as a subject – the argument of an upcoming verb (see Stage 2). Then, at this stage, the subsidiary structure is independently branched out. This cross-structural relation in DS is termed a ‘LINK’ relation. This relation is induced between the nodes of two separate trees and is indicated by the symbol that relates the host tree to the newly initiated tree (with also an inverse relation from the new node back to the node from which it was built) (see Stage 3). The newly introduced LINKed subsidiary structure also projects a full proposition. The crucial requirement of this subsidiary structure is that this structure should contain the term derived from the NP John, that is John’. This substructure should be about John. This is what is expressed by the requirement ?<↓*>Fo(John’). Yet, whether John is a subject or an object is all underspecified at the stage of initiating this substructure. What matters is that it is about John. After fleshing out the subsidiary structure by parsing the relative clause (Stage 4), the parser goes back to the main clause and carries on structure building by processing the verb left (see Stage 5). Finally, the content of the relative clause is incorporated into the proposition of the matrix clause. This process is called LINK Evaluation in DS (see Stage 6). Consider each stage of structural growth in Figure 5.12. Modelling Pragmatic Motivation in Syntax 147

The application of LINKed structures in natural language syntax and beyond The notion of LINK in Dynamic Syntax can capture what we discussed as ‘on-the- spot’ growth of a structure – in tandem with the main structural growth. Relative clauses or appositives might be seen as falling into this category. Quite generally, the advantage of positing this LINK relation is that it can capture the heart of incremental, step-by-step growth of information – in terms of both structure and meaning. This, I believe, together with the paired notion of ‘underspecification-and-update’ that we discussed in Section 5.0 can help us to understand the core mechanisms in human cognition. Simply, the way we gather and process information of any sort cannot but be incremental. Nonetheless, while we carry out our main cognitive task, the ‘additional’ information – which can be obligatory or optional – can butt in at any time. And if so, while building the major mental representation – whatever it is, we may have distinct sets of information built simultaneously. Such additional information might well contribute essentially in the meaning of the whole, as in the case of (27). In that case, the total packaged meaning includes the meaning contributed from the LINKed structure, as being evaluated within the overall content (as a form of conjunction). On the other hand, if the additional information does not contribute to the whole meaning, then the LINKed structure will not be evaluated but will remain external to the whole. Arguably, this is the case with examples in (27). (For the actual formalization of this idea, see Cann et al. (2005), Chapter 5.) Hence, the underlined relative clauses in (27) will remain external to the meaning of the main proposition.

(27) a. John, who hates travelling, arrived in London safely.

b. John, who is my mother’s second cousin, arrived in London safely.

This quasi-independence of pairs of structures will be a crucial tool in modelling the whole array of emotive effects in Korean, where a whole network of social relations alongside the primary point of information communicated can be conveyed through politeness suffixes (see Chapter 7).

6

Modelling Nominal Particles in Korean

As discussed in Chapter 3, Potts and Kawahara (2004) and Kim and Sells (2007) argued that so-called honorific particles represent expressive meanings. I extend this view and show that particles in general have an expressive dimension as well as a constructive dimension. I believe that modelling and explaining grammatical morphemes such as these are a key challenge in Korean linguistics. This is because, in Korean, grammatical relations are realized not by orders but by different particles. Grammatical morphemes in Korean contribute not only to the construction of truth-conditional, propositional representation but also to the construction of non- truth-conditional, expressive dimension of the communicated meaning – that is beyond the host category such as a noun or a verb where the particles are attached to. This is the key observation on which my arguments of the next chapters are based. I believe that this observation is easily applicable to other languages and particularly in explaining roles of particles in agglutinative languages such as Japanese, Mongolian and Turkish. In this chapter, we will first discuss nominal particles in Korean and then, in Chapter 7, we will discuss verbal particles in Korean. Though we have divided particles according to the nature of their major host category for the convenience of the discussion, nevertheless, as we shall explore, most of the particles can be attached across categories, adding constructive and expressive meanings to the currently built or ongoing structure.1 In the following pages, I argue that particles in general behave like ‘little/pseudo’ predicates in terms of unfolding a partial structure. This reveals a constructive dimension of particles. On the other hand, I show that the use of particles – whether to use, not use or even to use twice – depends on the speaker’s intention to convey a particular mode of expressive meaning. This reveals an expressive dimension of particles. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 5, I propose that prosody – though only audible and not visible – has both constructive and expressive meanings like particles. In traditional Korean grammar, it is assumed that there are three types of nominal particles: (i) case particles, (ii) additional-meaning particles and (iii) connective particles. Example (1) is a list of frequently used particles according to Kang and Kim’s (2009) Sejong Corpus investigation. 150 Pragmatic Syntax

(1) (i) Case particles a) Subject/object particles: -i/-ka (NOM), -kkeyse (HonorificNOM), ul/-lul- (ACC) b) Adnominal particles: -ui (GEN) c) Adverbial particles: -eykey/-hanthey (‘to’), -ey (in/on/at), -(u)ro (‘to’/‘towards’), -eyse (‘from’), (ro)se (‘as’), -(ro) pwute (‘from’) d) Vocative particle: a/-ya e) Quotative particle: -ko (ii) Additional-meaning particles: -un/-nun (TOP), -to (‘too’), -man (‘only’) (iii) Connective particles: -wa/-kwa (‘and’), (-i)na (‘or’), -(ha)ko (‘with’), -rang (‘and’), -ciman (‘but’) Here, we will focus on the meaning and distribution of a set of case particles and additional-meaning particle -un/-nun in particular, along with the role of prosody.

6.0. Case particles In this section, I will discuss the constructive and expressive dimensions of case particles in Korean. Compared to additional-meaning particles, the constructive dimension of case particles is stronger than their expressive dimension. Yet, case particles still add expressive meaning to the proposition as well as have a constructive dimension that induces structure building.

Case particles as little predicates Case particles have a constructive dimension, that is they can project a partial underspecified structure, as we have discussed in Chapter 5. However, particles are not ‘full’ predicates; in other words, the structure projected by the case particles is a provisional structure rather than a definite structure. Hence, I call the particles ‘little’ predicates. Indeed, in the traditional grammar, the copular i- (‘to be’) in Korean is regarded as a predicative particle (Choi 1937). The degree of predicativeness may vary, but it seems that predicativeness is an essential characteristic of any particle. Consider Figure 6.1. It shows how a partial structure is projected by different case particles and their combinations in Korean. Although the constructive dimension of case particles is important, it must be noted that often subjects or objects in Korean are realized without the relevant case particles. Particularly in speech, it is common to have caseless sentences as in (2). Note that in (2), no case particles are realized. Modelling Nominal Particles in Korean 151

NOMACC DAT

?Ty(t) ?Ty(t) ?Ty(t) 0 1 1 α 0 1 α

0 α

NOM+ACC ACC+DAT NOM+ACC+DAT

?Ty(t) ?Ty(t) ?Ty(t) 01 1 01 α α 0 01 01 β α β

0 0 β γ

Figure 6.1. Partial structures projected by (a sequence of) case particles

(2) Ne Mina ku chayk cwuesse? [Korean]

you Mina the book gave

‘Did you give Mina the book?’

Yet, it is also worth noting that if case drop causes ambiguity, at least one of the case particles is explicitly realized.

Constructive prosody: IP boundary as a delocalizing cue It is not just morphologically visible particles but also prosody which, though invisible when presenting utterances in writing, has the same constructive role as little predicates. In particular, as discussed, I think the Intonational Phrase boundary tones have one of the following constructive dimensions: continue, delocalize (i.e. disconnect) or complete (finish off). The kinds of IP boundary tones and their prosodic nature will be discussed in Chapter 7. Before going further, however, we will briefly discuss the Korean Intonation Model proposed by Jun (2000).

Intonational Phonology and Korean Intonation Model (Jun 2000) The Korean Model is based broadly on Pierrehumbert and her colleagues (Pierrehumbert 1980, Pierrehumbert and Beckman 1986, Beckman and 152 Pragmatic Syntax

Pierrehumbert 1986), who developed a theory of the phonology of English intonational contours, called ‘Intonational Phonology’. They assumed that the intonational contour has a sequence of ‘discrete’ tonal entities as proposed in autosegmental theories of Bantu tonal systems (Goldsmith 1976). There are only two tonal levels such as High (H) and Low (L). These tonal entities have different compositions in terms of tones and different distributions within the Intonational Phrase. Jun (1993) adopted Intonational Phonology to capture some intrinsic puzzles regarding prosodic phrasing patterns in Korean. She showed that tonally based, not syntactically based, domains of phonological rules can better explain several segmental phonological rules. Following her observations, I propose that phonological structure is not a direct mapping from syntactic structure. Instead, I argue for the opposite direction of dependency. That is, syntactic structure is incrementally determined by phonological information as well as other information. In short, I claim that syntax does not feed phonology, but phonology feeds step-by-step structure building. Jun (1993, 2000) proposed the prosodic structure of Seoul Korean as in Figure 6.2. In this figure, IP represents an Intonation Phrase, AP an Accentual Phrase,w a phonological word and s a syllable. % is an Intonation Phrase boundary tone. L refers to low tone and H refers to high tone. In this model, an IP contains one or more Accentual Phrases (henceforth AP) and is marked by a boundary tone realized at the end of the phrase (e.g. L\%, H\%, LH\%, HL\%, LHL\%, HLH\%, LHLH\%). The Intonation Phrase final syllable is lengthened significantly and is optionally followed by a pause. An AP contains one or more words (but often one word) and is defined by phrasal tones, either LHLH or HHLH. The AP initial tone can be High or Low depending on the AP initial segment. In this book, we mainly focus on the constructive and expressive dimensions of IP boundary tones, leaving for further study the meanings of other prosodic domains.

IP

AP (AP)

W (W)(W)

σσ σσ

TH L H%

Figure 6.2. Prosodic structure of Korean Modelling Nominal Particles in Korean 153

(3) Constructive meaning of IP boundary tones a. Absence of IP boundary tones: ‘continue’ the structure building – structure building is not yet complete. (cf. rising tones indicate completeness of local structure building, but at the same time indicate that the overall structure building should continue.)2 b. Presence of IP boundary tones: either ‘delocalize (or disconnect)’ structure building or ‘finish-off’ structure building

In other words, if there is no IP boundary, structure building continues. If there is an IP boundary tone at the beginning of a string, it means that the upcoming structure is to be built differently from the previously built structure (i.e. delocalize/disconnect). On the other hand, if an IP boundary occurs relatively near the end of a string, it means that structure building is finished. Hence, if there is a prosodic boundary between a paired sequence of nominative (α) and accusative (β) marked NPs, and a subsequent dative (γ) NP, while the pair of nominative and accusative NPs may serve to induce a single propositional template, this will not collapse with that projected by the dative NP, and the sequence will result in two distinguishable structures, which we can model as in Figure 6.3:

(NOM+ACC) %DAT

?Ty(t) ?Ty(t)

01 01 α α

0 01 β β

0 γ

Figure 6.3. Structural discontinuity via prosodic break

Here we have the template projected by the NOM (marked α) and the object (marked β) together as an incomplete propositional template unifying with the template projected by the dative (marked) only after they have separately been constructed. Kiaer (2007) formulates the lexical action of intonational break in Dynamic Syntax as follows. It is assumed that the current node is decorated with ?Ty(t) and if there is any underspecified argument, then the pointer stays there, but if there is no such node, it makes another weak dominance relation (D) and goes there. Informally, this means that the pointer (◊), showing the current stage of structure building, should move to the other level of local structure when the intonational break appears. The symbol 1 in Figure 6.4 means ‘stay’. This lexical action kicks in and a new structure is projected as long as a new unfixed node is not already in place: this enables the parser to shift into another structure and hence can trigger non-local structure building. 154 Pragmatic Syntax

IF ?Ty(t), Tn(a)

THEN IF <↓*>Ty(x), ? x.Tn(x)

THEN 1

ELSE make(); go(); put(Tn(a)) ELSE Abort

Figure 6.4. Lexical action of intonational break

The delocalizing role of the IP boundary is much stronger at the beginning of a structure as in Figure 6.3; it gets weaker as the structure grows. That is, the existence of an IP boundary as in (4) is crucial in that if there is no such boundary, the whole sentence becomes very unnatural.

(4) a. Bog-ga Mary-ni % ringo-o tabeta inu-o ageta.

B-NOM M-DAT apple-ACC ate dog-ACC gave

‘Bob gave Mary a dog which ate an apple.’

b. ??Bog-ga Mary-ni ringo-o tabeta??? inu-o ageta.

B-NOM M-DAT apple-ACC ate dog-ACC gave

Intended reading: ‘Bob gave Mary a dog which ate an apple.’

However, I cannot think of examples where the IP boundary plays the same important role when the whole structure is about to finish. An IP boundary contributes not only to the constructive dimension of meaning but also to the expressive dimension of meaning. This will be discussed further in Chapter 7.

Stepwise structuring (via particles) In this section, I will show how partial structures are projected and built in a stepwise manner through a sequence of nominal particles. To investigate how a structure is built incrementally via case particles, I will demonstrate the step-by-step structure building for (5) with the corresponding particles:

(5) Jina-ka sakwa-lul Mina-hanthey cwuesse.

J-NOM apple-ACC M-DAT gave

‘Jina gave an apple to Mina.’

In Figure 6.5, what we see is that each ‘NP + case particle’ sequence incrementally builds an argument node within the same local propositional domain. Modelling Nominal Particles in Korean 155

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 (Jina-NOM) (Jina-NOM + Apple-ACC) (Jina-NOM + Apple-ACC + Mina-DAT

?Ty(t) ?Ty(t) ?Ty(t)

0 01 01 Jina’Jina’ Jina’

0 01

apple’ apple’

0 Mina’

Figure 6.5. Step-by-step structuring

More formally, one could say that there is first a step of Local *Adjunction plus fixing the subject NP -ka and then another step of Local *Adjunction and fixing that through unification with the template given by -lul. Whatever the details, the partial structure built by a sequence of NPs, as in Figure 6.5, will then be merged when the verb cwuess- (‘gave’) is parsed. As mentioned earlier, however, structures can be constructed without particles. This is in fact what is frequently observed, particularly in spoken Korean. Indeed, at least in spoken Korean, subjects without nominative particle -i/-ka are very common. This leads me to believe that it is not the nominative case particles but in fact just the first lexical item – no matter what it is – in the sequence that projects anticipation for the propositional template with the first as the subject by definition. And the use of nominative particle -i/-ka only adds expressive meanings to the proposition such as (contrastive) focus or agent-hood. We will continue this discussion below.

Expressive dimensions of case particles: With respect to the nominative particle It is certainly the case that along with their constructive function, case particles characteristically also add an expressive dimension to the meaning of the proposition. In particular, I will focus on expressive meanings which nominative particles -i/-ka can contain. First of all, they represent focus. As shown in (6), when a question such as who is Jiho is asked, native speakers of Korean use nominative particle -ka.

(6) Ce-ka Jiho ipnita.

I-NOM J DECLFORMAL

Propositional/Descriptive meaning: ‘I am Jiho.’

Expressive meaning: ‘I am the very person Jiho.’ 156 Pragmatic Syntax

Considering nominative particles as focal particles is not a new idea at all (see Choi (2005) for an overview). However, it is new to regard the focal meaning as a kind of expressive meaning independent of the propositional meaning. The focal meaning is, however, not the only expressive meaning yielded by nominative case particles. Nominative particles also yield ‘agentive’ expressiveness. That is, they reveal the speaker’s desire to express the ‘agent’ of the forthcoming event through the use of a nominative case-marked expression. This intention may be paraphrased as ‘I (=the speaker) think he/she should/will do X’. Consider (7). The expressive meaning which nominative particles bring forth is different from that of additional-meaning particles -un/-nun, known as topic particles. The expressive meaning of each particle becomes clearer when it is used in fragments as shown below.

(7) a. Nay-ka?

I-NOM

Descriptive meaning: I

Expressive meaning: (Do you mean that) I should do that?

b. Na-nun?

I-TOP

Descriptive meaning: I

Expressive meaning: (What about) me?

Nominative particles project several different dimensions of expressive meanings and therefore, not all nominative particles need to convey focus or agent-hood. Consider (8). In (8), pam (‘night’) and hanul (‘sky’) do not have any focal meaning or agent- hood.

(8) a. Pam-i kip-ta.

night-NOM deep-DECL

‘Night is deep.’

b. Hanul-i nop-ta.

sky-NOM high-DECL

‘Sky is high.’ Modelling Nominal Particles in Korean 157

On the other hand, particle-less sentences often add/reinforce an immediacy effect. Consider (9).

(9) Mina o-nta.

Mina come-PRES-DECL

Descriptive meaning: ‘Mina is coming.’

Expressive meaning: ‘I (=the speaker) am observing Mina’s coming.’

It is noticeable how easily nominative particles can be dropped in subject realization in Korean, particularly when spoken. Often, the constructive/syntactic dimension of nominative particles as a ‘proposition-unfolder’ has been emphasized in linguistic studies. However, given that the dropping of the nominative particle is so common in subject realization, I wonder if native speakers use nominative particles in order to realize various expressive dimensions more than to realize their constructive/syntactic functions. Before going further, we will briefly look at the classification of expressives we discussed in Chapter 3. Note that I have included so-called topic and focus as types of expressive meaning.

(10) (Tentative) Types of expressives Mind-making or emotional expressives (used to denote speaker’s willingness or feeling) (a) Volitional expressives (b) Emotional expressives Attitudinal expressives (used to denote speaker’s attitude towards the event) (a) Topical expressives (b) Focal expressives (c) Modal expressives Relational expressives (used to denote speaker’ relation with the hearer) (a) Honorific expressives (b) (Im)politeness expressives Stepping-stone expressives (used to denote speaker’s aim to ease the speech) (a) Interjectory expressives (i.e. interjections) In this respect, the expressive meaning of nominative particles can be summed up as in (11). More expressive dimensions can be added to this. I think some expressive meanings are more dominant than others and it will be interesting to see the hierarchy between different expressive meanings but I will leave this for future study. 158 Pragmatic Syntax

(11) Descriptive: Fo(α)

Expressives:

(i) Volitional: I am going to do (Fo(α))

(ii) Focal:

It is Fo(α) that …

Contrastive meaning can be added.

(iii) Simple description

The diagram given in Figure 6.6 shows the set of information projected by the nominative particle -i/-ka. Given the multidimensionality of these meanings, I propose that a set of LINK relations can be built, as explored in Section 5.7. Again, the set of information does not have to form the core package of meaning in building an adjunct structure. They can be a genuine additive which in some sense can be kept apart. The formal reflection of this lies in whether or not the information built up from the introduced LINKed structure is incorporated back into the primary structure or not. In other words, the application of a LINK evaluation is optional. In DS, all computational actions/rules are optional in principle as long as the input condition is satisfied. So the framework allows information projected in tandem either to be left as genuinely adjunct information or to be incorporated into the whole forming some composite content. Either way, the information will have been projected incrementally. So by making use of the LINK relation, we can grasp the way in which different dimensions of meanings may be put together incrementally, yielding both looser and tighter composite forms of meaning. Other case particles also induce expressive dimensions of meaning. In the following, we will discuss the constructive and expressive meanings of additional-meaning particles, focusing on the so-called topic particle -un/-nun in Korean.

Volitional expressive

Focal expressive PROPOSITIONAL

Figure 6.6. Set of meanings represented by nominative particles Modelling Nominal Particles in Korean 159

6.1. Additional-meaning particle -un/-nun Additional-meaning particles such as -un/-nun seem to mainly have an expressive dimension. Yet, just like case particles, additional-meaning particles also have both constructive and expressive dimensions, though in the case of additional-meaning particles, as the name itself suggests, its expressive contribution is stronger than its constructive contribution. Lee et al. (2009) argued that the -un/-nun marked Korean topic is a sentential-level (not nominal level) category. My proposal in this book shares their intuition. That is, I suggest that additional-meaning particles in general contribute to the sentential/ propositional level of expressive meaning rather than just to the category that -un/ nun is attached to. As discussed earlier, in Korean – particularly in speech – the role of prosody is more significant than nominalizing markers such as -um or -ki in terms of wrapping up the fragment and making it into an ‘expressive’ proposition.

Constructive meaning: -un/-nun as contextualizer The major constructive role of -un/-nun is to make the current proposition relevant to the given context: that is to plug the proposition into the relevant context. In other words, it makes the current proposition a contextualized proposition. Hence, I will call -un/-nun a contextualizer. This insight can be traced back to Cann et al. (2005) and Kiaer (2007). That is, logically,-un/-nun plays a role as a CI functor: it projects adjunct information about the relation of what is expressed as the primary content to the context presented either by information already available or to the attitude of the speaker towards what they are saying. Consider (12), and compare a simple propositional meaning with its contextualized propositional meaning.

(12) Context:

Jina-ka pangkeum wasse.

J-NOM just came

‘Jina just came.’

Ku-ay-nun cengmal chincelhay. the-child-TOP really kind

Proposition: The child is really kind

Contextualized proposition: ‘Jina – who just came – she is really kind.’

Expressive meanings: Speaker commitment Whether to use the particle -un/-nun or not relies on the speaker’s decision to express the set of expressive meanings associated with this particle. Before talking about the 160 Pragmatic Syntax set of expressive meanings, let us look at how -un/-nun meets the following criteria for expressives. Consider (13).

(13) Expressive criteria

1. Independence:

● Expressive content contributes a dimension of meaning that is separate from the regular descriptive content.

→ The meaning which -un/-nun represents is independent from the propositional meaning.

2. Non-displaceability:

● Expressives predicate something of the utterance situation.

→ The meaning of-un/-nun is hard to grasp properly outside the utterance situation.

3. Perspective dependence:

● Expressive content is evaluated from a particular perspective. In general, the perspective is the speaker’s, but there can be deviations if conditions are right.

→ The meaning of-un/-nun is sensitive to the speaker.

4. Descriptive ineffability:

● Speakers are never fully satisfied when they paraphrase expressive content using descriptive, i.e. nonexpressive, terms.

→ The meaning of-un/-nun is hard to describe.

5. Immediacy:

● Like performatives, expressives achieve their intended act simply by being uttered; they do not offer content so much as inflict .it

→ The meaning of -un/-nun has an immediate impact, inserting the speaker’s view.

6. Repeatability:

● If a speaker repeatedly uses an expressive item, the effect is generally one of strengthening the emotive content, rather than one of redundancy.

→ Repeated uses of -un/-nun do not change any propositional meaning but they increase the speaker’s involvement. Modelling Nominal Particles in Korean 161

The set of expressive meanings that -un/-nun represents can be summed up as follows:

(14) Meanings and functions of -un/-nun a. speaker aims to express his/her opinions – this can be paraphrased as ‘in my opinion’ or speaker expresses what he/she wants to talk about now – this can be paraphrased as ‘well– I am going to talk about …’ b. speaker wants to express a general view – this can be paraphrased as ‘in general – to me –’ c. speaker wants to say what he/she is going to talk about in relation to the given context – this can be paraphrased as ‘(Let me think) what about…?’

Looking through SILIC Corpus, I have found 4,249 examples where -un/-nun are used as additional particles. Most of the examples could be paraphrased in one of the three ways given in (14). In the discussions on topic markers in Korean, it is unanimously argued that topic particles like -un/-nun are used for old information, whereas nominative particles like -i/-ka are used for new information. However, if we assume this, we will find countless examples that we cannot explain. Consider the examples given in (15) below.

(15) Meanings and functions of -un/-nun a. Jina-nun ttokttokhay.

J-TOP bright.DECL

‘Jina is bright, to my view’ or ‘I am going to talk about Jina. And she is bright.’ b. Thokki-nun kwi-ka kil-ta.

Rabbit-TOP ear-NOM long-DECL

‘Rabbits have long ears.’ c. Sarah-nun?

Sarah-TOP

‘Then, let me think – what about Sarah? ’

Sometimes, -un/-nun can be attached at the end of an utterance after the verbal cluster, as in (16). In that case, it expresses the speaker’s regret or disappointment. (16) is also from SILIC Corpus.

(16) Simrihakkwa nawakaciko-nun

psychology graduated-TOP 162 Pragmatic Syntax

Descriptive meaning: ‘You’ve graduated psychology.’

Expressive meaning: ‘But, I am disappointed by you.’

Below, I will present a Dynamic Syntax analysis on topic constructions in Korean by adopting the notion of LINKed stuctures.

Topic construction in Korean: DS analysis The main observation is this: the sentence-initial or utterance-initial topic-marked items are often intonationally set apart – regardless of their prosodic length. See Figure 6.7. This is the way the sentence with the topic expressionJina-nun is naturally read out.

(17) Jina-nun khi-ka khuta.

Jina-TOP height-NOM tall.

‘Jina is tall in my view.’

Though the topic-marked phrase and the following phrase form an independent information unit, in building up an interpretation, the two are to be tightly knitted together. The former topic phrase sets up the context for the following proposition or indeed ‘contextualizes’ the following – by situating it in the appropriate, speech- relevant context. The missing argument of the latter proposition is – almost always – found in the topic phrase and if not, the whole sentence can easily end up being unacceptable. The tightness of the structural relations that the two structures

Figure 6.7. Topic phrase: Intonationally set apart Modelling Nominal Particles in Korean 163 demonstrate, despite being independent, can be captured by making use of LINK relations in DS. As discussed in 5.6, the LINKed structure can be built and added to the core proposition. Yet, whether to incorporate the structure and its meaning to the core set of meanings – or in other words, to evaluate the LINKed structure or not – totally depends on the context. Consider example (17), repeated here as (18).

(18) Jina-nun khi-ka khuta.

Jina-TOP height-NOM tall.

‘Jina is tall in my view.’

Below, I will discuss how to model the structural growth of (18) by showing how the topic marker -nun in Korean induces a pair of LINKed structures – the first is simply to indicate that the forthcoming information is going to be about Jina, whereas the second is to add an expressive meaning which shows that this is the view/opinion of the speaker. The former needs to be incorporated into the whole package of meaning, while the latter does not have to be (Figure 6.8).

Step 1: First LINK structure: showing a term sharing

Tn(a), ?Ty(t)

<↑0>Tn(a), Fo(Jina’), Ty(e) ?Ty(e→t)

-1 <↑0>Tn(a), Fo(Jina’) : the rst linked structure built

Step 2: Second LINK structure: showing the expressive meaning addition

Tn(a), ?Ty(t)

< 0>Tn(a), Fo( ), Ty(e) ?Ty(e t), Fo(tall

-1 < 0>Tn(a), Fo(view Jina Jieun , Ty(t)

Fo(Jieun Ty(e) Fo(view Jina , Ty(e t)

Fo(Jina Ty(e) Fo(view , Ty(e (e t)) Figure 6.8. Producing two types of LINKed structure 164 Pragmatic Syntax

The first linked structure Step 1 shows how -nun induces a LINKed structure which indicates to the hearer that the upcoming structure is about Jina. Formally, this is modelled as the sharing of the term Jina’ in the paired trees. That is, the LINKed structure contains the same term Jina’ as in the main clause (I suppress this LINKed structure in the next step for simplicity, since all its content is shared with the subject node). In Step 2, the added LINKed tree unfolds a substructure which is hosted by the newly introduced predicate view’. I introduce this predicate in order to capture the speaker-commitment property that is essential in terms of modelling the meaning what -nun projects and contributes to the utterance. That is, nun- in Jina-nun projects the two levels of information: one is to show that the upcoming structure is ‘about’ Jina and whatever information it is going to be – that is the speaker’s view. That is, it means that this is Jieun(=speaker)’s view regarding Jina: hence the interpretation, ‘Jina is tall in my view.’

Chapter summary In this chapter, we have observed constructive and expressive dimensions of nominal particles in Korean. Nominal particles in Korean project a series of information layers that reflect different levels of meanings. In order to understand the multidimensional nature of those particles, we need to have a formal mechanism that is flexible enough to incorporate the set of incrementally produced information in the same incremental way and at the same time to be able to label each information correctly according to its meaning contribution or dimension. This job can be done nicely by adopting LINK relations in DS. Whether to incorporate the added information through LINK relations or not is another matter. That is, this issue falls on the evaluation of the LINK relation. And the decision whether to incorporate the LINKed structure in the evaluation of the whole structure or not can be made by observing structural and semantic correlation and tightness of the two substructures, though most of the time it depends on the given contexts. In the case of Korean, topic constructions seem to be frozen and grammaticalized in the way that the two substructures are strongly tied together to a degree that the interprertation of a following proposition is almost impossible to be made without including the interpretation of the topic phrase. In this respect, both nominal and verbal particles are alike. 7

Modelling Verbal Particles in Korean

We now turn to the verbal particles in Korean, a set of particles and particle usages some of which extends beyond the current DS framework. However, there are principled ways in which the framework could be extended, through the use of appropriately individuated LINK relations, like the nominal particles. What follows first is a survey of the full array of verbal particles in Korean. In understanding Korean sentences, grasping the meanings of verbal clusters (i.e. verb plus a series of particles) is an essential task. Often, in the traditional grammar, verbal particles are classified into two categories: (i) pre-final and (ii) final particles. Consider (1), taken from Lee and Ramsey (2001:183–174), which shows an orthodox classification of verbal particles.

(1) Classification of verbal endings/particles

[------Verbal Particles------]

{stem + suffixes} + {pre-final} + {final} + {sentence-extending particles} 1) Pre-final endings 2) Final-endings a) sentence-final endings b) non-sentence final endings i) conjunctive endings ii) function converting endings A) nominalizing endings In the following sections, I will discuss constructive meanings for the final particles together with prosody (Section 7.0) and then expressive meanings for the pre-final and final particles (Section 7.1).

7.0. Final particles and prosody Underspecified mood: Specified by tones Verbal particles can induce a broad range of interpretations. Among these particles are verbal affixes which indicate not only mood but also projection of information either 166 Pragmatic Syntax as connectives or as expressive of speaker-hearer relations, often of very underspecified content. Sohn (1995:220) indeed argues that what were originally non-sentential particles have developed into or have been developing a new function as a sentence- final particle.

(2) 1) -ko (from quotative complementizer to sentence-final particle)

quotative particle ‘say’ >> self-quotation (reinforcement)

2) -nikka (from clause subordinator to sentence-final particle)

Temporal ‘when’ > causal ‘since’ > reassertion

3) -myense (from clause subordinator to sentence-final particle)

Temporal ‘while’ > concessive ‘thought’ > interrogative marker

According to Sohn, all these cases show ongoing grammaticalization, a process which is interactionally motivated. The new function of those endings is to express an increased involvement of the speaker in those cases when they appear in a context of ‘hearer-engaging’ discourse. Only when relevant context and prosody are revealed can one decide whether the particular ending is used as a connective or as a final, closing- off ending. Consider (3). In (3), falling and rising tones are all CI functors.

(3) Falling Tone (Proposition)  Declarative mood

Rising Tone (Proposition)  Interrogative mood

Figures 7.1 and 7.2 show the prosodic realizations of sentences in (4) and (5), respectively.

(4) Bap mekess-e-yo. ( ↑ )

‘I have eaten.’

(5) Bap mekess-e-yo? ( ↑ )

‘Have you eaten?’ (The speaker is being polite to the hearer.)

Note that in (4) and (5), the propositional meaning bap-mekess- (‘had a meal’) comes sequentially ahead of expressive meanings. Interestingly, in Korean, propositional and expressive meanings are sequentially displayed – that is propositional meanings come ahead of expressive meanings. The mood of particle e-yo is underspecified and is realized by prosody. With the rising tone, it becomes an interrogative/question and with the falling tone, it becomes a declarative. In this chapter, I will therefore gloss

-e and -yo as -eDECL /-eINTRG or -yoDECL/-yoINTRG depending on the intonation. Both particles, however, also represent the speaker-hearer relation. When -e is used, this Modelling Verbal Particles in Korean 167

Figure 7.1 Prosodic realization of (4)

Figure 7.2. Prosodic realization of (5) reveals the fact that the speaker wishes to keep a familiar relation with the hearer and the speaker is senior to the hearer. In other words, if the speaker is not senior to the hearer, he/she cannot use -e. On the other hand, -yo is used when the speaker wants to convey politeness. In this case, the hearer is senior to the speaker. In spoken syntax, often the distinction between sentence-final particles and conjunctive particles disappears. Let us take the example of -ko in (6). In this example, -ko sometimes marks a declarative end as in (6)a, but at other times an interrogative end, as in (6)b. However, it is also used as a connective particle, as in (6)c, or as a complementizer, as in (6)d. When -kwu (spoken variation of -ko) is used as a connective or a complementizer, no specific tone is observed and it is pronounced quickly. Because -ko reveals different expressive dimensions, I gloss -ko as KO below. In (6a–d), the bracketed descriptive meaning is the same. It is only expressive meanings that are different from each other. 168 Pragmatic Syntax

(6) Bap mekessta-kwu

rice ate-KO

Descriptive meaning: ‘(I/you/she/he) have/has eaten.’

a. {Bap mekessta }+ kwu ( ↑ )

Added expressive meaning: Declarative meaning b. {Bap mekessta }+kwu ( ↑ )

Added expressive meaning: Interrogative meaning

c. {Bap mek}+ kwu hakkyo kasse ( ↑ or ↑ )

meaning: ‘Did he/she/you go to school after having a meal?’ d. {Bap mekessta }+ kwu malhayssni? ( ↑ )

meaning: ‘Did you say you’ve eaten?’

Consider Figures 7.3 and 7.4. In Figure 7.3, rising tone is realized at -kwu as an IP boundary tone. On the other hand, -kwu is hardly heard in Figure 7.4 (reading of (6)d and the rising tone is realized at the verb malhayss-ni. I argue that the major function of so-called final particles in Lee and Ramsey’s classification in (1) is to close-off local structure building. The added boundary tones at the end will ensure that no more structure building remains to be done, while lack of such tones will either signal the continuation of structure building or imply that the currently built structure is part of a larger structure. Consider (7), which shows the summary of the meaning of -ko with appropriate prosody.

Figure 7.3. IP boundary tone at the final-endingkwu (reading of 6b) Modelling Verbal Particles in Korean 169

Figure 7.4. IP boundary tone at the verb malhayssni (reading of 6d)

(7) -ko a. Falling boundary tones: KO wraps up the clause and makes it a declarative sentence. b. Rising boundary tones: KO wraps up the clause and makes it an interrogative sentence. c. No specific tones or lack of boundary tones: KO is either a conjunctive or a complementizer.

Not only -ko, but also other particles behave in these ways. Consider Table 7.1, which classifies frequently used endings known as ‘connectives/conjunctives’. The list is drawn from Kang and Kim’s (2009) Sejong Corpus work. I have classified them into five categories. It is noteworthy that most of the endings are also used simply as final endings. It is difficult to predict whether each particle is used as a connective/ conjunctive or a final ending without considering how it is used and in which context. IP boundary tones are specifically realized if they are used as final endings. If they are not, such tonal properties are not observed. In the latter case, an expectation of a mother clause is created.

Table 7.1 List of connective/conjunctive particles (can also be used as final-ending particles)

And-type But-type Because-type If-type Even if-type

-ko -te -ra -myen (un) -to -kwu -se -tun -mye (simultaneous events) -(ni)kka

Jun (2000) proposed the following relation between prosody and the semantic/ pragmatic relation that is implied by the prosody in Seoul Korean. Below, L refers to low tone, H refers to high tone and % refers to a boundary. Figure 7.5 shows the tones and moods discussed in Jun (2000). 170 Pragmatic Syntax

Rising tones

H% LH% HLH% LHLH%

Falling tones

L% HL% LHL% HLHL%

L% : This tone is the most common in stating facts, and in declaratives in reading. H% : This tone is the most common in seeking information, as in yes/no questions. LH% : This is commonly used for questions. HL% : This tone is the most common in declaratives andwh -questions. It is also commonly used in news broadcasting. LHL% : This tone sometimes intensifies the meaning of HL%, but like LH%, it also delivers the meanings of ‘being persuasive, insisting and confirmative’. It is also used to show annoyance or irritation. HLH% : This tone is not as common as the other types mentioned so far, and some speakers use this type more often than others. It is used when a speaker is confident and expecting listeners’ agreement. LHLH% : This tone is less common than others, and has a meaning of intensifying some of the LH%’s meanings, that is ‘annoyance, irritation or disbelief’. HLHL% : This tone is more common than LHLH%, but not as common as single-, bi- or tritonal boundary tones. It sometimes intensifies the meaning of HL%, confirming and insisting on the validity of one’s opinion, and sometimes, like LHL%, it delivers nagging or persuading meanings.

Figure 7.5. Tone and mood Jun (2000)

As discussed in Chapter 1, a closing-off function can be carried by non-final particles. This is in fact what is frequently observed in spoken Korean. In the Sejong Spoken Corpus, among the 2,267 occurrences of -yo, in 1,946 cases (i.e. 86% of the total number of occurrences) -yo was followed by the post-verbal element. In such cases, post-verbal expressions and -yo ending verbal expressions were often in the same prosodic domain wrapped by closing-off boundary tones. Our discussion is summed up as follows.

(8) Clause-final particles with boundary tones:

(i) Constructive/descriptive meaning: close-off

(ii) Expressive meaning: Modelling Verbal Particles in Korean 171

a) With rising tones: interrogative

b) With falling tones: (default) declarative

As mentioned in Chapter 4, interpretational restrictions at the right periphery have been discussed purely syntactically, but a satisfactory account has never been reached. I think this is because local structure building is closed by particles with appropriate prosody. In the following section, we will discuss expressive dimensions of pre-final and final particles.

7.1. Expressive particles Particles that contribute a set of expressive meanings Both pre-final and final verbal particles represent different expressive dimensions which include speaker’s attitude (e.g. modality) and speaker-hearer interaction. In the case of Korean, particles denoting the speaker’s attitude precede particles that denote speaker-hearer interaction. In contemporary Korean, speaker-hearer interaction is realized in particular by particles such as -yo. The particle yo- is known as a politeness particle and at the same time, -yo is regarded as a final particle. However, -yo is attached after the final particle when the speaker wants to make the sentence polite. Without -yo, the default mode is panmal, which is casual speech. Consider (9), where expressive meanings are conveyed by both pre-final and final particles. Q refers to interrogative mood.

(9) a. -ci ( ↑ ) (Q + presupposing prior knowledge (i.e. suggested confirmation) + politeness)

Bap mekess-ci-yo?

Descriptive meaning of bap mekess-: ‘have eaten’

Expressive meaning from ci ( ↑ ): Q + the speaker presupposes prior knowledge

Descriptive + expressive meaning: ‘I think you have eaten – right?’

b. -ne ( ↑ ) (DECL + newly perceiving + politeness)

Bap mek-ne.

Descriptive meaning of bap mek-: ‘have eaten’

Expressive meaning from -ne ( ↑ ): Declarative + this is newly perceived information

Descriptive + expressive meaning: ‘I see that you are eating now.’ 172 Pragmatic Syntax

When -yo is attached to the sentences in (10), the politeness meaning is added, replacing familiairty projected by -e. Speaker’s seniority over the hearer also changes into the opposite.

(10) a. -ci-yo ( ↑ ) (Q + presupposing prior knowledge)

Bap mekess-ci-yo?

Descriptive meaning of bap mekess-: ‘have eaten’

Expressive meaning from ci ( ↑ ): Q + the speaker presupposes prior knowledge

Expressive meaning from yo ( ↑ ): ‘I (=speaker) is showing politeness to the hearer.’

Descriptive + expressive meaning: ‘I think you have eaten – right? I am expressing this proposition with politeness instead of familiarity. Also, the speaker is not more senior to the hearer.’

b. -ne-yo ( ↑ )(DECL + newly perceiving)

Bap mek-ne-yo.

Descriptive meaning of bap mek-: ‘have eaten’

Expressive meaning from -ne ( ↑ ): Declarative + this is newly perceived information

Expressive meaning from yo ( ↑ ): I (=speaker) is showing politeness to the hearer.

Descriptive + expressive meaning: ‘I see that you are eating now. I am expressing this proposition with politeness instead of familiarity. Also, the speaker is not more senior to the hearer.’

The particle yo- is both easily attachable and omissible. It is avoided in strict written texts such as newspaper articles or academic papers. Using -yo at the end or not simply reveals the speaker’s attitude towards the hearer. Having a morphological device such as this is quite unique cross-linguistically. According to WALS (World Atlas of Language Structures), there are very few languages which have politeness particles like -yo. The particle yo- can be attached to most verbal particles. These days, yo- even is attached to formal endings with -ta. Consider (11). In a Google search, examples like (11) are easily found.

(11) Culkewe-ss-upnita-yo ( ↑ ). happy-PAST-FORMAL-YODECL Descriptive meaning: ‘It was a nice time.’

Expressive meaning via upnita: formal ending. ‘I (=the speaker) want to express the proposition formally.’ Modelling Verbal Particles in Korean 173

Expressive meaning via yo ( ↑ ): ‘I (=the speaker) want to express politeness to the hearer.’

Descriptive + expressive meanings: ‘I want to say formally but also politely that it was a nice time.’

Consider (12). The underlined propositional meaning is the same regardless of the final particle. Yet, the bracketed, expressive meaning differs depending on the particle and its prosody.

(12) Jina-ka ku sasil-ul malhayss {-e, -eyo, -ci}

J-NOM the fact-ACC said

‘Jina said the fact.’

a) With -e (plus falling tone): ‘I (=speaker) want to express to you (=hearer) with familiarity that Jina said the fact.’

b) With -eyo (plus falling tone): ‘I (=speaker) want to express with politeness to you (=hearer) that Jina said the fact.’

c) With -ci (plus rising tone): ‘I (=speaker) think Jina said the fact (isn’t it the case?).’ The speaker is not explicitly expressing politeness to the hearer in order to maintain familiar/close relationship with the hearer.

Here, the crucial observation is this. Before the set of particles is reached, a proposition is built. And then a set of particles updates the proposition into an expressive proposition – revealing different dimensions of speaker commitment to the proposition. Note that the choice of final particles is nothing to do with the propositional meaning, but is decided by the speaker’s intention to express a particular expressive mode. Also note that the agent of the expressive dimension is not the -ka marked NP Jina, but the speaker (=I). Consider also (13). Here -ta has a constructive function of transforming a simple clause into a complex clause, adding the meaning of ‘I heard that’. This can also be viewed as adding constructive as well as expressive meaning. Hence, I show that -ta adds constructive and expressive meaning. As we can see, a sequence of particles shows a complex dimension of expressiveness, which is compositional in nature.

(13) Jina-ka ku sasil-ul malhayss {-tay, -tay-yo, ta-ci}

J-NOM the fact-ACC said

a) With -tay (ta+e and falling tone)

Descriptive meaning: ‘Jina told the fact.’

Constructive/expressive meaning via -ta: ‘I (=speaker) heard that.’ 174 Pragmatic Syntax

Expressive meaning via -e ( ↑ ): ‘I am expressing this information to you with familiarity.’

b) With -tay-yo (ta+eyo and falling tone)

Descriptive meaning: ‘Jina told the fact.’

Constructive/expressive meaning via -ta: ‘I (=speaker) heard that.’

Expressive meaning via -yo ( ↑ ): ‘I am expressing this information to you with politeness.’

c) With -ta-ci (plus rising tone)

Descriptive meaning: ‘Jina told the fact.’

Constructive/expressive meaning via -ta: ‘I (=speaker) heard that.’

Expressive meaning via -ci ( ↑ ): ‘Isn’t it the case?’

In order to strengthen expressive meanings, sometimes particles are used more than once.

Particle-doubling and speaker-commitment meaning Consider pre-final particles in (14)

(14) Pre-final particles: si,- -ess/-ass, -ke(ss),-te

These particles are often glossed as HON, PAST, FUT/VOL and RETRO – representing lexical meanings. Yet, these particles also contain ‘speaker-commitment’ meanings. As discussed in Chapter 3, in explaining the Korean honorific particle si- , following Potts’ (2006) claim, Kim and Sells (2007) argued the necessity of postulating expressive meaning, along with propositional meaning. This observation, I believe, can solve numerous puzzles in Korean syntax/semantics. Furthermore, I believe that Potts’ insight on the consideration of expressive meaning – to see beyond truth-conditional, propositional meaning – and interpret what are known very much as purely syntactic or semantic phenomena within the ‘speaker-hearer involved context’ is precisely the direction in which the architecture of grammar should move. Importantly, however, the absence or presence of the particle needs to be understood not in a binary dimension but along a gradient dimension which we might represent informally as (15).

(15) a. -si [+honorific] ([-honorific], [+honorific], [++honorific], [+++honorific])

b. -ess/-ass [+past] ([-past], [+past], [++past], [+++past]) Modelling Verbal Particles in Korean 175

c. -ke(ss) [+volition] ([-volition], [+volition], [++volition], [+++volition])

d. -te [+retrospect] ([-retrospect], [+retrospect], [++retrospect], [+++retrospect])

The use of the above particles, however, is not lexically encoded as in the number/ gender agreement in English. For instance, in English, when the subject is a third- person singular regular verbs will automatically end with the suffixs - /es. However, in Korean, even if honourable subjects such as sensayng.nim ‘teacher’ are used, the use of -si- with the verb still depends on the context and the relation between speaker and hearer. In most cases, it depends on the speaker’s intention to explicitly express his/ her attitude or not. The descriptive meaning is the same in all the examples in (15). However, the degree of honorification which the speaker expresses differs.

(16) Degree of honorification: a>>b>>c>>d

a. Kim sensayng.nim-kkese o-si-n-ta. [+++honorific]

K teacher.honourable-NOMHON come-HON-PRES-TADECL

‘Teacher Kim is coming.’

b. Kim sensayng.nim-i o-si-n-ta. [++honorific]

K teacher.honourable-NOM come-HON-PRES- TADECL

‘Teacher Kim is coming.’

c. Kim sensayng.nim-i o-n-ta. [+honorific]

K teacher.honourable-NOM come-PRES- TADECL

‘Teacher Kim is coming.’

d. Kim sensayng-i o-n-ta. [unspecific honorific]1

K teacher-NOM come-PRES- TADECL

‘Teacher Kim is coming.’

It is often assumed that whether to use -si- or not depends on semantic characteristics of the subject. However, such a decision normally depends on the speaker-hearer relationship and the speaker’s decision to explicitly express his/her deferential attitude to the subject. In the Sejong Corpus, the lexically honourable subject halmeni/ halapeci (‘grandmother/grandfather’) was found 499 times, but -si- only appeared about 77 times (approx. 15% of the time), and as for another honourable subject, sensayng.nim (‘teacher.honourable’), -si- only appeared 140 times out of 578 usages (24% of the time). The double use of the above particles will express ‘reinforced’ expressive meanings of [+honorific/past/volition/retrospect]. Consider (17). 176 Pragmatic Syntax

(17) Doubling of -ess (past-tense) particle

a. Cey-ka yeki wa-ss-ess-eyo.

I-NOM here come-PAST-PAST- YODECL

Descriptive meaning: ‘I was here before.’

Expressive meaning: ‘I remember I was here before.’

b. Cey-ka yeki wa-ss-ess-ess-eyo.

I-NOM here come-PAST-PAST-PAST- YODECL

Descriptive meaning ‘I have been here before.’

Expressive meaning: ‘I remember I was here before.’

Expressive meaning: ‘That was really long time ago.’

In a Google search, even the triple use of -ess was not so uncommon. In the above cases, the repeated use of -ess is not redundant nor does it contribute to the propositional meaning. That is, the double use of -ess does not denote complexity or intensity of the past tense meaning but it has to do with the speaker’s attitude towards the proposition. That is, doubling ess- reinforces the speaker’s attitude towards the event, emphasizing that he/she feels the event happened psychologically quite far from the current time.

(Apparent) Overuse of honorific particles Similarly, the overuse of honorific particle is frequently observed these days, and they are used in order to emphasize the speaker’s deferential attitude towards the hearer. Sentences as in (18), in which the subject is not of a category to whom a deferential attribute can be expressed, are regarded as ungrammatical. However, why do native speakers use them so frequently? The point here is that the speaker is not honouring the subject but the hearer by using -si. That is, in (18), what the speaker is honouring is not the printer but the hearer. Indeed ungrammatical examples such as those in (18) are frequently found in contemporary spoken Korean. In a Google search, expressions such as won i-se-yo, as in (18b), were found 1,220,000 times (23 June 2011).

(18) a. Print-mwul-i nao-si-l-ke-yeyyo.

print-stuff-NOM come.out-HON-FUT-thing-YODECL

Descriptive meaning: ‘Your printing stuff will soon come out.’

Expressive meaning: ‘I (=the speaker) am honouring you, the hearer.’ Modelling Verbal Particles in Korean 177

b. 8,000 won i-se-yo.

8,000 won COP-HON-YODECL

Descriptive meaning: ‘It is 8,000 won.’

Expressive meaning: ‘I (=the speaker) am honouring you, the hearer.’

The supposed ungrammaticality and yet clear usability of these sentences show that there is some tension and ongoing interaction between the existing grammar and a new grammar. At least in contemporary spoken Korean, more and more -si seems to reflect the speaker’s attitude towards the hearer as well as the subject. Consider some more examples.

(19) -yo after propositive or formal endings

a. Ka-pnita-yo

‘go-formal.ending- YODECL’ (49,500,000 results from Google search)

(i) I am going.

(ii) The speaker is polite to the hearer.

b. Ka-ca-yo

‘go-propositive-YODECL (15,300,000 results from Google search)

(i) Let’s go.

(ii) The speaker is polite to the hearer.

c. Mek-ca-yo

‘eat-propositive-YODECL’ (3,250,000 results from Google search)

(i) Let’s eat.

(ii) The speaker is polite to the hearer.

The sentences in (19) can sound odd because formal endings or propositives often do not combine well with the politeness particle. Yet, these days they are frequently used, as the Google search results show. Likewise, the sentences in (19) could sound odd because one’s own feeling should be declared rather than guessed. Yet again, they are frequently used in contemporary spoken Korean. As discussed earlier in Chapter 1, it is not easy to mark the grammaticality of sentences as in (20). Though native speakers will use those sentences with only a little feeling of unease, their school grammar will perhaps make them categorize it as ungrammatical. 178 Pragmatic Syntax

(20) katta- with psychological predicates

a. Aphun-kess katha-yo

Sick-thing seems like YODECL ‘I guess I am sick.’

b. Kipwun-i cohun-kess katta-yo

Mood-NOM good-thing seems like YODECL ‘I guess I am happy’.

c. Massissnun-kess katta-yo

delicious-thing seems like YODECL ‘I guess it’s delicious.’

By default -kess is glossed as FUT (future), though it is sometimes also glossed as VOL (volitional). However, my hunch is that in the case of -kess too, the essence of meaning which -kess represents is the speaker-commitment meaning. Even in referring to a simple future, -kess seems to represent the speaker’s estimation. Consider (21). As in the case of -yo, I will leave out the conventional glossing.

(21) Pi-ka kos o-kess-ne.

Rain-NOM soon come-KESS-NE

Descriptive meaning: ‘It will rain.’

Expressive meaning via kess: ‘I (=speaker) guess the event.’

Expressive meaning from -ne ( ↑ ): Declarative + this is newly perceived information

Descriptive + expressive meaning(s): ‘I (=speaker) can see and I can therefore guess that it is soon to rain.’

(22) Pi-ka o-lkke-ya

Rain-NOM come-LKKE-YA

Descriptive meaning: ‘It will rain.’

Expressive meaning via lkke: ‘I strongly believe so.’

Expressive meaning via ya: ‘Declarative + the speaker is superior to the hearer and expresses familiarity.’

Descriptive + expressive meaning(s): ‘I strongly believe that it will rain.’ Modelling Verbal Particles in Korean 179

Here -lkke- is a speaker-commitment element, showing the speaker’s strong belief. Consider the case of -te in (23).

(23) Sensayng.nim-un kipun-i cohu-si-te-ra.

Teacher.honourable-TOP mood-NOM good-HON-RETRO-RA

Descriptive meaning: ‘Teacher’s mood is good.’

Expressive meaning via -si: ‘I (=speaker) honour the subject.’

Expressive meaning via -te: ‘I (=speaker) remember having seen the event.’

Expressive meaning via -ra: Declarative + the speaker is surprised.

Descriptive plus expressive meaning(s): ‘I (=speaker) remember having seen that the teacher’s mood is good. That was surprising.’

The Standard Korean Language Dictionary (National Institute of Korean Language (NIKL 2005)) defines -te as ‘the suffix/ending that is used when the speaker wants to express what he/she has known through direct experience in the past at present speaking time.’ This can be summed up as an ‘immediacy’ effect according to Potts’ criteria. It is noticeable, though, that often the translation of a sentence like (23) is done without any consideration of expressive meaning. Though the proportion between constructive dimension and expressive dimension and emphasis on the expressive dimension may differ between categories and lexical items, the two-dimensional nature of meaning can be applied more broadly to auxiliaries or other suffixes in general.

Particle choice and expressive meanings As discussed in Chapter 3, when native speakers aim to express the expressive dimension of indirectness, they tend to replace the -ha- suffix with the typical passive suffixtoy - as in (24). In this case, the use of toy- does not contribute to the propositional meaning of passiveness.

(24) a. kincang-hata (to be anxious), kamtong-hata (to be moved), kamhwa-hata (to be moved), kunsim-hata (to be worried), simchwui-hata (to be indulged in), tanghwang-hata (to be surprised)

[Weakened volition, indirectness]

b. kincang-toyta (to be anxious), kamtong-toyta (to be moved), kamhwa-toyta (to be moved), kunsim-toyta (to be worried), simchwui-toyta (to be indulged in), tanghwang-toyta (to be surprised)

Similarly, even in expressing emotions, native speakers of Korean often use objectifying particles such as kess- (‘it seems that’), as in (25). Strictly speaking, sentences as in (26) are regarded as ungrammatical, since you cannot objectify your own feeling. 180 Pragmatic Syntax

Yet these sentences are easily found when the speaker wants to add an implication of objectiveness to the proposition.

(25) Wihemha-kess-ta.

dangerous-KESS-DECL

Descriptive meaning: ‘It is dangerous.’

Expressive meaning: ‘In my (=speaker’s) view’

Descriptive + expressive meaning: ‘In my view it is dangerous.’

(26) Com aphu-n kess kass-a.

little sick-ADN thing seem.to.be-DECL

Descriptive meaning: ‘I am little sick.’

Expressive meaning: ‘I feel that…’

Descriptive + expressive meaning: ‘(I feel that) I am little sick.’

Particle doubling in complex clauses In a complex clause, pre-final suffixes can occur in each embedded clause as well as in the matrix clause. However, when they occur in the embedded clause as well as in the matrix clause, this is due to the expressive dimensions of meaning rather than descriptive, propositional meaning. This is different from what Harada (1976) argues. Consider (27) from Harada (1976:546). See the distribution of o underlined.

(27) Yamada sensei-wa [Karuizawa-ni o-ide ni nar-u] koto o-kime ni

Yamada teacher-TOP K-DAT HON-go DAT become-IMP COMP HON-decide DAT

nat-ta. [Japanese]

become

‘Professor Yamada decided to go to Karuizawa.’ (matrix and embedded honorifics)

According to Potts, Harada says that o marking in both the matrix and complement verb is ‘somewhat too polite to use in ordinary honorific contexts’. However, doubling such as this seems to represent different levels of politeness, instead of reinforcing a one-dimensional, expressive meaning. Consider the Korean example in (28).

(28) a. Honorific particle in the matrix clause

Sensayng.nim-i aphun-ta-ko malssumha-si-ess-ta.

Teacher.honourable-NOM sick-DECL-COMP say-HON-PAST-DECL Modelling Verbal Particles in Korean 181

Descriptive meaning: ‘The teacher said that he is sick.’

Expressive meaning: Speaker honours matrix clause subject

b. Honorific particle in the embedded clause

Sensayng.nim-i aphun-si-ta-ko malha-ess-ta.

teacher-dear-NOM sick-HON-DECL-COMP say-PAST-DECL

Descriptive meaning: ‘The teacher said that he is sick.’

Expressive meaning: Speaker honours embedded clause subject

c. Honorific particle in both the embedded and matrix clause

Sensayng.nim-i aphun-si-ta-ko malssumha-si-ess-ta.

Teacher.honourable-NOM sick-HON-DECL-COMP say-HON-PAST-DECL

Descriptive meaning: ‘The teacher said that he is sick.’

Expressive meaning: Speaker honours both matrix and embedded clause subject

Not only -si, but as we have discussed so far other particles show similar behaviour. On- the-spot meanings from speaker commitment are applicable to the level of structure of that particular particle. Below, I will show the modes of composition by different expressive meanings projected by a sequence of pre-final suffixes. Potts emphasizes semantic independence of propositional and expressive meaning. However, I think, in fact, at-issue and on-the-spot meaning is not totally independent but is somehow related to each other. In other words, there is not really an isolated Conventional Implicature. In Korean, meanings of particles and suffixes are hard to define as solely propositional or solely expressive as we have seen. Instead, each particle in Korean conveys both propositional and expressive meaning.

Left-to-right composition of expressive meanings: Via incremental applications of LINK adjunction So far, we have only considered expressive meaning in a totally informal way. Now, I am going to show how different layers of expressive meanings projected by each particle can contribute to the making of the ‘whole’ meaning from left to right in an incremental way that the concept of LINKed structure can capture. In particular, the observation of incrementality can be reflected in the sequential application and evaluation of LINKed relations that we introduced in Section 5.6. That is, one can compose a ‘repository’ of information shared by the speaker and hearer by building a number of LINKed structures that are to be added in building structures of ongoing dialogue. As said in Section 5.6, whether to evaluate the whole package of information – 182 Pragmatic Syntax containing the set of LINKed structures – or not depends on different types of context. Sometimes, they have to be evaluated as essential part of the meaning in whole. This will be the case when the two subparts are semantically tightened and inseparable in understanding. Sometimes they are not, and these will constitute add-on information in some sense peripheral or at least not part of the proposition expressed. First of all, let’s see how expressive meaning can contribute to the meaning composition of the whole. An example is found in Yamanaka (2008). Consider the Japanese sentence (29), taken from Yamanaka (2008).

(29) Masa: O-isogi-dat-ta.

POL-hurry-COP-PST

‘(he) was in hurry.’

She showed that in saying oisogidatta (‘(he) was in hurry’) as in (29), the predicate isogi invokes honorific meaning which shows Masa’s respect for Yamada Sensei (‘Teacher Yamada’). Here, the core idea behind is to treat the socially added meanings (here, honorific) as information added to the propositional meaning using a LINK relation (Figure 7.6). Now, let’s see how multiple layers of expressive information can be built and then evaluated incrementally by looking at a Korean example (30).

(30) Modes of composition: Left-to-right composition of expressives

Pappu-si- kyess-eyo

busy-HON- FUT-POL

‘(I think) you must be busy.’

Parsing O-isogi

Tn(a), ?Ty(t)

Fo(U), x.Fo(x), Ty(e) Fo(isogi ), Ty(e t)

Fo(Yamada-sensei )

-1 < 1>Tn(a), Fo(respect Yamada-sensei Masa , Ty(t)

Fo(Masa , Ty(e) Fo(respect Yamada-sensei )), Ty(e t)

Fo(Yamada-sensei ), Ty(e) Fo(respect ), Ty(e (e t)) Figure 7.6. Building dialogue structures by LINK relations Modelling Verbal Particles in Korean 183

In (30), each expressive meaning projected by a set of particles will contribute to the meaning of the whole meaning one by one in an incremental way. The basic intuition of evaluating-on-the-go is shared with Cann et al. (2005) (Chapter 8). Nevertheless, this has not been implemented in understanding a series of expressive meanings projected incrementally as in (30).

Step 1: Parsing honorific particle si-

The above step shows the LINK structure introduced by the honorific particlesi - . In the LINKed structure, we can see that the substructure is unfolded under the predicate respect’. Here, it reflects Jieun’s attitude (=respect) towards Dr. Kim. That is, by parsing -si in Korean, what the hearer gets is not just underspecified, arbitrary honorific information, but he/she will get specific information which shows the speaker’s (here Jieun) respect towards the hearer (Dr. Kim).

Step 2: Parsing future (guess) particle -kess

The above step shows the LINKed structure is introduced by the future or guess particle -kess. In the LINKed structure, we can see that the substructure is unfolded under the 184 Pragmatic Syntax predicate guess’. Here, it reflects Jieun’s attitude (=guess) towards what has been said. That is, by parsing -kess in Korean, what the hearer gets is not just underspecified, neutral information, but he/she will get specific information which shows the speaker’s (here Jieun) guess towards the propositional content. In this chapter, I gave a sketch of how a set of verbal particles in Korean contributes to the composition of the meaning of a full sentence. Each particle in a verbal cluster indeed projects a different dimension of meaning, which is often related to speaker- hearer relations or the speaker’s attitude towards the proposition. These particles in a sense colour/update the contents of the somewhat underspecified propositions but often in very indeterministic ways. The aspects of those meanings have proved recalcitrant to structural views of syntax or within model-theoretic semantic frameworks. Yet, by using LINKed relations, within DS, we can show how this additional-yet-crucial information is interwoven in the big picture of building the ‘package of meaning’. As in the case of nominal particles, in the case of Korean, the set of information that has been projected by the verbal particles is hard to separate from the main, propositional meaning. That is, each level of information is semantically and structurally tied together strongly. Hence, we presume that the incrementally accumulated set of information built via LINK relations will be evaluated at the end rather than remaining unevaluated. 8

Particle Doubling: Incrementality at Work

In the previous chapters, we saw how a sequence of descriptive and expressive contents projected by a set of particles is incorporated into the making of the whole meaning by the application of LINK relations. In this chapter, we will see a particular kind of construction where partial and interdependent information is stacked together to form a single package of meaning. Here, we will explore how the repeated and incremental introduction and evaluation of LINK relations can capture the stepwise composition of different layers of meanings.

Contextually bound meanings

Before we proceed with this chapter, let us think about the most natural ways of structure building. In some sense, content representations can be put together as projected by the words following the order in which they are placed relative to whatever input the context provides. This will work at a micro-level constituent, but equally, it is what is needed at a sentential level, and, even further, at an utterance level. This is exactly the way DS views structure building. In DS, individual words can signal any aspect of content to the construction of an utterance interpretation, whether this be the propositional content, the context or even attitudes towards what is under construction, all relative to the context. And this matches the informal observation that previously given information is the basis of what a hearer uses in understanding the information that follows. Even if one thinks he/she understands a word as it stands isolated, it is always within a certain context. Likewise, a sentence cannot stand on its own and be understood independent from the context. The structural type that we are going to look at in this chapter is that of a sequence of case-marked expressions where the case is identical across the stack of NPs, clustered in a row. Though we focus on this particular construction in Korean, the structural motivation for constructions like these can be found in any language. Often, this pattern of structures is discussed as apposition in English. As we shall see, interestingly, in Korean, each component in those structures shares the same tonal property as well as the case particle. 186 Pragmatic Syntax

8.0. Tone copy and particle doubling As indicated by prosodic and morpho-syntactic clues, clustering occurs in contributing meaning along both the constructive and the expressive dimensions. Consider the following examples.

(1) a. Jina -ka namtongsayng-i meli-ka coh-a. [multiple nominative NPs: -ka doubling]

J-NOM younger.brother-NOM brain-NOM good-DECL

‘Jina’s younger brother’s brain is good.’

Lit. Jina’s younger brother is smart.

b. Jina-ka namwu-lul kaci-lul capassta. [multiple accusative NPs: -lul/ul doubling]

J-NOM tree-ACC branch-ACC held

‘Jina held the branch of a tree.’

c. Jina-ka Seoul-ey eti-ey salayo? [multiple locative NPs: -e doubling]

J-NOM Seoul-at where-at live

‘Where does Jina live in Seoul?’

d. Sayngsen-un ocinge-nun coahay. [multiple topic NPs: -nun/-un doubling]

fish-TOP squid-TOP like

Lit. ‘I like squid among fish.’

These involve nominative doubling, accusative doubling, locative doubling and multiple topic marking. Of these, structures as in (1a) have been widely studied as multiple nominative or subject constructions (see Yoon 2007); but, to my knowledge, no attempts have been made to explain doubling phenomena as in (1) in a unified and systematic way. In addition, even just restricting attention to nominative doubling, no studies of multiple nominative constructions as in (1a) have discussed the role of prosody or other production-centred concerns such as efficiency. Yet, I argue that prevalent uses of examples as in (1) have structural motivation, namely to establish a meaningful proposition in an optimally efficient way – that is to build an information unit bit-by-bit incrementally. The role of tones as well as length constraint deserves our attention. It seems that doubling, which is observed mostly in spoken data, is realized as a result of prosodic and pragmatic concerns. The intuition is this. There are cases when we want to express a constituent that perhaps is too long to put in ‘one breath’ or at the point of speech you have not planned clearly what to say. In that case, a speaker may produce a place- holder like expression with a case particle and then will update it as he/she goes on. Incrementality at Work 187

Or, when the speaker cannot put all expressions in one breath, he/she tends to cut the expression into small pieces – yet use copied tones and particles to ensure that they are built to result in an accumulation of content at the same structural address. We can also think of situations where the speaker simply does not grasp the whole meaning he/ she is producing at the point of starting the utterance. Perhaps, the speaker is figuring out the meaning as they speak and this is the reason why the clustering structure is initiated. It is noticeable that in hardly any case do the expressions in doubling constructions have more than three syllables. The updating can be ensured by copied tones and particles. Consider (2). Figure 8.1 shows the copied tones between two nominative NPs.

(2) Jina-ka ye.tongsayng-i cham yeyppu-tay-yo. [multiple nominative construction in Korean]

J-NOM younger.sister-NOM very pretty-said.that-yo

‘Jina said that her younger sister is very pretty.’

Figure 8.1. Copied tones: Korean

8.1. Incrementally built subjects This section1 focuses on sentences like (3) where a sequence of nominative NPs occurs with one shared predicate. Structures like (3) have been referred to as either Multiple Nominative Constructions (hereafter MNC) or Multiple Subject Constructions (hereafter MSC).2 Japanese and Chinese also exhibit the same kind of structure, and the MSC has been widely studied in the literature (see Vermeulen (2005) for Japanese and Teng (1974) for Chinese, among others). 188 Pragmatic Syntax

(3) Jina-ka namtongsayng-i meli-ka coh-ta.

J-NOM younger brother-NOM brain-NOM good-DECL

‘Jina’s younger brother’s brain is good.’

Lit. ‘Jina’s younger brother is smart.’

I intend to skip the broad swathe of literature on Multiple Nominal or Subject Constructions and instead consider Yoon’s (2007, 2009) work as the starting point for this section. Yoon argued that multiple -ka3 constructions are not Multiple Nominative Constructions but Multiple Subject Constructions: in other words, all the -ka-marked NPs in (3) are independent subjects. This is in contrast with the MNC argument, where it is assumed that there is only one subject and that other -ka marked NPs are not subjects but either topics, foci or adjunct expressions (see Yoon 1986, J.-Y. Yoon 1989, Schütze 2001, among others). Yoon showed a series of counter evidence. In (4), for instance, pihayngki (‘airplane’) cannot be interpreted as a focus, as noted in Yoon (2004), among others. Given that 747 is a type of airplane, it would be pragmatically odd to interpret the initial NP in (4) as a focus, since this implies that there are other entities besides airplanes that have the 747 designation.

(4) Pihayngki-ka 747-i ceyil khu-ta

airplane-NOM 747-NOM most big-DECL

‘As for airplanes, the 747 is biggest.’

‘It is airplanes that the 747 is big.’ (pragmatically odd)

Following Falk (2006), Yoon argued that all -ka-marked NPs are subjects and that there are two types of subjects, namely the Major Subject (henceforth MS) and the Grammatical Subject (henceforth GS). Consider (3) again, repeated here as (5).

(5) Jina-ka namtongsayng-I meli-ka coh-ta.

J-NOM younger brother-NOM brain-NOM good-DECL

‘Jina’s younger brother’s brain is good.’

Lit. Jina’s younger brother is smart.

Yoon (2009) argued that the structure building for (5) can be summed up as shown in Figure 8.2. Incrementality at Work 189

Figure 8.2. Right-to-left structure building a. Step 1:

In {NP1Nom {NP2 Nom {NP3Nom V}}}:

{NP3Nom V} forms a sentential predicate for NP2Nom

NP3Nom is a GS (Grammatical Subject) for V and NP2Nom is an MS (Major Subject) for the underlined sentence predicate. b. Step 2:

In {NP1Nom {NP2 Nom {NP3Nom V}}}

{NP2Nom {NP3Nom V}} forms a sentential predicate for NP1 Nom

NP1Nom is an MS (Major Subject) for the underlined sentential predicate and NP2Nom is a GS (Grammatical Subject) for the sentential predicate {NP3Nom V}. This way of structure building is a right-to-left approach, as it builds structures from right to left instead of left to right. According to Yoon, initial nominative NPs, often viewed as a topic or focus, form a type of subject called a Major Subject (MS). The left-most subject, or MS, is a ‘pivotal’ subject, which characterizes the following sentential predicate, whereas the one which forms a sentential predicate with the verb, that is the Grammatical Subject (GS), is a ‘subject-as-prominent argument’. In (5), what is good is not Jina, but (her brother’s) brain. Hence, brain should be the GS. At the same time, having a smart brother characterizes Jina as the main subject (MS). Yoon shows a number of examples whose acceptability becomes severely degraded when the semantic properties of each subject is not met. For instance, (6) is semantically/pragmatically odd because Seoul National University (the MS) cannot be characterized by whether Cheli lives close by or not.

(6) *?Seoul-tayhakkyo-ka (MS) [SPCheli-ka(GS) kunche-ey santa]

S-University –NOM C-NOM nearby-LOC lives

‘As for Seoul University, Cheli lives close by.’ 190 Pragmatic Syntax

Yoon judges (7) to be odd because the left-most NP khi (‘height’) plays the role of GS for the predicate khu- (‘tall’), rather than the right-most nominative NP Cheli. What is tall is not Cheli, but his height. I have reproduced Yoon’s (2009) example in (7).

(7) *?Khi-ka (MS) [SPCheli-ka(GS) ceyil khu-ta]

height-NOM C-NOM most tall-DECL

‘As for height, Cheli is tall.’

To my own judgement, however, sentences like (7) are fine, particularly when used with emphatic degree adverbs such as acwu (‘very’) or ceyil (‘most’). Consider the following. Both sentences in (8) are equally natural.

(8) a. Haksayng.swu-ka i hakkyo-ka ceil manh-ta.

student.number-NOM this school-NOM most a.lot-DECL

Lit. ‘In terms of student number, this school is number 1.’

b. i hakkyo-ka haksayng.swu-ka ceil manhta.

this school-NOM student.number-NOM most a.lot-DECL

Lit. ‘In terms of student number, this school is number 1.’

Kiaer and Kempson (2008) argue, following many others, that what is given tends to precede what is new in MSCs, although in these structures, this requires more systematic investigation. Yoon’s insight seems to be correct overall. Certainly, his approach broadens the orthodox approaches to MSCs, where hardly had any semantic considerations been brought into the picture previously. However, the semantic/ syntactic distinction between MS and GS is not straightforward. Consider (9).

(9) a. Kili-ka 3cm-ka ccalp-ta.

length-NOM 3cm-NOM short-DECL

‘In terms of length, 3 cm is short.’

b. Kwumeng-i twu-kay-ka nass-ta

hole-NOM two-Cl-NOM appeared-DECL

‘Two holes appeared.’

In (9), it is difficult to say that what is short is exactly 3 cm or that what appeared are just two holes. On the other hand, one cannot say that a length or a hole is characterized by some specific measurement. What (9a) says is that 3 cm length is short and in (9b), it is two holes that appeared. One may argue that examples like (9) are exceptional Incrementality at Work 191 cases. However, as we shall see from the corpus, the majority of MSCs do in fact face the same problem. Consider (10). Often,wh -expressions can occur in an MSC, as shown below. In (10a), apha- (‘to be sick’) will expect its subject argument to be [+animate] or even [+human]. Yet, the closest nominative NP eti-ka (‘where-NOM’) is in fact [-human]. The clarification for (10a) therefore will be ‘who’ is sick instead of ‘where’ is sick, but more precisely it is which part of who is sick. Likewise, in (10b), the subject of coh- (‘to be good’) is not the timing itself or the meeting alone but the timing of the meeting.

(10) a. Jina-ka eti-ka apha-yo?

J-NOM where-NOM sick-Q

Lit. ‘Which part of Jina is sick?’

b. Moim-i encey-ka coh-ul-kka?

meeting-NOM when-NOM good-Fut-Q

Lit. ‘When will be a good time for the meeting?’

What these examples indicate, I suggest, is that nominative NPs enable a subject to be built in an incremental way, even without a verb. In a default situation, the formation of a normal subject cluster formation is as shown in (11a). However, if there is a strong prosodic break between NPs or the semantics of two nominative NPs is clearly incompatible (e.g. two consecutive names such as Mina-kaNom Jina-kaNom), such incorporation is debarred and each nominative NP projects a different propositional structure, as shown in (11b). Note that this preliminary structure-building decision is made before the verb is parsed.

(11) a. One incrementally clustered subject [default option]

(((A-NOM B-NOM) …) V)

b. Two independent subjects (in two propositional structures)

(A-NOM (B-NOM … V) V)

The default structure building proposed in (11) may explain why the nominative NP sequences in (12) and (13) show such a clear distributional asymmetry. Although both sentences are grammatical and natural, (12) is frequently observed, while (13) is rarely observed. In the Sejong Corpus, only three examples were found where two nominative NPs were names, as in (13).

(12) Jina-ka namtongsayng-i meli-ka coh-ta.

J-NOM younger.brother-NOM brain-NOM good-DECL 192 Pragmatic Syntax

‘Jina’s younger brother’s brain is good.’

Lit. ‘Jina’s younger brother is smart.’

(13) Jina-kaa Mina-kab Hena-kac cip-ey wassta-koc malhayssta-kob malhayssea.

J-NOM M-NOM H-NOM home-at came-COM–said-COMP said

‘Jina said that Mina said that Henca came home.’

It seems that when there are more than two nominative subjects which unfold different propositional structures, the preferred structure is the one in which the distance between subject and verb is minimal, as in (14).

(14) Henaa-ka cip-ey wasstaa-ko Minab-ka malhaysstab-ko Jina-kac malhaysse.c

H-NOM home-at came-COM M-NOM said-COMP J-NOM said

‘Jina said that Mina said that Henca came home.’

Consider (15). The default option of structuring a sequence of three nominative NPs is also to build an incremental subject, as in the case of two nominative NPs. Hence, if three conflicting nominative NPs appear, as in (15a), it is difficult to understand, and such structures are rarely used.

(15) a. Jina-ka Mina-ka Semi-ka … [hard to understand and rarely observed]

J-NOM M-NOM S-NOM

b. Jina-ka namtongsayng-i meli-ka… [easy to understand and frequently observed]

J-NOM younger.brother-NOM brain-NOM

Before going on further, I will show the results of fragment-ordering tests in Korean which confirm this observation.

Fragment-ordering test: Korean Tests were set up to probe the correlation between adjacent case-marked NPs and construal. Fifty native speakers of Korean participated in the test. They were asked to order the listed fragments as naturally as possible. Ten items as in (16a) and in (16b) were given with 20 fillers. All the items and fillers were mixed.

(16) a. Only one NP is a proper noun: (80% multiple -ka chosen)

{Kyungho-ka (NOM)} {yocum (‘these days’)} {kuraysseyo (‘said’)} {isanghakey (‘strangely’)} {aphuta-ko (‘sick-COMP’)} {meli-ka (‘head-NOM’)} Incrementality at Work 193

b. Two NPs are proper nouns: (36% multiple -ka chosen): two NPs are conflicting to each other

{Yejini-ka (NOM)} {manhi (‘much’)} {malhaysseyo (‘said’)} {Senmi-ka (NOM)} {coffee-lul (ACC)} {masinta-ko (‘drink-COMP’)}

The result shows that in the case of (16a)-like examples where only one NP is a proper noun, around 80% of the time, native speakers preferred to list two -ka marked NPs consecutively. Yet, in case of examples like (16b), where two NPs are proper nouns, only 36% of the time, native speakers preferred to list two -ka marked NPs consecutively. (To prove statistical reliability, a t-test was run to see if there was any significant difference between the two conditions or not. And there was significant difference between the two conditions (t-value = 2.918, P < 0.004, df = 98). This result shows that the semantics of NP clearly affected the choice of word order. I suspect that the difference will be much more robust in a triple -ka compared to a double -ka construction. Yet, we can clearly see that even in a double -ka construction, the semantics of the NPs plays a significant role in yielding such word order.

8.2. Semantics of nominative NPs in an MSC Now, we will discuss the semantics of nominative NPs in the MSCs found in the Sejong Corpus (2009). MSC is found more frequently in the spoken corpus than in the written corpus. We found approximately 1,500 examples in the Sejong Spoken Corpus (0.8 million) and 670 examples in the Sejong Written Corpus (7 million). Those examples will form the focus of the discussion in this section.

‘Light’ NPs: Incrementality at work

Let us first think about the nominative NPs used in MSCs. The NPs in the MSCs found in the Sejong Corpus were ‘light’ NPs – prosodically, semantically and syntactically. That is, in speech, Korean native speakers avoid producing heavy-weight NPs all at once, and instead produce a light, place-holder like NP first and then update it as the structure unfolds. In terms of prosody, the two consecutive NPs were relatively short and similar sized with the same tones. It is noticeable that the first nominative NPs in an MSC are rarely longer than four syllables. As for the case of the MSCs found in Sejong Corpus, on average nominative NPs stacked in a row had three syllables. I could not find a single example where the NP has more than five syllables and no words that have more than four syllables were found among pure/native Korean words. On the other hand, in the nominative NP sequences which are not to be clustered together, a clear, strong prosodic break is observed. Particularly, this was the case when the second nominative NP is part of a modifying clause, as in (17). The naturalness of sentences like (17) is severely degraded when no prosodic boundary is observed after Jwumengi-ka (‘J-NOM’) as in (17b) in contrast to (17a).

(17) a. Jwumengi-ka % [ku-ka ca-koiss-ten pang-uro] tulekassta. J-NOM he-NOM sleep-PROG-ADN room-into entered 194 Pragmatic Syntax

b. ???[Jwumengi-ka ku-ka] % ca-koiss-ten pang-uro tulekassta.

J-NOM he-NOM sleep-PROG-ADN room-into entered

Intended reading ‘Jwumeng entered the room where he was sleeping.’

Semantically and syntactically, the nominative NPs used in an MSC are simple NPs and tend not to have any visible complex structure within the NP, indicated by the use of other case particles. Relatively simple compounds are used, provided they are short. Sino-Korean compounds longer than four syllables tend to be diced into a sequence of nominative NPs, as shown in (18b).

(18) a. yokum.halin ‘fee deduction’ (four-syllable Sino-Korean word)

b. yokum-i halin-i toyess-ta. (divided as two-syllable NP plus two-syllable NP)

fee-NOM deduction-NOM became- DECL

‘Fee was deducted.’

The use of place-holding nominative NPs such as kes- (‘thing’) was indeed very commonly observed in MSCs. To sum up, instead of producing a complex subject all at once, it seems that Korean speakers tend to produce a place-holding or light nominative NP first and then continue to update the semantic content of the previous nominative NP, using the copied tone. This seems to be more common in spontaneous spoken data than in written data. Apposition constructions as in (18b), and appositive relative constructions in English as in (19) and (20), seem to be similar to MSCs in Korean in many ways. In this connection, consider (19) and (20) with a sequence of appositive relatives (also called non-restrictive relatives), which are standardly said to have distinguishing intonation marking (Kempson 2003, Cann et al. 2005). We can see from Figure 8.3 how these have similar copied tones as discussed in Chapter 3.

Figure 8.3 Copied tones: English Incrementality at Work 195

(19) The sole, which I caught yesterday, which was caught in Scotland, was delicious.

(20) Ames, who was a successful spy, who I think worked for FBA, is now behind bars.

Semantic relations between nominative NPs

Nominative NPs in an MSC hold particular semantic relations. In the Sejong Corpus, the majority of MSCs were cases where the second nominative NP updated the semantic content of the first nominative NP. The semantic relations which the sequence of nominative NPs in the MSC hold are summed up in (21).

(21) The semantic relations between nominative NPs in MSCs (based on Sejong Corpus data)

a. Semantic update relation

i. Afterthought-type update (e.g. ticket-NOM dead.ticket-NOM)

ii. 4Anaphoric update (e.g. Jina-NOM self-NOM)

In the Sejong Corpus, nominative NP sequences with the reflexive pronoun caki (‘self’) in the second nominative NP occurred 90 times in the written corpus.

iii. Modifier-modified update (e.g. number-NOM problem-NOM)

iv. Possessor-possessed/part-whole relation (e.g. she-NOM belly-NOM)

v. Type/kind-individual, set-member or part-whole relation

(e.g. cold-NOM winter.cold-NOM, or fish-NOM squid-NOM)

vi. Second NP elaborating on the property of the first NP or vice-versa (e.g. depth-NOM 1016km-NOM)

31 examples were found where one of the nominative NPs was accompanied by a numeral expression in the written corpus.

b. Subject-verb relation (e.g. this book-NOM reading-NOM)

Of the relations in (21), the most commonly observed by far, particularly in spoken corpus, was the afterthought-type update, which is the most transparent update- inducing interpretation.

8.3. A DS analysis of the multiple subject construction English apposition In this section, I will show how a stacked nominative NP can be seen as incorporated into the composition of the whole meaning by constructing LINK relations successively. 196 Pragmatic Syntax

The observation and insight I am going to adopt is similar to the DS treatment of appositions in English. This idea is briefly introduced in Cann et al. (2005), chapters 7 and 8, as LINK appositions. The basic, simplified idea is this. In a sentence like (22), each information is going to be stacked one by one using the LINK apposition rule, which first involves the construction of the multiple linked nodes, and then their co-evaluation to create one composite term. The important point is that the LINK apposition (i.e. incorporation/ evaluation of the LINK relation) occurs incrementally at each step of parsing the artist, then in parsing a friend of Ian’s and again then in parsing lecturer at the Chelsea. Let’s first think of the way in which the subject is incrementally built in such sequence by modelling structure building by a sequence of NPs in (22).

(22) John, the artist, a friend of Ian’s, actually a lecturer at Chelsea came to the show today.

(23) Parsing John, the artist

In the above tree diagram, the LINK apposition rule puts a ‘formal’ requirement that the content of the metavariable U is to be identified within the context provided. In other words, the artist should be John.

(24) Substitution of the metavariable U

In this structure Uartist’(U) is John, retaining also the attribute of being an artist (formal details are suppressed here). After U is replaced byJohn ’, the structure building moves on. And similarly, the upcoming expression a friend of Ian’s will also induce a LINKed structure as below, which also has a metavariable U.

(25) Parsing John, the artist, a friend of Ian’s Incrementality at Work 197

Tn(a), ?Ty(t)

< 0>Tn(a), Fo(John Ty(e) ?Ty(e t)

-1 < 0>Tn(a), Fo(John artist (John )})

-1 -1 < 0>Tn(a), ?< *>Fo(John artist (John )}), Fo(U ),

Here again, the metavariable U will be replaced with what has been accumulated that is a term denoting John, the artist, but retaining the attribute of being a friend of Ian’s, hence yielding a term which names John, and records the accumulation of attributes as being an artist, and a friend of Ian’s. The sketch of update at this point can be shown below.

(26) Parsing John, the artist, a friend of Ian’s

This time U is replaced with the richer term John’_{artist’(John’)}, incorporating also the attribute of being a friend of Ian’s. This procedure of evaluation will occur recursively to the end point of building a complex term for John who has the attributes of being the artist, being a friend of Ian’s and lecturer at Chelsea.

Multiple subject construction in Korean This is the basis of understanding MSCs in Korean. The point here is that the information is accumulated not all at once at the end but bit by bit on the fly – incrementally. The above tree growth indeed reflects the very natural way we perceive strings of words. Finding the meaning of the current word depends on what precedes it and the understanding of the current word in that context also becomes the foundation of grasping the meaning of the upcoming word(s) or structure. What looks like somewhat fragmentary information contributes to the meaning of the whole in a systematic way. 198 Pragmatic Syntax

And this way of meaning formation can be encapsulated by making use within the system of the notion of left-to-right incrementality. In the previous sections, we have observed that unless two NPs are semantically incompatible or prosodically split by a strong IP boundary, they build an incrementally clustered subject. Incremental clustering is therefore the default structure-building option in an MSC. This insight and observation can be captured in DS by the multiple applications of the LINK apposition rule. In most of the MSC examples, the second term is in some sense an enrichment of the first. But, not all types of double nominative marking follow this pattern. There are cases like English appositions as in (27). In this section, we will model how incremental subject is formed using this example.

(27) Jina-ka (paro) nay best chinkwu-ka sesange kwu kepjayngi-ka kum.sang-ul tasseyo.

Jina-NOM my best friend-NOM the coward gold.award-ACC received

Lit. ‘Jina – my very best friend – the coward, received the gold medal.’

When the sequence Jina-ka nay chinkwu-ka is processed, at first,Jina-ka will project a structure as below – as the basic platform.

(28) Parsing Jina-ka

Then, the following sequencenay-chinkwu-ka will be incorporated to the meaning composition of the nominative NP via the LINK apposition rule. We assume that friend’ is a two-place relation, that is U is a friend of V, hence friend’(V)(U).

(29) Parsing Jina-ka, nay-chinkwu-ka

Here, the point to note is the projection of the metavariable U in the LINKed structure. As in the English apposition cases we have observed earlier, the LINK apposition rule puts a ‘formal’ requirement that the content of the metavariable U is to be identified within the context provided. In other words, it is not about some arbitrary friend of the speaker, but specifically about Jina. Here V will be identified as the speaker. Incrementality at Work 199

(30) Substitution of the metavariable U

After building a term for ‘Jina, my friend’, the structure building moves on to the next nominative NP kwu kepjayngi (‘coward-NOM’). And similarly, the upcoming expression kepjayngi (‘coward -NOM’) will also induce a LINKed structure as below, which also has a metavariable U.

(31) Parsing Jina-ka, nay-chinkwu-ka, kwu kepjayngi

Again, kepjayngi ‘coward -NOM’ in the LINKed structure will have a metavariable U which is then to be substituted with the accumulated information, that is Jina, the speaker’s friend. Hence, U will be replaced with Jina, the speaker’s friend and the resulting tree will be like below.

(32) Substitution of the metavariable U 200 Pragmatic Syntax

The steps of structure building discussed earlier show how native speakers of Korean build the interpretation of MSC in an incremental way. As said earlier, semantic update through case-doubling is observed not only in nominative NPs but also in accusative or locative/temporal NPs, as well as in topic-marked NPs. The intuition of building a sequence of LINKed structure that is to be introduced and evaluated in an incremental way could capture exactly the way how native speakers build the meanings of multiple- case marked NPs – regardless of the particular categories that the NPs are hosted. For instance, the semantic narrow-down or specification effect observed in (33) can be seen to operate via exactly the same mechanism observed in the tree growth example in (32).

(33) Jina-ka Jessi-lul chinkwu-lul pwulessta.

J-NOM Jessie-ACC friend-ACC called

Lit. ‘Jina called her friend Jessie.’

Here, Jessi who is Jina’s friend will be formulated in the same way as the meaning of Jina, the speaker’s friend. That is, by means of the multiple applications of the LINK apposition rule, we can provide a unified and systematic way of capturing the incremental growth of structures observed in those particular types of constructions. In principle, once one has such a sequence of inverse LINK transitions, one would expect there to be its formal counterpart, that is a sequence of LINK transitions. It is notable in this connection that these sequences of multiple identically case-marked NP sequences are subject to some very different forms of interpretation; and a point of departure for grappling with these would be to explore the possibility of modelling their rather different basis for interpretation by presuming that the parser can build a sequence of such LINK transitions, in which the first would then constitute the background for the projection of the second which would constitute the background for the third until the predicate to be attributed to the last in the sequence is reached. I do not go into the details here, preferring, at this stage, to leave this for further work, merely noting that the flexibility of such LINK or inverse-LINK transitions enables very considerable flexibility in the mode of projection of content for what is a homogeneous set of modes of interpretation from parallel morphological patterning. 9

The Syntax of Spoken Dialogue

As discussed in Chapter 1, although generative grammarians regard syntactic competence as mainly being expressed in spoken languages, almost every example used as evidence in their works comes from the authors themselves. This is because it has been implicitly assumed that there is no significant difference between ‘written’ and ‘spoken’ syntax. However, we have observed in the previous chapters how different the two actually are. Some core phenomena are observed mainly in spoken data. For instance, in Korean, post-verbal expressions are frequently observed in spoken corpora, but it is hard to find such examples in written corpora, and invariably Korean is classified as a verb-final language. I believe that the putative grammar formalism should, rather than ignoring or diminishing the significance of spontaneously produced spoken data as stylistic variations, aim instead to explain such data as used in ‘ecologically natural settings’ (Bresnan 2007: 297). In particular, I think that syntactic theory should target spoken dialogue, instead of isolated single sentences. What I argue in this book is that studying dialogue provides the key insight in natural language syntax. Recently, Cann and his colleagues have worked on how DS grammar can explain dialogue challenges in English (see Cann et al. 2007). We have observed in the preceding chapters that if we dismiss the traditional notion of a sentence as the basic unit and extend it further (to a set of sentences, for instance), we can explain some core phenomena, such as leftward dislocation for context-sensitive lexical items in the same line with incremental, left- to-right structure building at sentence level. In psycholinguistics, it is still being debated whether a speaker is truly altruistic and tries to be helpful to the listener or not (Haywood et al. 2005). From a structure- building perspective, it is questionable whether the interlocutors in dialogue share a strong computational/pragmatic motivation to build a structure together – or whether, indeed, this is the same pressure that one has in building one’s own utterance as in monologue. Yet, I assume in this book that the nature of structural realization is not radically different between monologue and dialogue. That is, I assume the same kind of computational or pragmatic pressure to build a shared proposition in dialogue as found in monologue. Consider (1), as formulated at the end of Chapter 3. We will extend our discussions from a monologue into a dialogue. In fact, obtaining efficiency seems to be more relevant in dialogue perspective than in monologue perspective. 202 Pragmatic Syntax

(1) The aim of any syntactic structure building is as follows: In human communication, native speakers aim to optimize their syntactic structure building (both production and comprehension) by achieving the meaningful/ expressive proposition ‘shared by interlocutors’ as quickly as possible with minimized structure-building effort, whenever possible.

Consider (2). The sequence of fragments produced by Ian could become ‘ungrammatical’ in English due to the absence of direct object argument. However, it is sanctioned because the missing direct object is provided by Jo’s utterance, and the set of utterances in (2) sounds natural.

(2) Ian: I gave you …

Jo: this charger?

It is not easy to fully grasp what the structural motivations and goals are in dialogue. However, I assume that the aim of any syntactic behaviour is to increase efficiency in ‘communication’, and so interlocutors prefer to make information flow incrementally step-by-step. This pragmatic pressure is the real driving force of dialogue and the goal of structure building. In other words, the goal of any linguistic structure building is not just to obtain a proposition, but to obtain the meaningful communicative information unit with intended, appropriate expressive meaning, in the most optimized way for communication. In other words, linguistic structure building should examine the way in which the grammar of a language encodes instructions to construct such meaningful propositions.

Parallel, incremental architecture: Interaction from left to right

Recent studies in theoretical syntax have provided evidence of the need to define syntactic operations as sensitive to phonological factors, in order to explain those neglected syntactic phenomena (e.g. Kitagawa and Fodor 2003) as discussed in Chapter 1. To address the challenges posed by spoken syntax and dialogue, I assume that the strict boundaries between syntactic and non-syntactic components (such as semantics/ pragmatics, information structure) should be removed in principle. Moreover, there is no mapping of syntactic structure onto phonology, in which all syntactic operations are carried out before all the phonological operations (e.g. Selkirk 1984). In this way, our approach is close to Culicover and Jackendoff’s (2005) parallel architecture, but with the added dynamics of incrementality. They propose that the syntactic, semantic and phonological components of the language faculty are all generative, and that there is no asymmetric dependence between any of these components. In syntax-driven serial parsing, it is assumed that parsers use syntactic information first and then use other non-syntactic information if it is considered necessary. Yet, as we discussed in the previous chapter, growing evidence from analysis of language processing shows The Syntax of Spoken Dialogue 203

Semantics Syntax Information Morpholophologygy Structure

PhoneticsPhonotics Phonology

Figure 9.1. Interaction between grammatical components during the process that other grammatical components must be accessible in the first place, just like other syntactic information (see Fodor 2002, Kim 2004). By definition, DS allows all information, including lexical, structural information and context, to be available at all stages, unlike other syntax-driven parsing approaches. Consider again Figure 4.9, repeated here as Figure 9.1. The shaded parts represent what belongs to the core grammar that is already fixed, and this is what most written syntax is concerned about. The white sections, however, represent those areas where grammaticalization is occurring, and this is the target area which spoken syntax is concerned about. Interestingly, using ‘all’ the possible information does not seem to be the optimum choice in either comprehension or production. Instead, it is most likely that native speakers only use the particular set of information necessary to yield a successful – in other words, non-ambiguous – sentence in communication. This is hard to explain if we neglect the efficiency-driven nature of the grammar.

Pragmatic pressures in dialogue: What are they and how strong are they?

As was mentioned earlier, although there is no formal pressure to achieve a shared proposition or any meaningful information unit, it seems that interlocutors in dialogue make their syntactic choice – in both comprehension and production – to fulfill this goal. In this section, I will demonstrate this by using examples found as fragments of dialogue (see Fernandez 2003 for more examples): sometimes, dialogue flows even when there is no obvious need. Compare (3)–(4) and (5)–(6):

(3) Continuation expected: combinatorial force may be strong

Ian: Can you give me [rising tone]?

Jo: this charger? 204 Pragmatic Syntax

(4) Continuation expected: combinatorial force may be strong

Ian: Who did you see [rising tone]?

Jo: Tanya.

(5) Continuation less expected: combinatorial force may be less strong

Ian: Sarah and I had a pillow fight [falling tone].

Jo: In the bedroom?

(6) Continuation less expected: combinatorial force may be less strong

Grace (baby): Give me that cookie [falling tone].

Maria (mum): Please.

In the case of (3) and (4), fragment answers are expected by the speaker (Ian) due to both the rising tone and the incompleteness of information. Yet, in the case of (5) and (6), fragment answers are not expected by the speaker. As mentioned in Chapter 3, the combinatory force for continuation in the case of falling tones is weak, when compared to that of rising tones. Moreover, the information is relatively complete in (5) and (6) compared to (3) and (4). However, in (5) and (6), although there is no such expectation from the first speaker, I argue that what makes the dialogue flow, or grow, is in fact the pragmatic pressure to build a meaningful, informative unit ‘together’. In (6), although unexpected to Grace, what both interlocutors did was to yield a proposition whose modality in the event structure is updated from a direct command into a polite request. Sometimes, such updating can occur within a monologue too. Fernandez (2003) has provided a taxonomy for dialogue fragments (i.e. non- sentential utterances). Consider examples for each type given in (7).

(7)

1. Plain acknowledgement

A: I know that they enjoy debating these issues.

B: Mhm.

[BNC: KRW 146–147] (Fernandez 2003:11)

2. Repeated acknowledgement

A: I’m at a little place called Ellenthorpe.

B: Ellenthorpe.

[BNC: HV0 383–384] (Fernandez 2003:12) The Syntax of Spoken Dialogue 205

3. Clarification ellipsis

A: […] You lift your crane out, so this part would come up.

B: The end?

A: The end would come up and keep your load level on the ground you see.

[BNC: H5H 27–29] (Fernandez 2003:14)

4. Direct sluice

A: I know someone who’s a good kisser.

B: Who?

[BNC: KP4 511–512] (Fernandez 2003:15)

5. Short answer

A: Who’s this book by?

B: Luhmann L U H M A double N.

[BNC: G4V 132–133] (Fernandez 2003:18)

6. Check question

A: So I’m allowed to record you. Okay?

B: Yes.

[BNC: KSR 5–7] (Fernandez 2003:17)

7. Plain affirmative answer

A: Did, did you know that Spinal Tap was a film before the band came out?

B: Yes.

[BNC: KP4 4153–4154] (Fernandez 2003:19)

8. Repeated affirmative answer

A: Did you shout very loud?

B: Very loud, yes.

[BNC: JJW 571–572] (Fernandez 2003:20) 206 Pragmatic Syntax

9. Propositional modifier

A: They wanted to come back even further didn’t they?

B: They did.

A: Recently.

[BNC: K69 22–24] (Fernandez 2003:20)

10. Plain rejection

A: You starving?

B: No way.

[BNC: 152–153] (Fernandez 2003:21)

11. Helpful rejection

A: So there’d be two clerks and two lads?

A: No, one clerk.

[BNC: HDK 1776–177] (Fernandez 2003:21)

12. Factual modifier

A: There’s your keys.

B: Oh great!

[BNC: KSR 137–138] (Fernandez 2003:23)

13. Bare modifier phrase

A: … they got men and women in the same dormitory!

B: With the same showers!

[BNC: KST 992–996] (Fernandez 2003:23)

14. Conjunct

A: Alistair erm he’s, he’s made himself coordinator.

B: And section engineer.

[BNC: H48 141–142] (Fernandez 2003:23) The Syntax of Spoken Dialogue 207

15. Filler

A: […] twenty two percent is er

B: Maxwell.

[BNC: G3U 292–293] (Fernandez 2003:24)

I have reclassified these examples based on the criteria of (i) optionality; (ii) expectedness from the speaker A; (iii) whether it updates a structural or eventual property. Of the dialogue fragments, those which are obligatory and expected carry a ‘stronger’ combinatorial force than those which are optional and unexpected ones (Table 9.1). We can claim essentially that in the three cases of filler, short answer and helpful rejection, computational or combinatory pressure, initiated by the speaker A – the first interlocutor – is the source of dialogue continuation, enabling the ‘shared’ structure building. Nevertheless, as for the other cases, I suggest that the listener’s – the second interlocutor – strong desire to ‘accommodate/align’ what is given seems to be the source of dialogue continuation. According to Fernandez’s BNC corpus, plain acknowledgement type (i.e. yeah, mhm, ok) fragments form the majority of non- sentential utterances. From the first speaker’s (A) perspective, he/she may or may

Table 9.1 Dialogue fragments

Fernandez’s taxonomy of Obligatory/optional Expected/not-so- Modifying structural/ dialogue fragments (by the expected/unexpected eventual property hearer) (from the speaker’s perspective)

Plain acknowledgement Optional Not-so-expected E Repeated acknowledgement Optional Not-so-expected E Clarification ellipsis Optional Not-so-expected E Direct sluice Optional Not-so-expected E Check question Optional Not-so-expected E Short answer Obligatory Expected S Plain affirmative answer Obligatory Expected E Repeated affirmative answer Obligatory Expected E Propositional modifier Optional Not-so-expected E Plain rejection Obligatory Expected E Helpful rejection Optional Not-so-expected E or S Factual modifier Optional Not-so-expected E Bare modifier phrase Optional Not-so-expected E Conjunct Optional Not-so-expected S Filler Obligatory Expected S 208 Pragmatic Syntax not expect such acknowledgement. Yet in dialogue it would seem that interlocutors produce these acknowledgements with the intention of building a ‘shared’ information unit. Let’s look at one example which shows the way in which the two interlocutors build their dialogue structure ‘together’. The example and the tree diagrams (see Figure 9.2) are from Cann et al. (2005: 295).

(8) Sarah: Who upset Mary?

Jessie: John did.

The place-holding WH term, here given explicitly as a place-holder, is replaced by John’; and the supporting verb do which DS models also as a place-holder DO to be replaced is substituted with Upset’(Mary’), taken as a copy of the predicate just constructed in the preceding question. The driving force or structural motivation that enables mutual update such as this is pragmatic by nature and yet it is as strong as being almost encoded in the grammar. Sometimes, the update within the dialogue can be captured by the use of LINKed structures as in (9), in which the value is fully determined:

(9) Sarah: John gave Grace her favourite teddy.

Jessie: (yeah), which she got from her grannie.

Yet, even in such a case, there is a further way in which the contributions may be more or less tightly incorporated. The degree of semantic correlatedness and the following decision whether to evaluate the LINKed information or not depends on the given context, for instance, if the information is incorporated by Evaluation, the teddy is identified as the one which she got from her grannie. If the information is not incorporated, the status of the information added by Jessie may well be new to the hearer as the teddy is presumed to be independently identified. Thus, as we have seen in Table 9.1, some of the dialogue fragments are tightly bound, whereas others are less tightly bound. And this is a gradient effect, achievable by a range of different methods. All in all, the driving force behind dialogue flow, indeed any structural growth, is not a purely computational pressure triggered primarily by a verb/predicate. Rather, it is pragmatic pressure to reach a ‘shared’ proposition or propositions between interlocutors that drive the particular decisions made, and the

CONTEXT:TREE UNDER CONSTRUCTION:

Ty(t), Fo(upset Mary WH)) ?Ty(t)

Fo(WH) Fo(upset Mary Ty(e t) Fo(John Ty(e) Fo(DO), Ty(e t), ? x.Fo(x), Fo(Mary Ty(e) Fo(upset Ty(e (e t))

Fo(upset Mary ) Figure 9.2. Updating trees for each other The Syntax of Spoken Dialogue 209 particular force of the information conveyed. Moreover, this cannot and should not be set aside as specific to a particular genre of language such as an informal conversation. As discussed in Chapter 1, even in monologue, computational/combinatory pressure driven by a verb is not as straightforward as might at first be assumed. Instead, it seems that structure-building motivations are jointly drawn from computational/lexical arrays and also from pragmatic considerations, taken together.

10

Conclusion

10.0 Summary In theoretical linguistics, since Chomsky’s revolutionary works (Chomsky 1957, 1965), syntax has been widely understood as the essence of innate human linguistic knowledge. In this book, I have shown that the innateness of human language can better be reflected by removing or at least radically reinterpreting the boundary between knowledge (competence) and use (performance)– and by making the empirical challenge of accounting for live data central to linguistic argument. In particular, taking a large corpus investigation as its preliminary, this book has been setting out the claim that structural variations are not accidental or arbitrary but are pragmatically motivated and driven. Rather, there is the need of a perspectival shift in linguistic theorizing from theories with primarily a static, written sentence–based perspective to a spoken dialogue-based dynamic perspective. This implies shifts from written syntax to spoken syntax, ideal syntax to empirical syntax and verb-centred, one- step syntax to incremental syntax. This book has demonstrated that a spoken dialogue- based perspective is also the key to understanding problematic syntactic puzzles, and hence to explaining the core of the structural properties of human language. Another crucial reason for a perspective shift was found in the need to explain preference asymmetry between (a) what is spoken and (b) what is speakable, yet hardly spoken. Synchronic, diachronic and typological variations, as well as large corpus distribution, do not show all the possible sequences but systematically and consistently show only a very limited set of structures. Since the (a) spoken and (b) speakable-yet- hardly-spoken forms are both grammatical, not much attention has been given to them in theoretical linguistics. However, this book has discussed not only the grammatical/ ungrammatical contrast but also the more graded preference asymmetries, which jointly provide a window on our innate capacity for flexible structure building. From this starting point, I have argued that the two most important motivations in structural realization are difficult to model within the boundaries set by morpho- syntactic accounts, since they are pragmatic in nature. First of all, choice of structures is economically motivated. That is, humans aim to establish a proposition in the most economic, cost-saving manner by minimizing the distance of any grammatical dependency and continuing a structure in the same, local structural template unless otherwise required. Second, structures are expressively motivated. If cost-minimizing were the only concern, we would soon be puzzled at the vast quantity of data that 212 Pragmatic Syntax is used rather uneconomically. This includes the supplements and expressives that Potts (2005) discussed, for which I have provided evidence that another important goal of structure building is to meet expressive goals, adding different dimensions of expressive meaning to the proposition. In fact, speaker commitment is one of the essential causes of structural realization: speaker-absent syntax is unthinkable. These two motivations of minimizing the cost and adding expressive flavor might be seen as in tension, but speakers balance them appropriately according to the spoken context. The discussion in this book has deliberately been based not only on data taken from English but also from verb-final languages such as Korean and Japanese. In generative linguistics, it has often been assumed that OV syntax could be the mirror image of VO syntax. This book has challenged this view and claimed that insights from OV languages, which comprise more than 50% of world languages, should be properly evaluated in their own right. For instance, while the role of the verb might be the sole repository of combinatorial properties in VO languages, in many cases, particles (along with prosody) play the equivalent role in OV languages. In particular, I have provided evidence showing that case particles and prosody in Korean contribute to both economically and expressively motivated structural realizations. Though the significance of the discussion applies across theoretical disciplines, this book has adopted Dynamic Syntax (DS: Cann et al. 2005) as a theoretical framework since DS assumes pragmatic motivation in structural realizations and models language structure in terms of a left-to-right process-oriented framework. Hence, it is suitable to explain the role of prosody and growth of a structure. From Chapter 6–8, I have provided a detailed analysis of particles and prosody in Korean. In particular, I have shown that nominal/verbal particles in Korean have both constructive and expressive functions in realizing syntactic structures. In Chapter 8, I have focused on doubling phenomena to show incremental clustering of such structures.

10.1 Further implications and tasks Interaction between economic and expressive motivations Underpinning these results has been the argument that linguistic structures are economically and expressively motivated – in not only verb-initial but also verb- final languages. Without considering these two aspects (though that has often been the case in generative linguistics), it is difficult to capture and explain ‘the spoken, the unspoken and the unspeakable’ puzzle that we addressed at the very beginning of this book. I have not discussed much how these two dimensions interact in yielding synchronic, diachronic and typological variations. I will leave this for my next project. But it is notable that this two-fold goal is redolent of the Sperber and Wilson principle of relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1986).

Contribution to translation studies Considering expressive motivation in syntactic architecture is a relatively new idea in the field. This is postulated based on the assumption that syntax and semantics are so closely Conclusion 213 interwoven and impossible to tear apart. Yet, I think bringing expressive motivation into the core remit of linguistic theory can indeed solve a number of long-lasting puzzles. Put simply, in our day-to-day language use, we do not speak like machines or robots. Irregular or apparently unpredictable patterns in our spontaneous language production have caused linguists to judge them as peripheral, non-essential data and somehow of no relevance to our understanding of humans’ innate knowledge of language. However, this line of thinking is misleading. When we look at these irregular data more closely, we can see a regularity in their patterns that has been caused by different expressive motivations. This perspective can be beneficial in understanding language in literature as well as in translation. For instance, I see many problems in English-Korean/Korean- English literature translation that have simply arisen from ignoring different expressive motives. Speaker-intention and speaker-hearer interaction are crucial in understanding Korean sentences and they are realized by different (verbal) particles and prosody. Yet they are extremely hard for non-native speakers of Korean to acquire, and easy to miss for a non-native translator. And if this happens, though the descriptive meaning may be the same between what is in the original text and also in the translated text, what the author intends could be totally misrepresented.

Language acquisition and beyond In this book, I have also argued that syntactic structure is built in a procedural way following the linear order of a string. In this line of thinking, it is illuminating, in closing, to turn back to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. According to Jean Piaget (1896–1980), even young children do not store facts, but they rather learn how to process them very early on. He noted that children do not merely repeat and copy but construct and invent concepts in the development of cognition. He also argued that as they interact with things around them every day, they build a model of the world in their minds to interpret things. Just as Chomsky correctly emphasized the innateness of children’s language acquisition, Piaget quite rightly shed light on the procedural and constructive aspects of children’s acquisition of their general cognition, an insight, arguably, not sufficiently recognized by theoretical linguists. The essence of incrementality and context-bound understanding that we discussed is closely linked to Piaget’s insight. I presume that this can also be used as another window to look at other cognitive developments in accordance with language development. Altogether, this provides a new perspective on the relationship between language and mind and their architecture.

Spoken–dialogue based syntax Throughout this book, I have emphasized the importance of spoken–dialogue based syntax. I feel, over the last 50 years, we have studied enough and drawn enough from what a single sentence can offer as a window for universal grammar. It is now high time to replace our target of characterizing single, isolated sentences with characterizations of interactional, spoken dialogue. I hope this book works as a catalyst for future research on this question. Notes

Preface

1 After Harbison (1991),The Built, the Unbuilt and the Unbuildable.

Chapter 1

1 Following Culicover and Jackendoff (2005:3), in principle, I assume the term ‘contemporary theoretical linguistics’ (CTL) to refer to the line of research most closely associated with the Chomskian paradigm, including Syntactic Structures (1957), the Standard Theory Aspects( of the Theory of Syntax, 1965), the Extended Standard Theory (Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar, 1972b), the Revised Extended Standard Theory Reflections( on Language, 1975c), Principles and Parameters Theory Lectures( on Government and Binding, 1981) and the Minimalist Program (1993; 1995). However, I also include non-transformational, non-derivational frameworks as a part of CTL as they share the major and basic Chomskian assumptions on human language. See Heine and Narrog (2010) for a full range of such theories and frameworks. 2 I am grateful to Professor Jiyoung Shin for allowing me to use her corpora. 3 A constituent is a word or a group of words that function as a single unit within a hierarchical structure (Carnie, 2002).

Chapter 2

1 I am grateful to James Wood and his pupils for volunteering to participate in the test/ participating in the test. 2 It would be very interesting to ‘record’ how they read the sentences and then investigate whether the way they read it influences the interpretation. The questionnaire study only aimed to find out a general, default pattern of understanding hence I did not do any recordings. I leave this for future study. 3 According to a proportion test, the selection of a collective-reading answer was statistically significant in the A-type questionnaire (where natural coordination is used) (p < 0.05), but not in B-type questionnaire (where accidental coordination is used). In the B-type questionnaire, only the selection of a mixed-reading answer was statistically significant p( < 0.05). Thanks to Jungsoo Kim for advice on statistics. 4 Thanks to Dr. Katherine Lunn-Rockliffe for the comments. 5 …of particular interest is a series designed to investigate the failure of the negative attraction rule (i.e. the tendency to attach the negative marker to the quantifier) in some English dialects, in sentences of the following type: 9 All the men didn’t Notes 215

arrive 10 Every man didn’t arrive 11 Each of the men didn’t arrive 12 Anybody didn’t arrive. Labov had hypothesized that there was ‘a regular gradient of negative attraction to quantifiers, strongest to ‘any’, weaker for ‘each’ and ‘every’, weakest for ‘all’ ’ (1975: 19). This is parallel to the gradient of acceptability which emerged from Harris’s result… (from Observing and Analyzing Natural Language: A Critical Account of Sociolinguistic Method. Milroy, L. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987, pp. 68–167)

Chapter 3

1 In this book, in contrast to ‘at-issue’ meanings, I will refer to meanings that are realized on-the-spot in the spoken context as ‘on-the-spot’ meanings. 2 Thanks to Louise Mycock for the example.

Chapter 4

1 Part of this chapter appears in an article in the book Directional Derivation, to be published by Elsevier, and has been funded by a Small Research Grant SG-49436 from the British Academy. 2 According to the Extended Projection Principle (EPP), every T(ensed) constituent must be extended into a TP projection which has a specifier. Chomsky (2000) proposed that the EPP causes movement uniformly throughout the grammar. 3 Aoshima et al. (2004:42) noted, ‘By unforced reanalysis, we mean a revision that is not licensed by any incompatibility of the initial analysis of the parse with subsequent material.’ 4 Note that the number given in Dryer (2008) is slightly different from Figure 4.1. Distribution of OV vs. VO Languages (WALS, Map 81). Map 81 has been modified/ updated after Dryer (2008).

Chapter 5

1 Part of this chapter is a summary of Dynamic Syntax closely modelled on Cann et al. (2005), Chapter 2. See Cann et al. (2005), Chapter 2, for a detailed discussion of DS formalism. 2 VP is not a formal notion in DS as it is in other string syntax–based frameworks. 3 It has more recently been assumed that verbs in all languages induce a propositional structure, but here I retain the simpler, and slightly richer, assumption of Kempson et al. (2001) and Cann et al. (2005). Nothing turns on it for this book, since we are not looking at temporal specifications.

Chapter 6

1 The eminent Korean linguist Sikyung Chu (1876–1914) recognized this to be the case much earlier, and collectively called both nominal and verbal particles ‘tho’ (討). 216 Notes

This tradition has been kept in North Korean grammar. Hence, in North Korean grammar, nominal/verbal particles as well as suffixes are all called tho. Thanks to Prof. Youngkeun Koh for his very helpful comments on the work of Sikyung Chu. 2 In fact, the syntactic role of the rising tone is very interesting as discussed in Chapter 3. Even the argument or constituent structure seems to be different when the rising tone is realized. I will leave this for further study, however.

Chapter 7

1 This does not mean whether a teacher is honorable or not from a descriptive level, but it implies the speaker’s intention not to explicitly express his/her deference to the subject in relation to the hearer.

Chapter 8

1 I am grateful to Ruth Kempson, Peter Sells, James Hyesuk Yoon and Shin-Sook Kim for their comments. 2 For simplicity of discussion, I will use the term MSC to refer to the kind of structure shown in (3) throughout this section. 3 When a noun ends with a vowel, -i is used instead of -ka. But, for the sake of simplicity, I will only mention -ka as a nominative marker in this section. 4 Not all MSCs can be observed in both simplex and complex clauses. Anaphoric- update-type nominative NP sequence shows an interesting asymmetry in (i) and (ii). Unlike (iia), (ia) is ungrammatical. (i) a. *Jina-ka caki-ka yepu-ta. J-NOM self-NOM pretty-Decl ‘Jina herself is pretty.’ b. Jina-ka caki-ka yepu-ta-kosayngkakhayssta. J-NOM self-NOM pretty-Decl-COMP thought ‘Jina thought that she is pretty.’ (ii) a. Jina-ka elkwul-i yepu-ta. J-NOM face-NOM pretty-Decl ‘Jina’s face is pretty.’ b. Jina-ka elkwul-iyepu-ta-ko sayngkakhayssta. J-NOM face-NOM pretty-Decl-COMP thought ‘Jina thought that her face is pretty.’ Bibliography

Ades, Anthony E. and Steedman, Mark. ‘On the Order of Words’. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4 (1982) : 517–558. Adger, David. Core Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Aoshima, Sachiko. The Grammar and Parsing of Japanese WH-dependences. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 2003b. ———, Phillips, Colin and Weinberg, Amy. ‘Theoretical Implications of the Parsing of Japanese Wh-Scrambling Constructions’. In Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by G. Garding and M. Tsujimura, 101–114. Medford, MA: Cascadilla Press, 2003. ———. ‘Processing of Japanese wh-Scrambling Constructions.’ Japanese/ Korean Linguistics 12. 179–191, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2003a. ———, Phillips, Colin and Weinberg, Amy. ‘Processing Filler-gap Dependencies in a Head-final Language’.Journal of Memory and Language 51 (2004): 23–54. ———, Phillips, C., and Yoshida, M. The source of the bias for longer filler-gap dependencies in Japanese. Paper presented at the 18th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Tuscon, University of Arizona, 2005. Austin, J. L. How To Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Baldridge, Jason. Lexically Specified Derivational Control in Combinatory Categorial Grammar. PhD diss. University of Edinburgh, 2002. Beckman, Mary and Pierrehumbert, Janet. ‘Intonational Structure in Japanese and English’. Phonology Yearbook 3 (1986): 15–70. Blackburn, P. and Meyer-Viol, W. ‘Linguistics, Logic and Finite Trees’. Bulletin of Interest Group of Pure and Applied Logics 2 (1994): 2–39. Bresnan, Joan. ‘A Few Lessons from Typology’. Linguistic Typology 11, no. 1 (2007): 297–306. ——— and Hay, Jennifer. ‘Gradient Grammar: An Effect of Animacy on the Syntax of give in New Zealand and American English’. Lingua 188, no. 2 (2008): 245–359. Cann, Ronnie, Kempson, Ruth and Marten, Lutz. The Dynamics of Language. Oxford: Academic Press Inc, 2005. ———, Kempson, R., and Purver, M. ‘Context and Well-formedness: The Dynamics of Ellipsis.’ Research on Language and Computation 5 (2007): 333–358. Carnie, Andrew. Syntax: A Generative Introduction. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. Choi, H.-B. Wurimalpon [Our grammar]. Seoul: Chongumsa, 1937/61. Choi, Kyuryen. Focus in Korean. Seoul: Hankwukmwunhwasa, 2005. Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1957. ———. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1965. ———. Cartesian Linguistics. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. ———. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975. 218 Bibliography

———. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris, 1981. ———. Knowledge of a Language. New York: Praeger, 1986. ———. Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988. ———. ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.’ InThe View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain. Bromberger, edited by K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993. ———. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. ———. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000. ———. ‘Derivation by Phase.’ In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by M. Kenstowicz, 1–54. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2001. Cinque, Guglielmo. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP, 1999. Corbett, Greville. ‘Number of Genders’. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S.Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, 2008. Culicover, Peter W. and Jackendoff, Ray.Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Dalrymple, Mary, Shieber, Stuart M. and Fernando, C. N. ‘Pereira, Ellipsis and Higher- Order Unification’.Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 4 (1991): 399–452. Davies, Mark. ‘BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus’. 2004.http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc . Dryer, Matthew S. ‘The Branching Direction Theory Revisited’. InUniversals of Language Today, edited by Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni, Antonietta Bisetto. Berlin: Springer, 2008. ———. ‘Order of Object and Verb’. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2011. Falk, Y. Subjects and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Fernández, Raquel. Non-Sentential Utterances in Dialogue: Classification, Resolution and Use. PhD thesis, King’s College London, 2006. Flint, Hugh L. ‘Empirical Investigations in Coordination in the Cases of English and Korean’. M.Sc. Thesis for General Linguistics and Comparative Philology, 2009. Fodor, Janet Dean. ‘Psycholinguistics Cannot Escape Prosody’. Paper presented in the Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference, Aix-en-Provence, France, 2002. ———. ‘Prosodic Disambiguation in Silent Reading’. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 32 (2002): 113–132. Gibson, Edward. ‘Linguistic Complexity: Locality of Syntactic Dependencies’. Cognition 68 (1998): 1–76. Göksel, Asll and Kerslake, Celia.Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge, 2005. Goldsmith, J. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Gregoromichelaki, Eleni. Conditionals in DS. PhD diss. King’s College London 2006. Greiffenstern, Sandra. The Influence of Computers, the Internet and Computer-mediated Communication on Everyday English. Berlin: Logos-Verl, 2010. Grewendorf, Günther. ‘Multiple Wh-fronting’. Linguistic Inquiry 32, no.1 (2001): 87–122. ——— and Sabel, Joachim. ‘Scrambling in German and Japanese: Adjunction Versus Multiple Specifiers’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17 (1999): 1–65. Grice, H. P. ‘Logic and Conversation.’ In Syntax and Semantics, edited by P. Cole and J. Morgan, vol. 3, 41–58. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Bibliography 219

Grice, H. P. ‘Logic and Conversation.’ In Syntax and Semantics, edited by P. Cole and J. Morgan, vol. 3, 41-58. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Reprinted in Studies in the Way of Words, edited by Paul Grice, 22–40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Haegeman, L. Think Syntactically. Wiley-Blackwell, 2005. ———. Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2005. Harada, S. I. ‘Honorifics’. InJapanese Generative Grammar (Syntax and Semantics) Volume 5, edited by Masayoshi Shibatani, 499–561. New York: Academic Press, 1976. Harbison, Robert. The Built, the Unbuilt, and the Unbuildable: In Pursuit of Architectural Meaning. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1991. Hausser, R. Surface Compositional Grammar. München: Wilhelm Fink, 1984. Hawkins, John. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ———. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. ——— .‘Processing typology and why psychologists need to know about it’. New Ideas in Psychology 25 (2007): 87–107. ———. ‘Language Universals and the Performance-grammar Correspondence Hypothesis’. In Language Universals, edited by C. Collins, M.H. Christiansen and S. Edelman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Haywood, S., Pickering, M. and Branigan, H. ‘Do Speakers Avoid Ambiguity in Dialogue?’ Psychological Science 16 (2005): 362–366. Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistics Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Herald, Clahsen. ‘Linguistic Perspectives on Morphological Processing’. In Advances in the Theory of the Lexicon, edited by Dieter Wunderlich, 355–388. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006. Hirose, Yuki. ‘Recycling Prosodic Boundaries’. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32, no.2 (2003): 167–195. Hoffman, B. Integrating‘ ‘Free’ Word Order Syntax and Information Structure’. Paper presented in the Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, 1995. Inoue, Atsu and Fodor, Janet Dean. ‘Information-based Parsing of Japanese’. In Japanese Sentence Processing, edited by R. Mazuka and N. Nagai, 9–64. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995. Jun, Sun-Ah. The Phonetics and Phonology of Korea Prosody. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1993. ———. ‘The Accentual Phrase in the Korean Prosodic Hierarchy’. Phonology 15, no.2 (1998): 189–226. ———. ‘K-ToBI (Korean ToBI) Labelling Conventions’. Speech Sciences 7 (2000): 143–169. ———. ‘Prosodic Phrasing and Attachment Preferences’. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32, no. 2 (2003): 219–249. ——— and Kim, Sun-Hee (2004). ‘Default Phrasing and Attachment Preference in Korean’. Paper presented in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Jeju, Korea, 2004. Kamide, Yuki and Mitchell, Don. ‘Incremental Pre-head Attachment in Japanese Parsing’. Language and Cognitive Processes 14 (1999): 631–662. Kang, B and Kim, H. Frequency in Korean Language Use. Hankukmwunhwasa: Seoul, 2009. Kang, S. and Speer, S. ‘Prosody and Clause Boundaries in Korean’. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference, Aix-en-Provence, France, 2002. 220 Bibliography

———. ‘Effects of Prosodic Phrasing on Syntactic Disambiguation’. Presentation to the GLOW Workshop on Boundaries in Intonational Phonology. Lund, Sweden, 2003. Kaplan, David. ‘Demonstratives’. In Themes from Kaplan, edited by Almog et al., 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Kaplan, Ronald and Zaenen, Annie. ‘Long-distance Dependencies, Constituent Structure, and Functional Uncertainty’. In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, edited by M. Baltin and A. Kroch, 17–42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Karamanis, Nikiforos. ‘A Categorial Grammar for Greek’. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. 2001. Kempson, Ruth. ‘Nonrestrictive Relatives and Growth of Logical Form’. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), edited by Gina Garding and Mimu Tsujimur, 301–314. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 2003. ———, Gregoromichelaki, E., and Howes, C. (eds.) The Dynamics of Lexical Interfaces. Stanford: CSLI, 2011. ———, Kiaer, Jieun and Cann, R. ‘Periphery Effects and the Dynamics of Tree Growth’. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic Semantics and Pragmatic Perspectives, edited by Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey and Claudia Maienborn, 141–172. New York: Routledge, 2008. ———, Viol, Wilfried and Gabbay, Dov M. Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. Oxford: Blackwell Pub, 2001. Kiaer, Jieun. Processing and Interfaces in Syntactic Theory: The Case of Korean. Ph.D dissertation, 257–271. London, 2007. ———. ‘On the Meaning and Distribution of TUL in Korean: Evidence from Corpora’. Language Research 46, no.2 (2011). ——— and Kempson, R. ‘Processing left peripheral NPI in Korean: At the syntax, semantics and phonology interface.’ In 16th Japanese/Korean Linguistics, edited by Y. Takubo, 372–391. Stanford: CSLI, 2008. Kibort, A. ‘Towards a Typology of Grammatical Features.’ In Features: Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics, edited by A. Kibort and G. C. Greville, 64–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. ——— and Corbett, Greville G. Features: Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Kim, Hee-Sun. The Use of Multiple Sources of Information in Korean Sentence Processing. PhD thesis, Stanford, 2004. Kim, Jong-Bok and Sells, Peter. ‘Korean Honorification: A Kind of Expressive Meaning’. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16, no. 4 (2007): 303–336. Kitagawa, Y. and Fodor, J. D. ‘Default Prosody Explains Neglected Syntactic Analysis in Japanese’. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics Volume 12, edited by William McClure, 267–279. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2003. Ko, S. ‘The Resolution of the Dative NP Ambiguity in Korean’.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26, no.2 (1997): 265–273. Koizumi, M. Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, 1995. ———. ‘String Vacuous Overt Verb Raising’. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9 (2000): 227–285. Ladd, Robert. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Lee, Chungmin. ‘Acquisition of the Subject and Topic Nominals and Markers in the Spontaneous Speech by Young Children in Korean’. In The Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics Volume 3, Korean, edited by Chungmin Lee, Greg B. Simpson and Youngjin Kim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Bibliography 221

——— and Park, Sunghyung. ‘The Structure and Function of the Mid Sentential yo– Construction: Especially Its Function of Major Constituent Break’. Linguistic Journal of Korea 16, no.2 (1991): 357–385. Lee, Sun-Hee. ‘Argument Composition and Linearization’. OSUWPL 56 (2001): 53–78. Lee, C., Simpson, G.B., and Kim, Y. (Eds.) Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics: Volume III, Korean. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Lee, Iksop and Robert Ramsey, S. The Korean Language. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001. Levin, Beth. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Marten, Lutz. At the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface. Verbal Underspecification and Concept Formation in Dynamic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Matthew P., Cann, R., and Kempson, R. ‘Grammars as Parsers: Meeting the Dialogue Challenge.’ Research on Language and Computation 4: 289–326. May, R. The Grammar of Quantification. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, 1977. ——— Logical Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985. Mazuka, Reiko and Itoh, K. ‘Can Japanese Speakers be Led Down the Garden Path?’ In Japanese Sentence Processing, edited by R. Mazuka and N. Nagai, 295–329. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995. McConville, Maryellen. Incremental Natural Language Understanding with Combinatory Categorial Grammar. MSc thesis. School of Cognitive Science, Division of Informatics, University of Edinburgh. McDonald, Maryellen, Perlmutter, Neal and Seidenberg, Mark. ‘The Lexical Nature of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution’. Psychological Review 101 (1994): 676–703. Miyagawa, S. ‘EPP, Scrambling, and Wh-in-situ.’ In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by M. Kenstowicz, 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001. ———. ‘A-movement Scrambling and Options Without Optionality’. In Word Order and Scrambling, edited by S. Karimi, 177–200. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. ———. ‘EPP and Semantically Vacuous Scrambling’. In The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity, edited by J. Sabel and M. Saito, 181–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005. Miyamoto, Edson. ‘Case Markers as Clause Boundary Inducers in Japanese’. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31 (2002): 307–347. Nam, Seung Ho. Formal Semantics and the Description of Korean. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, 1999. ———. The Event and Argument Structure of Korean Predicates. Seoul: National University Press, 2007. Nordlinger, Rachel. Constructive Case. Stanford: CSLI, 1998. ——— and Sadler, Lousia. ‘Apposition as Coordination: Evidence from Australian Languages’. In Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference. Germany: Universit¨at Konstanz, 2006. ——— and Sadler, Lousia. ‘Verbless Clauses: Revealing the Structure Within’. In Architectures, Rules and Preferences: A Festschrift for Joan Bresnan, edited by Annie Zaenen, Jane Simpson, Tracy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling and Chris Manning, 139–160. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2007. Park, Mee-Jeong. The Meaning of Korean Prosodic Boundary Tones. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA, 2003. Payne, Doris. Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1992. Phillips, Colin. Order and Structure. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996. 222 Bibliography

———. ‘Linear Order and Constituency’. Linguistic Inquiry 34, no. 1 (2003): 37–90. ——— and Shevaun, Lewis. ‘Derivational Order in Syntax: Evidence and Architectural Consequences’. Studies in Linguistics 6 (2013): 11–47. Pickering, Haywood and Branigan, H.P. ‘Do Speakers Avoid Ambiguity in Dialogue?’ Psychological Science 16 (2005): 362–366. Pierrehumbert, J. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1980. Poggi, Isabella. ‘The Language of Interjections’. InLecture Notes in Computer Science 5398 (2009): 178–179. Potts, Christopher. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. ———. ‘Clausal Implicatures via General Pragmatic Pressures’. In Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, edited by Takashi Washio et al., 205–218. Berlin: Springer, 2006. ———. ‘The Expressive Dimension’. Theoretical Linguistics 33, no.2 (2007): 165–197. ——— and Kawahara, Shigeto. ‘Japanese Honorifics as Emotive Definite Descriptions’. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, edited by Kazuha Watanabe and Robert B. Young, 235–254. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, 2004. Pritchett, Bradley. Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992. Purver, Matthew et al. ‘Detecting and Summarizing Action Items in Multi-party Dialogue’. In Proceedings of the 8th SIGdia Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Antwerp, Belgium, 2007. Quirk, Randolph and Svartvik, Jan. Investigating Linguistic Acceptability. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Rizzi, L. ‘The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery’. InElements of Grammar, edited by L. Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997. Ross, John R. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1967. Sag, Ivan A. ‘Remarks on Locality’. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, edited by Stefan Mueller, 394–414. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2007. Saito, M. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. MIT, 1985. ———. ‘Scrambling as Semantically Vacuous A-movement’. In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, edited by M. Baltin and A. Krock, 192–200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Schafer, Amy Jean. Prosodic Parsing: The Role of Prosody in Sentence Comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 1997. Schütze, Carlson. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. ——— ‘On Korean ‘Case Stacking’: The Varied Functions of the Particleska and lul.’ The Linguistic Review 18 (2001): 193–232. Selkirk, Elisabeth. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984. Seraku, T. ‘Two Types of Nominalization in Japanese as an Outcome of Semantic Tree Growth.’ In Proceedings of the 26th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information, Bibliography 223

and Computation, edited by R. Manurung and F. Bond, 153–162. Jakarta: Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Indonesia, 2012. Shafer, A. J. Prosodic Parsing: The Role of Prosody in Sentence Comprehension. Ph.D. thesis, Amherst:University of Massachusetts, 1997. Shin, Jiyoung, Kiaer, Jieunand Chaa, Jaeun. The Sounds of Korean, Cambridge University Press, 2012. Smith, Neil. Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Sohn, Sung-ock. ‘On the Development of Sentence-final Particles in Korean’. InJapanese/ Korean Linguistics, edited by N. Akatsuka, S. Iwasaki and S. Strauss. Vol. 5. 219–234. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1995. Song, Seok Choong. ‘The Scope of Korean Negation’.Ewurum 173, Hankeulhakhoy (1971): 327–351. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. ———. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. ———. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. Steedman, M. Surface Structure and Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. ———. The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2000. Stowe, L. ‘Evidence for On-line Gap-location’. Language and Cognitive Processes 1 (1986): 227–245. Takano, Yugi. ‘Surprising Constituents’. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11 (2002): 243–301. Teng, S-H. ‘Double Nominatives in Chinese’. Language 50 (1974): 455–473. Tsujimura, Natsuko. An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2007. Vermeulen, R. ‘Possessive and Adjunct Multiple Nominative Constructions in Japanese’. Lingua 115 (2005): 1329–1363. Wälchli, Bernhard.Co-compounds and Natural Coordination. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Wasow, Thomas.Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2002. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. 3rd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2001. Yamanaka, Akiko. Utterance Interpretation, Group-defining Practices and Linguistic Meaning: Japanese a Case Study. Ph.D. thesis, King’s College London, 2008. Yoon, James Hye Suk. ‘Some Queries Concerning the Syntax of Multiple Subject Constructions in Korean’. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 16 (1986): 215–236. ———. ‘On the Multiple ka and lul Constructions in Korean’. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3 (1989): 383–394. ———. ‘Non-nominative (Major) Subjects and Case Stacking in Korean.’ In Non- nominative Subjects, edited by P. Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbarao.Vol. 2, 265–314, Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ———. ‘The Distribution of Subject Properties in Multiple Subject Constructions’. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16, edited by Y. Takubo, T. Kinuhata, S. Grzelak, and K. Nagai, 64–83. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 2009. ———. ‘The Distribution of Subject Properties in Multiple Subject Constructions’. In Japanese-Korean Linguistics 16, edited by Y. Takubo. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2007. Index

acceptability 7, 189, 215, 222 constituency 14–15, 18–19, 105, 121, 124, at-issue meaning 20, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 58, 219 66, 76, 164, 181, 204, 215 context sensitivity 76, 88 Austin, J. L. 7 Conventional Implicature 47–9, 54, 119, 130, 181 Baldridge, Jason 21, 111, 112, 122, 217 co-ordination 36 Bresnan, Joan 8, 103, 122, 201 copied tone 59, 194 British National Corpus 6, 12, 15, 16, 25, Corbett, Greville 114 27, 29, 33, 36, 37, 39–40, 45, 51, Corpus of Contemporary American 53, 55–6, 58, 60–1, 80, 134–5, 141, English 12, 38 204–7, 218 Culicover and Jackendoff202 , 214

Cann, Ronnie 2, 5–6, 8, 12–13, 15–16, 18, Dalrymple, Mary 66 20–1, 39, 46, 49, 51, 61, 64–7, 79, Davies, Mark 12 86, 88, 90, 94, 99–100, 109, 114, Dryer, Matthew S. 16, 46, 71, 92–3, 116, 119, 120, 122, 125–5, 133, 140, 117, 215 144, 147, 154, 159, 161, 167, 179, Dynamic Syntax 6, 21, 29, 69, 116, 118–9, 183, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 194, 122, 125, 139, 144, 146–7, 153, 162, 196, 201, 208, 209, 212, 215 212, 215 Carnie, Andrew 5, 14, 27, 102, 214 case particles 6, 20, 26–7, 36–8, 47–8, 51, early association 76, 84, 86, 88, 108, 115 59, 62, 66, 74, 78, 86, 114, 119, 123, embedded clause 27–9, 81, 84–9, 91, 98–9, 130, 141–2, 144, 149–51, 154–6, 107–9, 112, 123, 134, 180, 181 158–9, 161, 164, 166–7, 169–71, empty categories 76, 92–3, 99 173–6, 179, 184–7, 194, 212, 215 expressive dimension 58, 119–20, 149–50, Choi, Kyuryen 156 154–5, 159, 173, 179 Chomskian grammar 92, 102 expressives 45–53, 60, 66–9, 131, 157–8, Chomsky, Noam 1, 3–5, 13, 72, 93, 102, 160, 182, 212 105, 113, 211, 213, 215 Cinque, Guglielmo 67–8 Falk, Y. 188 Clahsen, Herald 4 felicity 7 cluster formation 86–7, 107–8, 191 Fernández, Raquel 203–7 combinatory force 65, 141, 204 Filled-Gap Effect 6 comma intonation 54–58, 60–1 Flint, Hugh L. 33 commitment meaning 48–51, 53, 58, 64, Fodor, Janet Dean 13, 74, 76, 97, 202–3 174, 178 frequency asymmetry 2, 5–6, 24 competence 1, 3, 6, 10, 13, 19, 21–2, 24, 73, 80, 86, 101, 103, 113, 115–6, generative grammar 6, 21, 85, 90, 92, 107, 118, 120–2, 201, 211 110, 116, 124, 214 linguistic 1, 3, 6, 10, 13, 21, 24, 73, 113, generative syntax 13, 38, 92, 105, 110 115, 118, 120, 121 Gibson, Edward 103 procedural 10, 21–2, 73, 115–6, 118 Göksel and Kerslake64 Index 225

Google 8, 12, 31, 34, 172, 176–7 Lee and Ramsey 165, 168 Google Books 12, 31, 34 left-right asymmetry79 –80 grammatical dependency 23–5, 27, 42, lengthening effect 97, 140 101, 136, 211 Levin, Beth 15, 17, 36 Grammatical Subject 9, 188–9 locality 10, 20, 24, 78, 102–4, 108, 121, grammaticality 3–5, 7–9, 13, 27, 78, 90–1, 132–3, 136 102, 105–6, 177 long-distance dependency 56, 88–90, 111, Gregoromichelaki, Eleni 131 115, 140, 142 Greiffenstern, Sandra 93 Grewendorf, Gunther 72, 109 Major Subject 9, 188–9 Grice, Paul 48 Marten, Lutz 16 matrix clause 27–9, 75, 81, 84–8, Haegemann, Liliane 56 91, 96–9, 109, 112, 123, 134, Harada, S. I. 180 145–6, 180–1 Harbison, Robert 214 Mazuka and Itoh 74 Hawkins, John 6, 8–9, 24–5, 29, 45, 103–4, McConville, Maryellen 111 116, 136–7, 139–40 Miyagawa, Shigeru 72 Heavy NP Shift 6, 60 Miyamoto, Edson 10, 88, 115 Heine and Narrog 214 multiple nominative 9, 26, 59, 186–8 Hoffman, B.111 multiple nominative construction 187 multiple subject construction 10, 187–8, Incremental clustering 67, 198, 212 195, 197 incrementality 18–20, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, Nam, Seung Ho 16–17, 40 101–3, 105, 107, 109–11, 113, 115, Nordlinger and Sadler 20 117, 120, 123–4, 181, 185, 187, 189, Nordlinger, Rachel 20, 141 191, 193, 195, 197–9, 202, 213 Inoue and Fodor 74, 76 Park, Mee-Jeong 78–9 interface phenomena 14 performance 8–10, 13, 21, 102–4, 116, Intonational phonology 151–2 121, 211 IP boundary tone 97, 153, 168–9 Phillips, Colin 4, 18–20, 120–1, 123–4 Pierrehumbert and Beckman 151 Jun, Sun-Ah 13–4, 31, 97, 151–2, 169, 170 Pierrehumbert, J. 151–2 Poggi, Isabella 51 Kamide and Mitchell 74–5, 96, 110 Potts and Kawahara 62, 149 Kang and Speer 14, 99 Potts, Christopher 45–55, 61–2, 66, 119, Kaplan and Zaenen 47, 131 130, 149, 174, 179–81, 212 Kaplan, David 47, 49, 131 preference asymmetry 118, 131, 134, 137, Karamanis, Nikiforos 112–3 211 Kempson, Ruth 59, 116, 119–20, 122, 125, Pritchett, Bradley 73 133, 190, 194, 215–6, procedural competence 10, 21–2, 73, Kiaer, Jieun 31, 62, 64, 141, 143–4, 153, 115–6, 118 159, 190 Purver, Matthew et al. 121 Kibort, Anna 113 Kim and Sells 62, 149, 174 Quirk and Svartvik 7 Kim, Hee-Sun 203 Kitagawa and Fodor 202 Ramchand and Reise 13 Ko, S. 96, 110 Rizzi, L. 67 Koizumi, Masatoshi 88, 105 Ross, John R. 6, 72, 80 226 Index

Sabel and Grewendorf 72 syntactic architecture 1,3, 13, 21–2, 24, Sag, Ivan A. 103 72–3, 115–6, 212 Saito, Mamoru 72 syntactic structure building 6, 13, 18, 24, Schütze, Carlson 5, 9, 188 69, 96–7, 99, 104, 115–6, 119, 122, scrambling 72, 88, 90, 112, 122 202 Sejong Corpus 10–12, 16, 26, 32, 35–6, 38, 41, 63, 78, 96, 100, 130, 134–5, 141, Takano, Yugi 107 149, 169–70, 175, 191, 193, 195 Teng, S-H 187 Selkirk, Elisabeth 202 Tsujimura, Natsuko 93–5 Seraku, Tohru 90, 95 Smith, Neil 30 underspecification 21, 120, 123–4, 147 Sohn, Sung-ock 166 un-forced revision 88, 97, 108–11, 124, 215 Song, Seok Choong 40 ungrammaticality 7, 27, 102, 177 Sperber and Wilson 123, 126, 212 static 1–3, 10, 21–2, 67, 86, 101, 104–5, Vermeulen, R 187 107–8, 115–6, 118, 120, 139, 211 Steedman, M 21, 111, 123 Wälchli, Bernhard33 Stowe, L 5, 6, 20, 24 Wasow, Thomas5 –6, 24 Structural commitment 97 Subject-to-Object Raising 9–10 Yamanaka, Akiko 182 supplements 45–7, 61, 69, 140, 212 Yoon, James Hye Suk 9, 186, 188–90, 216