• Language and Information
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2005

In this paper I propose the semantics of two modality markers in Korean, keyss and (u)1 kes. I compare the two modality markers with respect to some properties. First, keyss is used to express logical necessity while (u)1 kes can be used to express a simple prediction as well. Second, keyss expresses some logical conclusion from the speaker's own information state without claiming it is true. On the other hand, (u)1 kes expresses the claim that the speaker's prediction will be true. Third, the prediction of keyss is non-monotonic: it can be reversed without being inconsistent. However, that of (u)1 kes cannot. Fourth, (u)1 kes can be used freely in epistemic conditionals, but keyss cannot. Finally, when keyss is used, the prediction cannot be repeated. The prediction from the use of (u)1 kes can be repeated. To account for these differences, I propose that keyss is used when the speaker makes a purely logical presumption based on his/her own information state, and that (u)1 kes is used to make a prediction which is asserted to be true. This proposal accounts for all the differences of the two modality markers.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.119-146
• /
• 2015

Within the field of Korean linguistics, it has been observed that subjective adjectival predicate constructions are characteristic of imposing 'coreference constraint' on the higher and lower subjects, while evidential -te- constructions imposing 'non-coreference constraint' on them. I interpret these constraints as dependency constraints between higher and lower judge-sensitive semantic predicates, and investigate the interactions among subjective adjectival predicates, evidential -te-, and modal -keyss- in Korean. The paper ultimately argues for the necessity to add a new indexical element, the judge of evaluation(Lasersohn 2005, Stephenson 2007), to the traditional set of indices that were confined to the world and the time.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.137-161
• /
• 2004

In this paper, I will look at two conditional connectives in Korean and point out differences between -(u)myen and -ta/la-myen in their distributions and semantics. One of the differences is that -ta/la-myen always allows epistemic interpretation, whereas -(u)myen allows epistemic interpretation only when the event time of the antecedent clause is in the past or present. A second difference is that only -(u)myen is used in purely temporal and habitual conditionals. A third difference is that the modality marker -keyss, which can have volitional or predictive interpretation with -(u)myen, cannot have predictive interpretation with -ta/la-myen. I propose that -ta/la-myen has the operator of settledness, which is defined with respect to the speech time, and explain the differences listed based on the semantics of settledness.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.22
• /
• pp.355-375
• /
• 2011

This paper investigates multiple marking of evidentials in Korean. Korean has 4 evidential markers: Present Sensory -ney, Past Sensory -te-, Inference -keyss-, Reported -ay. Korean allows evidential marked more than once in the same clause. Not all the possible combinations of evidential markers are, however, observed in Korean. Only five combinations of evidential markers are allowed: Inference followed by Past Sensory (-keysste-), Inference followed by Present Sensory (-keyssney), Past Sensory followed by Reported (-teray), Inference followed by Reported (-keysstay), Inference followed by Past Sensory and Reported (-keyssteray). Multiple making of evidentials in Korean seems to follow combination restrictions: i) Inference comes before Direct Knowledge, ii) Present Sensory and Reported cannot be marked in the same clause, iii) Reported must come after other evidential markers, iv) Past Sensory and Present Sensory cannot be marked in the same clause. Because of these restrictions, only 5 out of dozens possible multiple evidential marking combinations are observed in Korean. This paper takes inflectional suffixes including evidential markers in Korean as syntatic markers and argues that syntactic markers have their own scope and contribute semantic meaning to the scope not to the full sentence. Evidential markers in double marking have different syntactic scope and add not contradictory but complementary meanings to the preposition to express subtle and delicate evidential-related meanings.