한국언어정보학회 2018학년도 2학기 11월 월례 발표회 일정표
(발표 순서는 발표자 선생님들의 사정에 따라 변경될 수 있습니다.)
| 11:40 | |||||
[11월 첫번째] Scope ambiguities in Gapping and Semantic Asymmetry in Coordination
Much work on Gapping has been concerned with unexpected scopal interactions among various scope-taking elements (Siegel 1984). For example, in John can’t live in L.A. and Mary in New York, the negated modal can be part of each conjunct’s interpretation (‘distributive-scope reading’), or it can be interpreted outside the entire coordination (‘wide-scope reading’). The latter, wide-scope reading has posed a particularly notorious problem to theories of syntax/semantics, as the linear position of scopal elements does not match the position where they are interpreted.
Previous analyses propose to account for distributive- and wide-scope readings by assuming a syntactic ambiguity in the constituents being conjoined (Kubota & Levine 2016; Potter et al. 2017). In this talk, I show that positing this syntactic ambiguity is unnecessary, if we assume that the various readings of Gapping sentences result from different ways of resolving a single, underspecified meaning (Copestake et al. 2005; Reyle 1993; Richter&Sailer 2004). Based on novel empirical observation, I propose a model of coordination in which the semantics is underspecified in that what is being conjoined can be a sub-expression of the initial conjunct (cf. Chaves (2007), Copestake et al. (2005)). The two readings of Gapping sentences will followfrom this asymmetry in the semantics between initial and non-initial conjuncts. Finally, the unavailability of a wide-scope reading in ungapped coordination (e.g. John can’t live in L.A. and Mary can’t live in New York) will be shown to follow from an independent generalization on the semantics of tense and scopal operators (Champollion 2015; Condoravdi 2002).
[11월 두번째] Korean negative stripping construction: A non-ellipsis, anaphoric analysis
Jungsoo Kim (Kyung Hee University)
Korean employs the so-called ‘negative stripping’, as in John-i ecey khephi-lul masi-ess-e. hongchanun ani-ya/John-i ecey kamca-lul kwu-ess-e. thwikici-nun anh-ass-e. In general, negative stripping in Korean has been rather neglected in previous studies, as their main focus has been on the positive stripping construction involving the additive focus marker -to ‘too’ (Kim 1997, 2006; Park 1997).
In this study, I examine the negative stripping construction in Korean. In doing so, I first discuss what is and what is not negative stripping in Korean and thus make it clear what I deal with in this study. I then show that there are two types of negative stripping in Korean: one with a negative copula and the other with a negative dummy ha- ‘do’ verb, as given in the examples above, and explore their grammatical properties. I then review previous derivational approaches to Korean stripping and point out that each of them faces some non-trivial theoretical and empirical problems.
In order to account for intriguing grammatical properties of the Korean negative stripping construction, I instead argue that rather than involving ellipsis by relating it to its putative source, it is some kind of subject-predicate construction with a possibly phonologically null pronominal subject, regardless of whether it contains a negative copula or a negative dummy ha- ‘do’ verb. However, I further claim that when it involves a negative copula, it has a specificational function, licensing the specificational relation between the possibly phonologically silent pronominal subject and the remnant; on the other hand, when the construction involves a negative ha- ‘do’ verb, the remnant simply denotes a property of the phonologically null pronominal subject. I also demonstrate that in both the cases the possibly silent pronominal subject is anaphoric to an element that has to do with the salient utterance in the surrounding context. After all, I show that the present non-derivational, non-ellipsis, anaphoric analysis enables us to capture their common grammatical properties and to explain their different behavior in some respects, making the most of discourse/context information.
[11월 세번째] Factivity and CP ellipsis in Korean
Dongwoo Park (Korea National Open University) & Semoon Hoe (Seoul National University)
It is widely accepted that English does not have CP ellipsis. In Korean, however, it is not uncontroversial if CP ellipsis exists or not. Embedded CPs can be omitted when the matrix predicate is mit- ‘believe’, while it cannot be when the embedded CP is selected by sayngkak ‘think’. Ahn and Cho (2009, 2010) argue CP ellipsis is absent in Korean. In case of sentences where embedded CP is not pronounced, it is not due to CP ellipsis, but to null pronouns (see also Sohn 2012). However, Park (2009) claims that Korean has CP ellipsis, which occurs at PF.
In this presentation, we first point out that the null pronoun approach to CP ellipsis faces non-trivial problems with regard to factivity. Subsequently, we argue that CP ellipsis does exist in Korean, and CP is elided in narrow syntax, not in PF. Additionally, it is proposed that the aforementioned asymmetry between mit- and sayngkak results from the different verbal domain structures of the two predicates from the perspective of Chomsky’s (2015) labeling algorithm.
[11월 네번째] 한국어 의존명사와 시간 표현
박재희 (충남대학교)
‘중, 시, 지, 무렵, 때, 즈음, 녘, 적, 동안’ 등은 용언의 관형형 또는 서술성 명사와 함께 쓰여 시간을 표현하는 의존명사로 분류되어 왔다. 이들 의존명사가 시간 표현관련이 있다고 할 때, 이들이 어떤 역할을 수행하는지 궁금하지 않을 수 없다. 즉, 이들 의존명사가 시간을 표현하는 문법형태소의 역할을 수행하는가? 그리고 이들 의존명사가 시간과 관련된 문법범주(grammatical category)인 시제(tense) 또는 상(aspect) 등과 어떤 관련이 있는가? 등의 질문이 그것이다.
이 같은 의문을 갖게 되는 것은 범언어적으로 시간 표현과 관련된 문법범주(grammatical category)인 시제나 상이 주로 용언에 표지되며 명사에 표지되지 않기 때문이다. 국어에서도 시제나 상과 같은 시간 관련 문법범주는 용언에 표지되는 것으로 알려져 왔다. 즉, 아래 (1가)와 같이 용언 어간 ‘먹-’ 뒤에 시제 선어말어미 ‘-는-’이 결합되어 시제를 표지하거나, (1나)와 같이 본용언 ‘먹-’ 뒤에 보조 용언 ‘-고 있-’이 결합되어 상을 드러내는 것이 일반적이다. 그런데 위에 언급된 의존명사들은 관형어의 수식을 받는다는 명사의 속성을 지니면서 (1다)에서처럼 시간을 표현하고 있다.
(1) 가. 그 학생이 피자를 먹는다.
나. 그 학생이 피자를 먹고 있다.
다. 그 학생이 피자를 먹는 중이다.
(1)의 문장들은 모두 현재와 관련된 시간을 표현하고 있으며 문장의 의미도 매우 유사하다. 현행 학교 문법에 따르면, (1가)에서 ‘-는-’은 현재 시제를 나타내는 선어말어미로, (1나)의 ‘-고 있-’은 동작상 중에서 진행의 의미를 나타내는 보조용언 구성으로, 그리고 (1다)의 ‘-는 중’은 현재 시제를 나타내는 관형사형 어미 ‘-는’에 의존명사 ‘중’이 결합하여 현재 진행의 의미를 나타내고 있다. (1가)와 (1나)를 통해 시간 표현과 관련된 시제와 상을 표현하는 것이 가능한데, 왜 굳이 현재 진행의 의미를 표현하기 위해 (1다)와 같은 구문이 필요한 것인가? 본 발표에서는 용언의 관형형과 의존명사 ‘중, 시, 때, 지, 무렵, 즈음, 녘, 즈음, 적, 동안’ 등이 결합하여 시간 표현 구문으로 쓰일 때, 이들 구문의 문법적 특징에 대해 논해 보고자 한다.
