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
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
and Suwon Yoon

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.

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. .

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Price including VAT
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


Journal + Issues

Linguistics publishes articles and book reviews in the traditional disciplines of linguistics as well as in neighboring disciplines insofar as these are deemed to be of interest to linguists and other students of natural language. The journal also features occasional Special Issues in these fields.

Search