Nun nun as a Contrastive Marker Nov. 28, 2014 Youngchul Jun Seoul National University.

nun nun as a Contrastive Marker

Nov. 28, 2014

Youngchul Jun

Seoul National University

1. Contrast from nun1.1. Partiality induced by contrastive nun

• nun can function as a contrast marker as well as a topic marker.

(1) Q: ai-tul mwe ha-ni? child-PL what do-INT ‘What are the children doing?’ A1: ai-tul-un kongwen-eyse nol-a. child-PL-TOP park-in play-DECL ‘They are playing in the park.’ → a complete answer A2: Minho-nun chwukkwu-lul ha-y. (kuliko Tongho-nun nongkwu-lul ha-y.) -CON soccer-ACC do-DECL and -CON basketball-ACC ‘Minho is playing soccer. (And Tongho is playing basketball.)’ → a partial answer

2

1.1. Partiality induced by contrastive nun

• The nun-marked NP of (1A1), ai-tul ‘the children’, is a typical topic since it is a continuing topic inherited from (1Q).

In contrast, the nun-marked NPs of (1A2), Minho-nun and Tongho-nun, are not typical topics because they do not represent the proper topic which is expected with respect to information flow (i.e. ai-tul ‘the children’), and instead the two children are contrasted with each other.

• For this reason, it has usually been said that the nun in (1A1) is a topic marker whereas that in (1A2) is a contrast marker.

3

1.1. Partiality induced by contrastive nun

• another example of contrastive nun

(2) Q: nwu-ka wass-ni? who-NOM came-INT ‘Who came?’ A1: Minho-ka wass-e. (#kulentey Tongho-ka an wass-e.) -NOM came-DECL but -NOM not came-DECL ‘Minho came. (But Tongho didn’t come.)’ → a complete answer A2: Minho-nun wass-e. (kulentey Tongho-nun an wass-e.) -CON came-DECL but -CON not came-DECL ‘Minho came. (But Tongho didn’t come.)’ → a partial answer

4

1.2. Strategy introduced by partiality

• The concept of ‘strategy’ is useful in understanding ‘partiality’. Strategy means any sub-tree of a d(iscourse)-tree which is rooted in an interrogative move (Roberts 1996, Büring 2003).

(3) a. ai-tul mwe ha-ni? b. ai-tul mwe ha-ni? child-PL what do-INT child-PL what do-INT

ai-tul-un kongwen-eyse nol-a. Minho mwe ha-ni? Tongho mwe ha-ni? child-PL-TOP park-in play what do-INT what do-INT

Minho-nun chwukkwu-lul ha-y. -CON soccer-ACC do-DECL

• No strategy occurs with a complete answer as in (3a), but a partial answer introduces strategy as in (3b).

5

1.2. Strategy introduced by partiality

• another example of strategy

(4) a. nwu-ka wass-ni? b. nwu-ka wass-ni? who-NOM came-INT who-NOM came-INT

Minho-ka wass-e. Minho wass-ni? Tongho wass-ni?

-NOM came-DECL came-INT came-INT

Minho-nun wass-e. -CON came-DECL

6

1.3. Two sources for strategy: conjunction and inclusive disjunction • In strategy, sub-questions are joined to form a super-question as in (3b) and (4b).

The ways of joining in (3b) and (4b) are different from each other.

7

1.3. Two sources for strategy: conjunction and inclusive disjunction Conjunction of sub-questions

• The semantics of questions is derived from the semantics of their congruent answers (Krifka 2001).The sharing of a congruent answer by some questions may lead to the semantic equivalence of those questions.

(5) a. Q: ai-tul mwe ha-ni? child-PL what do-INT A: Minho-nun chwukkwu-lul ha-ko Tongho-nun nongkwu-lul ha-y. -CON soccer-ACC do-and -CON basketball-ACC do b. Q: Minho-nun mwe ha-ko Tongho-nun mwe ha-ni? -CON what do-and -CON what do-INT A: Minho-nun chwukkwu-lul ha-ko Tongho-nun nongkwu-lul ha-y. -CON soccer-ACC do-and -CON basketball-ACC do

8

Conjunction of sub-questions

• (5aQ) and (5bQ) share a congruent answer. It means that the super-question of (3b) comes from the conjunction of sub-questions of (3b).

• According to Szabolcsi (1997) and Krifka (2001), wh-questions cannot be joined disjunctively.

(5) c. Q: #Minho-nun mwe ha-ni (hokun) Tongho-nun mwe ha-ni? -CON what do-or -CON what do-INT

9

Conjunction of sub-questions

• Therefore, in the strategy of (3b), the super-question comes from the conjunction of the sub-questions.

(5) d. ai-tul mwe ha-ni? child-PL what do-INT ≒ Minho-nun mwe ha-ko Tongho-nun mwe ha-ni?

conjunction -CON what do-and -CON what do-INT ≠ #Minho-nun mwe ha-ni (hokun) Tongho-nun mwe ha-ni?

disjunction -CON what do-or -CON what do-INT

10

Inclusive disjunction of sub-questions

• (6aQ) and (6bQ) share a congruent answer like (6aA) or (6bA), therefore they can be considered to be equal to each other.

(6) a. Q: nwu-ka wass-ni? who-NOM came-INT A: Minho-ka wass-e. -NOM came-DECL b. Q: Minho-ka wass-ni (hokun) Tongho-ka

wass-ni? -NOM came-or -NOM

came-INT A: Minho-ka wass-e. -NOM came-DECL 11


• The super-question of (4b) comes from the disjunction of sub-questions of (4b).

Yes/no-questions can be joined disjunctively, unlike wh-questions (Haida 2009).

• In Korean, conjunction of yes/no questions doesn’t seem to be allowed.

(6) c. Q: ?Minho wass-ko Tongho wass-ni? came-and came-INT

12


• Therefore, in the strategy of (4b), the super-question comes from the disjunction of the sub-questions.

(6) d. nwu-ka wass-ni? who-NOM came-INT ≒ Minho-ka wass-ni (hokun) Tongho-ka wass-ni?

disjunction -NOM came-or -NOM came-INT

≠ ?Minho wass-ko Tongho wass-ni?

conjunction came-and came-INT

13


• Inclusive disjunction vs. exclusive disjunction (7) Q: Minho-ka wass-ni (hokun) Tongho-ka wass-ni? inclusive

disj. -NOM came-or -NOM came-INT A1: Minho-ka wass-e. -NOM came-DECL A2: ✓Minho-nun wass-e. -CON came-DECL (8) Q: Minho-ka iltung-i-ni (hokun) Tong-ka iltung-i-ni? exclusive

disj. -NOM first place-be-or -NOM first place-be-INT A1: Minho-ka iltung-i-ta. -NOM first place-be-DECL A2: #Minho-nun iltung-i-ta. -CON first place-be-DECL

14


• The strategy for (4b) comes from inclusive disjunction of sub-questions rather than their exclusive disjunction.

15

1.3. Two sources for strategy: conjunction and inclusive disjunction

• Finally, we distinguish between the sources for strategy in (3b) and (4b): conjunction and inclusive disjunction.

(9) a. strategy from conjunction Q = Q1 ∧ Q2 ∧ ... b. strategy from inclusive disjunction Q = Q1 ∨I Q2 ∨I ...

• Different kinds of strategy would result in different kinds of contrast.Therefore, contrastive nun can be divided into two usages.

16

1.4. Two readings of contrastive nun

topical contrast (TC)

(10) Q: ai-tul mwe ha-ni? ‘What are the children doing?’ A1: ai-tul-un kongwen-eyse nol-a. ‘They are playing in the park.’ A2: Minho-nun chwukkwu-lul ha-y. (kuliko Tongho-nun nongkwu-

lul ha-y.)‘Minho is playing soccer. (And Tongho is playing basketball.)’

• As (10Q) is a question about the children, adequate answers to (10Q) should be about them.

So, ai-tul ‘the children’ in (10A1) is a topic, and Minho in (10A2) must also be a topic since it is a part of the topic which is expected from the question in (10Q).

The contrastive nun-marked Minho in (10A2) should be regarded as a topic in terms of information structure. 17

topical contrast (TC)

• Furthermore, this is supported by the fact that nun cannot be replaced by ka, as in (10A3). As observed above, ka is usually used as a focus marker, so (10A3) does not provide an adequate answer to (10Q), which should be about the children.

(10) A3: #Minho-ka chwukkwu-lul ha-y. (kuliko Tongho-ka nongkwu-lul ha-y.)

18


focal contrast (FC)

(11) Q: nwu-ka wass-ni? ‘Who came?’ A1: Minho-ka wass-e. (#kulentey Tongho-ka an wass-e.) ‘Minho came.’ A2: Minho-nun wass-e. (kulentey Tongho-nun an wass-e.) ‘Minho came. (But Tongho didn’t come.)’

• Since unlike (10Q), (11Q) is not a question about the children, answers to it do not have to be about them either. In (11A1), Minho is the new information which is required by nwu ‘who’, and it is followed by ka, which is a focus marker. In (11A2), Minho also offers the new information required by nwu ‘who’, but provides an additional information that Minho is contrasted with another candidate, i.e. Tongho.

19

focal contrast (FC)

• Although Minho in (11A2) has a contrastive meaning which is not carried by that of (11A1), both of them have the same function in terms of information flow since they offer the same new information. Therefore, Minho in (11A2) as well as that in (11A1) has to be considered the focus.

20


• The NPs marked by the contrastive nun in (10A2) and (11A2) are different in terms of information structure. That they share contrastive meaning is one thing, and that they are different with respect to topic or focus is another. Information like topic or focus comes from the relational givenness, which has nothing to do with the concept of contrast.

Contrast and the information structure of topic and focus are orthogonal (Vallduví and Vilkuna 1998, Hetland 2003, Molnár 2006).

21


• The NPs marked by the contrastive nun in (10A2) and that in (11A2) will be separated into topical contrast (TC) and focal contrast (FC) respectively.

22

2. Evidence for the distinction between TC and FC

Implicational difference

• Both TC and FC imply that the relevant event, such as playing soccer or coming, doesn’t happen to {Minho, Tongho} which is in the upper level of the scale relative to Minho.

(12) Q: ai-tul mwe ha-ni? A: Minho-nun chwukkwu-lul ha-y. (kulentey Tongho-nun talun kes-ul ha-lkeya.) -TC soccer-Acc do-DECL but -TC other thing-Acc do-may ‘Minho is playing soccer. (But Tongho may be doing something else.)’

(13) Q: nwu-ka wass-ni? A: Minho-nun wass-e. (kulentey Tongho-nun an wass-ulkeya.) -FC came-DECL but -FC not came-may ‘Minho came. (But Tongho might not come.)’

23


• pragmatic implication vs. semantic implication(12A) can be followed by a sentence which cancels the implication as in (14A), whereas (13A) cannot as in (15A).

(14) Q: ai-tul mwe ha-ni? A: Minho-nun chwukkwu-lul ha-y. ✓kuliko Tongho-to chwukkwu-lul ha-y. -TC soccer-ACC do and -too soccer-ACC do ‘Minho is playing soccer. And Tongho is playing soccer, too.’(15) Q: nwu-ka wass-ni? A: Minho-nun wass-e. #kuliko Tongho-to wass-e. -FC came and -too came

This shows that the implication of (12A) is pragmatic, but that of (13A) is not. The former belongs to conversational implicature whereas the latter is a question of semantics.

24


• Exhaustivity of FC but not TC supports the implicational difference: (16a) entails (12A) whereas (16b) does not entail (13A).

(16) a. Minho-wa Tongho-nun chwukkwu-lul ha-y. -and -TC soccer-ACC do-DECL ‘Minho and Tongho are playing soccer.’ b. Minho-wa Tongho-nun wass-e. -and -FC came-DECL ‘Minho and Tongho came.’

Because exhaustivity is a semantic entailment rather than a pragmatic implicature (É. Kiss 2010), the implication of FC cannot be cancelled as shown in (15A).

25

2.2. Word order

• nun-marked topical expressions, i.e. topic or TC should appear in sentence initial position. In other words, nun-marked expressions not in the sentence-initial position do not have a topical property, i.e. they should be FC.

26

2.2. Word order

(17) Q: ne-nun nwukwu-lul cohaha-ni? you-TOP/TC who-ACC like-INT ‘Who do you like?’ A: na-nun Minho-nun cohaha-y. I-TOP/TC -FC like-DECL ‘I like Minho (but like no one else).’ (18) Q: Minho-nun nwukwu-lul cohaha-ni? -TOP/TC who-ACC like-INT ‘Who does Minho like?’ A: Minho-nun na-nun cohaha-y. -TOP/TC me-FC like-DECL ‘Minho likes me (but likes no one else).’

27

2.3. The categorical difference of what TC and FC can be attached to

• Both TC and FC are available with NP and PP, but only FC is available with AP, VP or AdvP.

(19) Q: Minho-nun ettay? -TOP how ‘How is Minho?’ A1: (Minho-nun) pwucilenha-ki-nun ha-y. -TOP diligent-NOMZ-FC do-DECL ‘Minho is diligent, but nothing more.’ A2: (Minho-nun) ilccik o-ki-nun ha-y. -TOP early come-NOMZ-FC do-DECL ‘Minho comes early, but does little more.’ A3: (Minho-nun) yelsimhi-nun ha-y. -TOP hard-FC do-DECL ‘Minho works hard, but does little more.’ 28

3. Three types of strategies

• Only three types of strategies are logically available with the condition that the strategy is composed of one level of sub-questions (cf. Büring 1997).

(20) a. type 1 Q a super-question Q1 Q2 Q3 ... sub-questions

A2 an answer

b. type 2 Q c. type 3 Q Q1 Q2 Q3 ... Q1 Q2 Q3 ... A2 A2 Letters in red mean real utterances, and underlined letters mean remnant questions.

29


• examples of type 1 strategy

(21) a. TC example (=(3b)) ai-tul mwe ha-ni? child-PL what do-INT

Minho mwe ha-ni? Tongho mwe ha-ni? what do-INT what do-INT

Minho-nun chwukkwu-lul ha-y. -TC soccer-ACC do-DECL

b. FC example (=(4b)) nwu-ka wass-ni? who-NOM came-INT

Minho wass-ni? Tongho wass-ni? came-INT came-INT

Minho-nun wass-e. -FC came-DECL 30



(22) a. TC example pwumonim-un mwuel sass-e? parents-TOP what bought-INT

emma-nun mwuel sass-e? appa-nun mwuel sass-e? mom-TOP what bought-INT dad-TOP what bought-INT

appa-nun sakwua-lul sass-e dad-TC apple-ACC bought-DECL

b. FC example nwuka sakwua-lul sass-ni? who apple-ACC bought-INT

[Femma-ka] sakwua-lul sass-ni? Appa-ka sakwua-lul sass-ni? mom-NOM apple-ACC bought-INT dad-NOM apple-ACC bought-INT

appa-nun (sakwua-lul) sass-e dad-FC apple-ACC bought-DECL

31



(23) a. TC example Europe-un ettayss-e? -TOP how-INT

London-un ettayss-e? Paris-nun ettayss-e? -TOP how-INT -TOP how-INT

London-un cohass-e -TC good-DECL

b. FC example eti-ka cohass-ni? where-NOM good-INT

[FLondon-i] cohass-ni? Paris-ka cohass-ni? -NOM good-INT -NOM good-INT

London-un cohass-e -FC good-DECL

32

4. Conclusion

• We are free from the debate on which marker is more basic, topic marker nun or contrast marker nun.

33

Selected referencesBüring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus-The 59th street bridge accent.

London: Routledge.Büring, D. 2003. On D-Tree, Beans, and B-Accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. pp.

511-545.É. Kiss, Katalin. 2010. Structural Focus and Exhaustivity. In Information Structure:

Theoretical, Typological and Experimental Perspectives, edited by Malte Zimmermann and Caroline Féry, 64-88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gundel, J. and T. Fretheim. 2004. Topic and Focus. In L. Horn and G. Ward eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics, Blackwell. pp. 175-196.

Haida, Andreas. 2009. Disjunction and Interrogativity: Yes/No-Question Disjunctions in Chadic.

Hetland, Jorunn. 2003. Contrast, the Fall-rise Accent, and Information Focus. In Structures of Focus and Grammatical Relations, edited by Jorunn Hetland, and Valéria Molnár, 1-39. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Jun, Youngchul. 2006. Tayco hwacey-wa tayco chocem-uy phyoci ‘nun’ (Korean Marker ‘nun’ for Contrastive Topic and Contrastive Focus). Hangul 274, 171- 200.

Jun, Youngchul. in press. Focus, Topic, and Contrast. In Lucien Brown and Jae Hoon Yeon eds., The Handbook of Korean Linguistics, Wiley-Blackwell.

Molnár, Valéria. 2006. On Different Kinds of Contrast. In The Architecture of Focus, edited by Valéria Molnár, and Susanne Winkler, 197-233. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics, Philosophica 27: 53-94

34

Selected references

Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon and Andreas Kathol eds., OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49, 91-136.

Szabolczi, Anna. 1997. Quantifiers in Pair-List Readings. In A. Szabolczi ed., Ways of Scope Taking, 311-347. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Uegaki, Wataru. 2013. Japanese Alternative Questions Are Disjunctions of Polar Questions. draft. MIT.

Vallduví, E. and M. Vilkuna. 1998. On Rheme and Kontrast. In P. Culicover and L. McNally eds., Syntax and Semantics 29: The Limits of Syntax, 79-108. San Diego: Academic Press.

35

The end

Thank You!Thank You!

Nun nun as a Contrastive Marker Nov. 28, 2014 Youngchul Jun Seoul National University.

Documents

Transcript of Nun nun as a Contrastive Marker Nov. 28, 2014 Youngchul Jun Seoul National University.