A Meta-linguistic Interpretation of the subject of kes-cleft construction

것-분열문 주어의 상위언어적 의미

  • Received : 2016.01.29
  • Accepted : 2016.02.24
  • Published : 2016.02.28

Abstract

In this paper I argue that the subject in a Korean kes-cleft construction denotes the discourse referent that stands for the entity that satisfies the description of the cleft clause. This denotation thereby can be understood as a meta-linguistic referent which refers to the linguistic expression for a presupposed entity. In support of this claim, it is shown an anaphoric expression kekes also can be analyzed as a meta-linguistic referent. This analysis can explain why the subject and the predicate of a kes-cleft in Korean allow animacy crash.

Keywords

References

  1. 손근원. 2000. 계사구문에 대한 비수문, 비분열 접근법. 생성문법연구 10: 267-295.
  2. 위혜경. 2015a. 분열문의 의미와 초점 후치사의 수의성. 어학연구 51-3: 771-792.
  3. 위혜경. 2015b. 슬루싱의 두 가지 의미 유형. 언어와 정보 19-2: 109-125.
  4. Barros. 2012. A Non-repair Approach to Island Sensitivity in Contrastive TP Ellipsis. CLS 48.
  5. Barros. 2014. Slucing and Identity in Ellipsis. Doctoral Dissertation. New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
  6. Buring, Daniel & Manuel Kriz. 2013. It's that, and that's it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics & Pragmatics Volume 6: 1-29.
  7. Cappelen, Herman and Lepore, Ernest. 2012. "Quotation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta ed., URL = .
  8. Davidson, Donald. 1980. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  9. Geurts, Bart. 1998. The mechanisms of denial. Language 74: 274-307. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0264
  10. Higgins, Francis Roger. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
  11. Higgins, Francis Roger. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. Garland Publishing.
  12. Horn, Larry. 1981. Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. New England Linguistic Society 11: 125-142.
  13. Horn, Larry. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  14. Kamp. H & Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  15. Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse Referents in Syntax and Semantic vol. 7. Academic Press.
  16. E Kiss, K. 1998. Identificational focus versus informational focus. Language 74. 2: 245-273. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211
  17. Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular Clauses. John Benjamins.
  18. Moltmannm Frederike. 2013. Identificational Sentences. Natural Language Semantics 21: 43-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9091-4
  19. Reeve, Matthew. 2010. Clefts. Doctoral Dissertation, University College London.
  20. Rullman, Hotze. 1995. Maximality in the Semantics of Wh-Constructions. University of Massachusetts dissertation.
  21. Van der Sandt, Rob. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.333
  22. Velleman, D. B, D. Beaver, E Destruel, D Bumford, E. Onea, & L. Coppock. 2012. It-clefts are IT(inquiry terminating) constructions. Proceedings of SALT 22: 441-460.