Anaphoricity and Accommodation: A Comparison of Too in English and -To in Korean
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Previous studies of -to in Korean have assumed a certain degree of parallelism between the Korean particle and too in English. This paper presents a set of cases involving -to in Korean which stand in clear contrast with the usage of too in English. Following Kripke's observation that too in English requires an antecedent in active contexts, Geurts and van der Sandt and others treat it as an anaphoric presupposition trigger and relate the anaphoricity of the particle with its inability to accommodate its presupposition. We show that -to in Korean cannot be handled by an anaphoric approach because it can either have antecedents in non-active contexts, or no antecedent at all. We propose a non-anaphoric analysis of Korean -to and argue that the lack of anaphoricity of -to allows it to accommodate its presupposition easily, unlike too in English.
Abstract
Previous studies of -to in Korean have assumed a certain degree of parallelism between the Korean particle and too in English. This paper presents a set of cases involving -to in Korean which stand in clear contrast with the usage of too in English. Following Kripke's observation that too in English requires an antecedent in active contexts, Geurts and van der Sandt and others treat it as an anaphoric presupposition trigger and relate the anaphoricity of the particle with its inability to accommodate its presupposition. We show that -to in Korean cannot be handled by an anaphoric approach because it can either have antecedents in non-active contexts, or no antecedent at all. We propose a non-anaphoric analysis of Korean -to and argue that the lack of anaphoricity of -to allows it to accommodate its presupposition easily, unlike too in English.
참고문헌 (15)
- Beaver, D., "The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces", pp.503~538 (2007), Oxford University Press
- Chafe, W., "Subject and Topic", pp.23~55 (1976), Academic Press
- Carston, R., "Thoughts and Utterances" (2002), Blackwell
- Dryer, M., "Focus, Pragmatic Presupposition, and Activated Propositions", Journal of Pragmatics, 26, pp.475~523 (1996)
- Heim, I, "Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs", Journal of Semantics, 9, pp.183~221 (1992)
- 김정민, "‘만’과 ‘도’의 이차 의미 - 전제인가 고정함축인가 -", 언어학 연구, (41), pp.135~155 (2016), 한국중원언어학회[DOI]
- Kim, Y., "Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects of the Delimiter To", Language and Information, 3(2), pp.85~96 (1999)
- König, E., "The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective" (1991), Routledge
- Kripke, S, "Presupposition and Anaphora: Remarks on the Formulation of the Projection Problem", Linguistic Inquiry, 40(3), pp.367~386 (2009)
- Lee, Y., "The Syntax and Semantics of Focus Particles", Ph. D., pp.2004
- Lewis, D, "Scorekeeping in a Language Game", Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, pp.339~359 (1979)
- Potts, C., "The Logic of Conventional Implicatures" (2005), Oxford University Press
- Prince, E., "Radical Pragmatics", pp.223~254 (1981), Academic Press
- Simons, M, "Presupposition and Accommodation: Understanding the Stalnakerian Picture", Philosphical Studies, 112, pp.251~278 (2003)
- Sperber, D., "Relevance: Communication and Cognition" (1986), Blackwell