본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

The Intervention Effect as a Syntactic Phenomenon in Korean Wh-questions

2

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류언어학

초록

There are mainly three types of approaches to intervention effects in Korean wh-questions: pragmatic, semantic and syntactic. The present paper argues that despite problems presented by pragmatic and semantic accounts, a syntactic approach can explain the intervention effect in Korean wh-questions best because it can logically explain why Korean speakers make different grammatical judgment as far as the intervention effect is concerned and can predict the environment where no intervention effect is observed. Judgmental variability of the intervention effect and crosslinguistic varieties of interveners have been presented against syntactic accounts; however, the present paper claims that there are two superficially identical types of wh-questions in Korean, and due to the ambiguous status, grammatical judgment of the intervention effect can differ among speakers and may fluctuate within the same speaker more markedly than other syntactic phenomena, and also shows that the kind of interveners do not differ so much as has been claimed, and that interveners are contrastive-focused as Kim (2002a, b) argues.

Abstract

There are mainly three types of approaches to intervention effects in Korean wh-questions: pragmatic, semantic and syntactic. The present paper argues that despite problems presented by pragmatic and semantic accounts, a syntactic approach can explain the intervention effect in Korean wh-questions best because it can logically explain why Korean speakers make different grammatical judgment as far as the intervention effect is concerned and can predict the environment where no intervention effect is observed. Judgmental variability of the intervention effect and crosslinguistic varieties of interveners have been presented against syntactic accounts; however, the present paper claims that there are two superficially identical types of wh-questions in Korean, and due to the ambiguous status, grammatical judgment of the intervention effect can differ among speakers and may fluctuate within the same speaker more markedly than other syntactic phenomena, and also shows that the kind of interveners do not differ so much as has been claimed, and that interveners are contrastive-focused as Kim (2002a, b) argues.

참고문헌 (45)

  1. Barss, Andrew, "Step by Step", pp.31~52 (2000), MIT Press
  2. Beck, Sigrid, "Quantified Structures as Barriers for LF Movement", Natural Language Semantics, 4, pp.1~56 (1996)
  3. Beck, Sigrid, "Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation", Natural Language Semantics, 14, pp.1~56 (2006)
  4. Beck, Sigrid, "Intervention Effects in Alternative Questions", J Comp German Linguist, 9, pp.165~208 (2006)
  5. Bruening, Benjamin, "Wh-Questions in Vietnamese", JEAL, 15, pp.319~341 (2006)
  6. Chomsky, Noam, "The Minimalist Program" (1995), MIT Press
  7. Chomsky, Noam, "Interfaces + Recursion = Languages?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics", pp.1~29 (2007), Mouton de Gruyter
  8. Dayal, Veneeta., "Single-pair versus multiple-pair answers: WH-in-situ and Scope", LI, 33, pp.512~520 (2002)
  9. "Disjunction and Indeterminate-based Quantification in Korean" (2006)[URL]
  10. Groenendijk, Jeroen, "Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers", doctor, pp.1984
  11. Hagstrom, Paul, "Decomposing Questions", doctor, pp.1998
  12. Hamblin, C. L., "Questions in Montague English", Foundations of Language, 10, pp.41~53 (1973)
  13. Hankamer, Jorge, "On WH-Indexing", NELS, 5, pp.61~76 (1974)
  14. Hausser, Roland R., "Questions and Answers", pp.97~158 (1983)
  15. Higginbotham, James, "A general theory of crossing coreference", NELS, IX, pp.328~336 (1978)
  16. Higginbotham, James, "Questions, quantifiers and crossing", The Linguistic Review, 1(41), pp.80~ (1981)
  17. Huddleston, Rodney, "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" (2002), Cambridge University Press
  18. Jackendoff, Ray, "Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar" (1972), MIT Press
  19. Jayaseelan, K. A., "Questions and Question-Word Incorporating Quantifiers in Malayalam", Syntax, 4(2), pp.63~93 (2001)
  20. Karttunen, Lauri, "Syntax and Semantics of Questions", Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, pp.3~44 (1977)
  21. Kim, Shin-Sook, "Intervention Effects are Focus Effects", Japanese, 2002, pp.10, 615~628
  22. Kim, Shin-Sook, "Focus Matters: Two Types of Intervention Effect", paper presented at WCCFL XXI (2002), UC Santa Cruz
  23. Kitagawa, Yoshihisa, "Prosody, Syntax and Pragmatics of WH-Questions in Japanese", English Linguistics, 22(2), pp.302~346 (2005)
  24. Kratzer, Angelika, "Reference and Quantification: The Partee effect", pp.113~141 (2005), CSLI Publications
  25. Mayr, Clemens, "Intervention effects and additivity", Journal of Semantics, Advance Access (2013)
  26. Morita, Hisashi, "The semantics of interrogative pronouns, existential(-like) quantifiers, and universal(-like) quantifiers in Japanese", Journal of Japanese Linguistics, 21, pp.21~41 (2005)
  27. Morita, Hisashi, "Covert Pied-piping in Japanese WH-questions", English Linguistics, 26(2), pp.374~393 (2009)
  28. Morita, Hisashi, "Ultimate Pied-piping in Japanese and Sinhala", a paper presented at ELSJ 5th International Spring Forum (2012), Konan University
  29. Morita, Hisashi, "How the syntax knows when to apply binding or movement to wh-expressions", The Online Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX (2013)
  30. Morita, Hisashi, "The Intervention Effect as a Syntactic Phenomenon in Japanese", The Journal of the Faculty of Foreign Studies, Aichi Prefectural University, 45, pp.97~129 (2013)
  31. Morita, Hisashi, "A syntactic approach to intervention effects in Korean wh-questions", a paper presented at The 19th International Conference on Korean Linguistics & The 16th Harvard International Symposium on Korean Linguistics (2015), University of Chicago
  32. Pesetsky, David, "The Representation of (in)definiteness", pp.98~129 (1987), MIT Press
  33. Pesetsky, David, "Phrasal Movement and Its Kin" (2000), MIT Press
  34. Ramchand, Gillian, "Questions, polarity and alternative semantics", NELS, 27, pp.383~396 (1997)
  35. Reinhart, Tanya, "Wh-in-situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program", NLS, 6, pp.29~56 (1998)
  36. Rooth, Mats, "A theory of focus interpretation", Natural Language Semantics, 1, pp.75~116 (1992)
  37. Rooth, Mats, "The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory", pp.271~297 (1996), Blackwell
  38. Shimoyama, Junko, "Wh-Constructions in Japanese", doctor, pp.2001
  39. Slade, Benjamin, "Formal and Philological Inquiries into the Nature of Interrogatives, Indefinites, Disjunciton, and Focus in Sinhala and other languages", doctor, pp.2011
  40. Stroik, Thomas, "English Wh-in-situ Constructions", Linguistic Analysis, 22, pp.133~153 (1992)
  41. Szabolcsi, Anna, "What do quantifier particles do?", Linguistics and Philosophy, 38, pp.159~204 (2015)
  42. Tomioka, Satoshi, "Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese and Korean interrogatives", Journal of Pragmatics, 39, pp.1570~1590 (2007)
  43. Valluduvi, Enric, "The Information Component", doctor, pp.1992
  44. Watanabe, Shin, "Aspects of Questions in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications", doctor, pp.1995
  45. Yanagida, Yuko, "Syntactic QR in wh-in-situ languages", Lingua, 99, pp.21~36 (1996)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (5건)