• Language and Information
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.1-27
• /
• 2009

This paper examines the (a)symmetries in the realization of focused subjects and objects in Korean. Through rating experiments, we demonstrate that native speakers' judgments of acceptability of sentences containing case-marked or case-ellipsed subjects and objects are sensitive to the contrastiveness strength and the discourse accessibility of focused arguments. However, our experiments also show that focused subjects exhibit stronger preference for explicit case marking over case ellipsis and that contrastiveness strength and discourse accessibility have weaker influence on the case marking and ellipsis of focused subjects compared to focused objects. We propose an account of variable case marking that is capable of subsuming both the similarities and differences between focused subjects and objects under the universal theory of markedness. In particular, it is shown that the similarities between focused subjects and objects are predicted by the proposed account based on the contrastiveness strength and the discourse accessibility of focused arguments and that the differences between focused subjects and objects follow naturally from the relative markedness of focus as subjects.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.49-61
• /
• 2000

• Language and Information
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.62-70
• /
• 2000

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Language and Information Conference
• /
• 2000.06a
• /
• pp.49-61
• /
• 2000

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Language and Information Conference
• /
• 2000.06a
• /
• pp.62-70
• /
• 2000

• MALSORI
• /
• no.38
• /
• pp.1-24
• /
• 1999

There is an indisputable connection between prosody and focus. The focal prominence in Korean, a prosodic realization of pitch prominence in an utterance, defines a focused constituent, the domain of which is identified by the Focus Identification Principle. To this is added the Basic Focus Rule which makes it possible to capture and interpret the focal domain, which can then be tested against the available context. The focal domain can be contextually made available by setting it off with information structure boundaries(I/S) identified by the Information Structure Identification Principle. The fragment of the utterance enclosed within the IS boundaries can be recognized as 'new' information with the help of the Focus Domain Identification Rule. Since information structures are pragmatically tied to semantic levels of grammatical systems, the Basic Focus Rule is now replaced by the Focal Prominence Principle ensuring the focal prominence within the focal domain. Close relationships exist between patterns of intonation and their expressiveness in terms of giving a pragmatically-oriented description of focus. This is particularly manifested in Korean sentences containing contrastiveness.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.1-20
• /
• 2008

This paper examines the effects of focus types on case ellipsis in Korean. A number of previous studies have suggested that accusative case markers in Korean and Japanese cannot be dropped when the object they mark is contrastively focused (Masunaga, 1988; Yatabe, 1999; Ko, 2000; Lee, 2002). Using experimental evidence, we argue against the view that case ellipsis in Korean is sensitive to the distinction between contrastive vs. non-contrastive focus. An alternative analysis is proposed which accounts for the phenomenon of variable case marking in terms of the interaction between the contrastive strength and the discourse accessibility of focused object NPs. By viewing patterns of case ellipsis as the result of balancing between these two forces, such an analysis can correctly predict the gradient pattern of case ellipsis shown by the three types of focused objects tested in the experiment (contrastive replacing focus, contrastive selecting focus and non-contrastive, informational focus), while at the same time offering an explanation for why subtypes of focus exert distinct influences on case ellipsis.

• Phonetics and Speech Sciences
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.119-128
• /
• 2009

Many researchers have argued about the relationship between information structure and intonation. Their results can be summarized in three main points: the intonation of topic and focus in English information structures is implemented as i) a pitch accent, ii) a tune (a pitch accent + (an) edge tone(s)), or iii) a boundary tone. The purpose of this paper is to study various intonational patterns of topic and focus in English information structures, using natural conversations. In this paper, the types of topics and foci are divided, based on contrastiveness. The topics are classified as five non-contrastive and four contrastive topics. The foci are classified as neutral focus, informational focus, and contrastive focus. The results show that the intonation of the topic in English information structures is mainly implemented as a pitch accent, except for the type of the pronoun topic (Lp) which is not implemented as a pitch accent or a tune. However, the intonation of the focus is implemented as a tune in the neutral focus (Fn) and as a pitch accent or a tune in the informational focus (Fi) and the contrastive focus (Fe). In our discussion and conclusion, we suggest that it is not always true that for the meaning of contrast, the topic or the focus is represented as a $L+H^{\ast}$ pitch accent, which has been the main contrastive intonation from earlier studies.

• Speech Sciences
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.87-105
• /
• 2006

Many researchers have studied the relationship between the information structure and intonation. Arguments about the relations between the information structure and intonation researched so far can be summarized as follows: the intonation of topic and focus in English information structure is represented as i) a pitch accent, ii) a tune (a pitch accent + an edge tone), or iii) a boundary tone. The purpose of this paper is to study various informational patterns of the topic in English information structure, using real TV discussion data. In this paper, the topic is classified as contrastive topics and non-contrastive topics, based on contrastiveness. The results show that the intonation of the topic in English information structure is implemented as a pitch accent, neither a tune nor a boundary tone. Of the non-contrastive topics, while anaphoric determinative NP topics (Lnc, Lncd) are mainly represented as a H* pitch accent, the pronoun topic(Lp) does not have a pitch accent. Of contrastive topics, while the semantically focused topic(Lci) is mainly represented as a H* pitch accent, the contrastively focused topic(Lcc) is represented as both H* and L+H* pitch accents. It shows that it is not always true that the topic or focus to have the meaning of contrast is represented as a L+H* pitch accent as argued in the previous researches.