Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Gast, Volker


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.066

CiteScore 2018: 0.97

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.384
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.409

Print
ISSN
0024-3949
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

From inquisitive disjunction to nonveridical equilibrium: Modalized questions in Korean

Arum Kang
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Linguistics, Korea University, Sekwan 110A, Anam-ro 145, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, South Korea
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Suwon Yoon
Published Online: 2020-01-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0038

Abstract

The goal of the present study is to identify a novel paradigm of epistemic modal operator derived from disjunction. Our main data involves an inquisitive disjunction marker nka in Korean, the presence of which enhances a speaker’s epistemic uncertainty and forms a modalized question. We show how nka contributes the modal effects in question within a theory of nonveridicality. In particular, we propose that the prerequisite of nka are non-homogenous nonveridical states that are partitioned in equipoised epistemic spaces because of the absence in ranking between them. The distinct notions of disjunction, question, and possibility modals can thus be systematically captured under the framework of nonveridical equilibrium. The current analysis offers important insights into the relationship between the classes of nonveridical and modal ingredients involved in inquisitive disjunction: First, Korean facts importantly reveal that modalized questions do not form a uniform class with regular questions, since interrogative semantics alone cannot predict the epistemic uncertainty. Second, languages parameterize as to how they lexicalize the function of manipulating modal base. The implication of our findings is that disjunction needs to be recognized as a novel device for encoding a speaker’s weakest perspective on epistemic modality.

Keywords: modalized question; disjunction; inquisitiveness; nonveridical equilibrium; Korean

References

  • Aloni, Maria. 2011. Modal inferences with marked indefinites. Handout of a paper presented at the Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

  • Anand, Pranav & Adrian Brasoveanu. 2010. Modal concord as modal modification. In Martin Prinzhorn, Viola Schmitt & Sarah Zobel (eds.). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14. 19–36.Google Scholar

  • AnderBois, Scott. 2009. Non-interrogative questions in Yucatek Maya. In Suzi Lima (ed.), Proceedings of SULA 5 (UMOP 41), 1–16. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

  • AnderBois, Scott. 2011. Issues and alternatives. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California Santa Cruz dissertation.Google Scholar

  • AnderBois, Scott. 2012. Focus and uninformativity in Yucatec Maya questions. Natural Language Semantics 20. 349–390.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bartels, Christine. 1999. The intonation of English statements and questions: A compositional interpretation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Choi, Yoon-Ji. 2011. Correlation between disjunction and modality: Focused on inka (written in Korean). Journal of Korean Linguistics 60. 146–181.Google Scholar

  • Ciardelli, Ivano. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and intermediate logics. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam MA thesis.Google Scholar

  • Ciardelli, Ivano & Floris Roelofsen. 2011. Inquisitive logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40. 55–94.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Constant, Noah. 2012. English rise-fall-rise: A study in the semantics and pragmatics of intonation. Linguistics and Philosophy 35(5). 407–442.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Curme, George O. 1931. A grammar of the English language in three volumes, vol. III: Syntax. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar

  • Farkas, Donka & Floris Roelofsen. 2017. Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives. Journal of Semantics 34(2). 237–289.Google Scholar

  • Geurts, Bart. 2005. Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13(4). 383–410.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Geurts, Bart & Janneke Huitink. 2006. Modal concord. In Paul Dekker & Hedde Zeijlstra (eds.), Concord and the syntax-semantics interface, 15–20. Malaga: ESSLLI 06.Google Scholar

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1994. The semantic licensing of NPIs and the modern Greek subjunctive. In Ale de Boer, Helen de Hoop & Henriëtte de Swart (eds.), Language and cognition 4: Yearbook of the research group for theoretical and experimental linguistics, 55–68. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1995. Subjunctive, habituality and negative polarity items. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 5. 94–111.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22. 367–421.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2013. Inquisitive assertions and nonveridicality. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of ϕ, ?ϕ and possibly ϕ: A festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof and Frank Veltman, 115–126. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2014. The modality of the present and the future: Greek, Dutch, and beyond. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32(3). 1011–1032.Google Scholar

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2016. Evaluative subjunctive and nonveridicality. In Joanna Blaszczak, Anastasia Giannakidou, Dorota Klimek-Jankowska & Krzysztof Migdalski (eds.), Mood, aspect, modality revisited: New answers to old questions, 177–217. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia & Alda Mari. 2018. The semantic roots of positive polarity: Epistemic modal verbs and adverbs in Greek and Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy 41(6). 623–664.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gil, David. 1991. Aristotle goes to Arizona, and finds a language without and. In Dietmar Zaefferer (ed.), Semantic universals and Universal Semantics, 96–130. Berlin & New York: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Giorgi, Alessandra & Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen & Floris Roelofsen. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. Paper presented at the Workshop on Language, Communication, and Rational Agency at Stanford, May 2009.Google Scholar

  • Groenendijk, Jerson & Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Gunlogson, Christine. 2008. A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22. 101–136.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hagstrom, Paul Aalan. 1998. Decomposing questions. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, Michael & Alexander Kirkwood. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6. 322–361.Google Scholar

  • Hamblin, Charles Leonanrd. 1973. Questions in Montague grammar. Foundations of Language 10. 41–53.Google Scholar

  • Han, Chung-Hye. 2002. Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua 112. 201–229.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hara, Yurie & Christopher Davis. 2013. Darou as a deictic context shifter. In Kazuko Yatsushiro & Uli Sauerland (eds.), Proceedings of formal approaches to Japanese linguistics, vol. 6 (FAJL 6), 41–56. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Huitink, Janneke. 2012. Modal concord: A case study of Dutch. Journal of Semantics 29. 403–437.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jang, Youngjun. 1999. Two types of question and existential quantification. Linguistics 37. 847–869.Google Scholar

  • Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A. 2004. Question movement in some SOV languages and the theory of feature checking. Language and Linguistics 5. 5–27.Google Scholar

  • Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A. 2008. Question particles and disjunction. Hyderabad: The English and Foreign Languages University. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000644.

  • Kang, Arum. 2015. (In)definiteness, disjunction and anti-specificity in Korean: A study in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Kang, Arum. 2017. Epistemic constraint on the modal disjunctive particle in Korean: The condition of minimal variation and irrealis value on the anti-specific disjunction. Korean Semantics 57. 49–72.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kang, Arum & Suwon Yoon. 2016. Two types of speaker’s ignorance over the epistemic space in Korean. In Patrick Farrell (ed.), The Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 1(2016). 21. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives: an essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, 481–614. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 3–44.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kim, Chonghyuck. 2010. Korean question particles are pronominals: A transparent case of representing discourse participants in the syntax. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001157/

  • Koo, Hyun Jung & Seongha Rhee. 2013. On an emerging paradigm of sentence-final particles of discontent: A grammaticalization perspective. Language Sciences 37. 70–89.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds, and context: New approaches in word semantics, 38–74. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, 739–650. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Lee, EunHee, Sean Madigan & Mee-Jeong Park. 2015. Introduction to Korean linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Gyu-ho. 2006. Classification and list of conjunctive particles. Urimalgeul: The Korean Language and Literature 37. 171–195.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Hyo Sang. 2015. Modality. In Lucien Brown & Jae Hoon Yeon (eds.), The handbook of Korean linguistics, 249–268. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Jungmee. 2011. The Korean evidential -te: A modal analysis. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8. 287–311.Google Scholar

  • Lim, Dongsik. 2010. Evidentials and interrogatives: A case study from Korean. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Littell, Patrick, Lisa Matthewson & Tyler Peterson. 2009. On the semantics of conjectural questions. Paper presented at the MOSAIC Workshop (Meeting of Semanticists Active in Canada), Ottawa.Google Scholar

  • Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Matthewson, Lisa. 2010. Cross-linguistic variation in modality systems: The role of mood. Semantics and Pragmatics 3. 1–74.Google Scholar

  • Mauri, Caterina. 2008. Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology [EALT] 42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Park, Jae Yon. 2005. 인식 양태와 의문문의 상관 관계에 대하여 [insik yangthaywa uymwunmwunuy sangkwankwankyeyey tayhaye] [On the correlation of epistemic modality and interrogative. Language Research 41(1). 101–118.Google Scholar

  • Portner, Paul. 1992. Situation theory and the semantics of propositional expressions. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Portner, Paul. 1997. The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5. 167–212.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Portner, Paul. 1999. The semantics of mood. Glot International 4(1). 3–8.Google Scholar

  • Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pruitt, Kathryn & Floris Roelofsen. 2011. Disjunctive questions: Prosody, syntax, and semantics. Paper presented at the Georg August Universität Göttingen, April 2011.Google Scholar

  • Pruitt, Kathryn & Floris Roelofsen. 2013. Interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 362–350.Google Scholar

  • Rhee, Seongha. 2004. Grammaticalization and lexicalization of rhetorical questions in Korean. Studies in Modern Grammar 35. 111–139.Google Scholar

  • Rhee, Seongha. 2011. From politeness discourse strategy to grammar: Grammaticalization of stance markers. The Journal of Linguistic Science 59. 253–282.Google Scholar

  • Roelofsen, Floris. 2019. Two alternatives for disjunction: An inquisitive reconciliation. In Malte Zimmermann, Klaus von Heusinger & V. Edgar Onea Gaspea (eds.), Questions in discourse, 251–274. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Roelofsen, Floris & Sam van Gool. 2010. Disjunctive questions, intonation, and highlighting. In Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu de Jager & Katrin Schulz (eds.), Logic, language, and meaning: Selected papers from the seventeenth amsterdam colloquium, 384–394. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Seo, Jeong-Mok. 1987. 국어 의문문 연구 [kwuke uymwunmwun yenkwu] [The study of Korean questions]. Seoul: Top Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Slade, Benjamin M. 2011. Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Sohn, Ho-min. 2013. Korean. Seoul: Korea University Press.Google Scholar

  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 2015. What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 38(2). 159–204.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Uegaki, Wataru. 2018. A unified semantics for the Japanese Q-particle ka in indefinites, questions and disjunctions. Glossa 3(1). 14. 1–45.Google Scholar

  • Wymann, Adrian Thomas. 1996. The expression of modality in Korean. Bern: University of Bern dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Yoon, Jeong-Me. 2005. Two historical changes in wh-constructions in Korean and their implications. Studies in Generative Grammar 15. 457–487.Google Scholar

  • Yoon, Suwon. 2011. ‘Not’ in the Mood: the Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics of Evaluative Negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Yoon, Suwon. 2013. Parametric variation in subordinate evaluative negation: Korean/Japanese versus others. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 22. 133–166.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zaroukian, Erin. 2013. Quantification and (un)certainty. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2008. Modal Concord. In Masayuki Gibson & Tova Friedman (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory conference (SALT), vol. 17. 317–332. Ithaca, NY: CLS Publications.Google Scholar

  • Zimmerman, Thomas Ede. 2001. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8. 255–290.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2020-01-08


Citation Information: Linguistics, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0038.

Export Citation

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in