• Language and Information
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.15-32
• /
• 2002

These analyses can be roughly classified into two groups: the first argue that the delimiter -to is polysemous so that it delivers either additive or concessive meaning; the second contend that it is monosemous and only conveys emphatic or concessive meaning. The current analysis mainly focuses on its two roles with regard to focus and its meaning. On the basis of the findings, a different analysis is proposed that it serves as an indicator of the presence of a type of focus which is hosted mainly by the expression it attaches to. Furthermore, it is solely responsible for the additive force, and the seemingly relevant emphatic or concessive import is derivable from an emphatic or concessive illocutionary operator which is associated with the focus indicated by -to.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.181-225
• /
• 1997

The semantic and pragmatic effect of inerrogative illocutionary operator is analyzed in a dynamic setting in the framework of structured meaning representation with respect to the dialogue participants' shared common ground. I propose a framework for an optinal interpretation of focus phrases in terrogatives share the essential properties of focus in general, namely that they introduce alternatives to be taken advantage of by relevant focus-sensitive operators. The theory makes an interesting prediction on the distribution and interpretation of double questions in which one question gets modified by another. A further extention of the theory is spelled out to account for other non-assertional illocutionary operators like imperatives and their foci.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Language and Information Conference
• /
• 2002.02a
• /
• pp.59-68
• /
• 2002

In this paper, we address two questions concerning negative imperatives in Korean: (i) what is the morpho-syntactic nature of mal in negative imperatives\ulcorner; and (ii) why is it impossible to form negative imperatives with short negation an\ulcorner We will argue that the clause structure of imperatives include a projection of deontic modality and a projection of imperative operator encoding illocutionary force, and that oaf is a lexicalization of long negation and deontic modality. We then propose that a negative imperative with short negation is ruled out because such construction maps onto incoherent interpretation which can be spelled out as I direct you to bring about a negative state or a negative event.