The Morphosyntactic Coding of Focus Structure in Igbo

Maduabuchi Sennen Agbo 세종대학교 언어연구소 2013 Journal of Universal Language Vol.14 No.2

Cross-linguistic studies have ascertained that the information units within clause structure are systematically coded. These information units shape the information structure of the clause and focus structure is the term for it in the literature. Previous studies on Igbo focus structure centre exclusively on the syntactic derivation of the clause to determine the focus structure. Therefore, this study investigates how pragmatic considerations and morphological markings in the clause structure determine the various types of Igbo focus structure. The study adopts the Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) framework, which seeks out the relationship between referring expressions in a clause and the focus structure. RRG also has the advantage of formally projecting focus structure into the representation of clause structure. Four categorical types of focus structure occur in Igbo. These include, subject focus with the /e/, /a/, /kwá/, and /-nụ`/markers; object focus with /má/ and /ká/ as markers; verb focus with /weé/, /nà/, and /gá/ as markers and sentence focus with gwá m΄ and /ghí/ as markers. The study reveals that morphological markings code focus structure in Igbo. In other words, it describes the information units within clause structure from the perspective of the interaction between morphology, pragmatics, and syntax, and not exclusively from a syntactic perspective.

한국어 ‘-ㄴ 것이다’ 구문과 중국어 ‘是......(的)’ 구문의 정보구조적 대조

증양 ( Zeng Yang ) 한국중국언어학회 2022 중국언어연구 Vol.- No.102

This study is to clarify the correspondence between the phrases of ‘-eun geosida’ and the phrase ‘shi......(de)’ by comparative analysis. In general, the phrase ‘-eun geosida’ is corresponding to the phrase ‘shi......(de)’. This paper shows that two phrases correspond to each other through the preceding researches in syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects. According to the theory of information structure, two kinds of phrases have something in common: similar information structure before grammaticalization, and both make marked focus sentences after grammaticalization. Nevertheless, the focus type of ‘-eun geosida2’ and ‘shi......(de)2’ are different. According to Lambrecht (1994)'s types of focus structure, ‘-eun geosida2’ and ‘shi......(de)2’ can express Predicate-focus structure, but it is different that ‘-eun geosida2’ can realize the Sentence-focus structure, and ‘shi......(de)2’ can realize the Argument-focus structure. What is more, Korean can also have multiple focus elements in a sentence like Chinese. Especially in sentence ‘-eun geosida2’, the communicative dynamics of this focus structure is stronger than other forms (such as interrogative pronouns or subject case marker ‘-yi/ga’).

Accessible and Active Subjects in Event-Reporting Sentences in English, French and Korean

오치성 사단법인 한국언어학회 2008 언어학 Vol.0 No.50

The proposition of an uttered sentence can be divided into two portions: one which is already part of the presupposition and the other which does not belong to the presupposition, i.e. the focus. Depending on which portion of the proposition is the focus, three types of focus structures are distinguished: predicate-focus, argument-focus, and sentence-focus structures (Lambrecht 1994). Among the three types of focus structures, the sentence-focus structure, in which the focus covers the entire proposition, can be characterized as expressing an "all-new" proposition. According to Lambrecht (1994, 1988), sentence-focus sentences are divided into two subtypes depending on their functions in the discourse: presentational and event-reporting. A presentational sentence presents a new discourse referent, and an event-reporting sentence reports a new event involving a new referent in a discourse. Due to the "all-new" character of sentence-focus structure, it may be expected that a topical (active or accessible) referent does not appear in sentence-focus structure. However, it is often noticed that accessible referents appear as subject arguments in event-reporting cases of sentence-focus structures in English and French. Lambrecht argues that speakers use those accessible referents to add unexpected or surprising nature to the events expressed by the sentences. Similarly, in Korean, it is pointed out that accessible and even active subject referents can appear in event-reporting sentences, and I argue that they have the same function as those accessible referents in event-reporting sentences in English and French: they are used to indicate the events expressed by the sentences are surprising or unexpected.

Prosodic Structure of Wh-interrogatives and Intervention Effects in North Kyungsang Korean

Hyang-Sook Sohn(손형숙) 한국언어학회 2017 언어 Vol.42 No.4

Resorting to prosodic structure of double foci construction, this study aims to provide a prosody-based account of intervention effects, and claims that fronting of the wh-in-situ as a syntactic operation is prosodically motivated. In this approach, intervention effects arise as a consequence of prosodic search for the optimal form to resolve the conflicts among prosodic constraints induced by focus. Selection of optimal prosodic structure is accounted for in the framework of Optimality Theory and this study shows how resolution of conflicts among prosodically motivated constraints results in asymmetry in linear precedence between interveners and wh-operator. This supports the claim that prosody is a crucial factor in determining grammatical linearization. Prosodic constraints induced by wh-operator and focus are further extended to indefinite pronominals in focus construction. As a corollary to interactions of prosodic constraints induced by focus, linear precedence relation between indefinite pronominals and focus naturally falls out from the constraint ranking required anyway. Examining a set of pairwise precedence relations based on prosodic structure, we draw the generalization that indefinite pronominals are followed by wh-operator, which in turn is followed by focus-inducing items. This indicates that fronting of DPs, relative to another focus, is a necessary condition for optimal phrasing in focus construction, and corroborates the claim that syntactic structure is conditioned by prosodic structure.

초점구조의 통사적 분석

조동인 ( Dong In Cho ) 충남대학교 인문과학연구소 2011 인문학연구 Vol.38 No.4

본 논문의 목적은 Breul(2001, 2004)이 제시한 통사적 체계에 근거하여 한국어 초점구조를 분석하고 Chomsky(1995)가 제시한 연쇄이론을 변형하여 한국어의 다양한 초점구조를 보이는 것을 목적으로 한다. 초점은 다양한 언어적 장치를 통해서 나타난다. 이러한 이유로 이에 대한 정의와 연구방법이 다양하다. 어떤 학자들(Jones 2006, Dechaine 2002, E. Kiss 1998a; 1998b, Brody 1990; 1995, etc.)은 초점구조에 대한 통사적 접근법을 취한다. 이 접근법은 초점을 통사구조 내에서 wh-이동처럼 이동현상으로 간주한다. 그러나 Lambrecht(1994, 2001)는 초점에 대한 연구는 언어적 구성요소들(예, 통사-의미 접합점, 담화-화용 접합점) 간의 접합점에서 연구되어야 한다고 주장한다. 더욱이 Breul(2001, 2004)은 초점구가설과 [±foc] 자질을 가정하고 초점구조를 범주적, 확인적, 단언적으로 분류하였다. 그는 통사, 의미 그리고 억양 내에서 통합적인 접근법을 취하였다. 이와 같이 통사와 의미의 경계에서 Han(1998)은 -은/는의 어휘적 분석의 한계를 밝히면서 한국어의 명사-은/는에서 -은/는이 주제 혹은 초점으로 해석되는 이유를 설명하려고 하였다. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the focus structure in Korean based on the syntactic framework proposed by Breul(2001, 2004), and to show various focus structures in Korean modifying the chain theory proposed by Chomsky(1995). Focus is represented by various means of linguistic devices. That`s why its definition and its research method is varied. Some linguists take syntactic approach to the analysis of focus structure(Jones 2006, Dechaine 2002, E. Kiss 1998a; 1998b, Brody 1990; 1995, etc.). This approach generally considers the focus is a kind of movement like wh-movent within the syntactic structure. However, Lambrecht(1994, 2001) argues that the research on focus should be done in the interface of some components of linguistics, e.g. syntax-semantic interface, discourse-pragmatic interface). Furthermore, assuming FocP-hypothesis and [±foc] features, Breul(2001, 2004) tries to categorize the focus structure into three: categorical, identificational, and thetic focus structure. He takes integrated approach to the analysis within the interface of syntax, semantics and intonation. Likewise, on the boundary of syntax and semantics, Han(1998) tries to explain why the -(n)un in NP-(n)un in Korean is interpreted as topic or focus, finding the limitations of the lexical analysis of -(n)un.

정보구조의 분절 방법

함병호(Ham, Byeong Ho) 동악어문학회 2016 동악어문학 Vol.67 No.-

본고는 그동안 논의되어 왔던 정보구조 분절의 문제점을 살펴보고, 한국어의 정보구조에서 정합적인 정보의 분절 방법을 고찰하였다. 이를 위해서 크게 이분구조, 전제 또는 바탕 설정, 다층위 구조 설정을 중심으로 논의를 진행하였다. 먼저, 이분법의 문제를 ‘화제-평언’과 ‘화제-초점’을 중심으로 살펴보았다. ‘화제-평언’은 모든 문장이 이와 같이 간단하게 구조화되지 않으며, 질문-대답 쌍에서의 ‘화제-초점’은 화제의 고유한 특징을 드러내지 못한다는 점에서 문제가 있다. ‘전제-초점’에서는 전제 안의 화제와 상보적인 부분에는 관심이 없기 때문에 문장의 모든 성분을 완벽하게 분석하지 못한다는 점과, 전제가 화제나 초점과 대등한 정보적 지위를 갖는 것이 아니라는 점에서 문제가 있다. 바탕을 설정하는 Vallduví(1990)의 삼항 계층 분절은 이분법에서 문제가 되었던 분절 단위들의 중복이나 불일치 현상을 해결하였지만, 화제가 초점과 대등한 위치에 놓이지 않는 문제가 있다. 질문-대답 쌍의 담화 맥락이 상정되면 ‘배경-초점’을 사용하고, 맥락이 상정되지 않은 독립된 단문에서는 ‘화제-평언’을 사용하는 다층위 방법은 두 분절이 동일하게 겹치는 경우에는 분절 체계를 방만하게 한다는 점과 정보구조가 문장 문법의 층위라면 분석 도구를 단일화해야 한다는 문제가 있다. 결론적으로, Vallduví(1990)의 분절 방식에서 계층적 위계를 없애고, 용어를 수정하는 방법이 가장 합리적인 분절 방법이다. 따라서 가장 정합적인 정보구조의 표상은 ‘화제-초점-배경’이다. 이러한 수평적 분절 방법에서는 질문의 맥락 여부에 따라서 ‘초점 → 화제’나 ‘화제 → 초점’와 같은 분석의 방향성을 가진다. This paper examines the problem of articulation of information structure, and contemplates real articulation method of Korean information structure, focusing on the binary structure, presupposition or ground setting and a multi-level structure setting. First, regarding the problem of binary structure, ‘topic-comment’ does not structure all sentences, and ‘topic-focus’ in the question-answer pairs fails to show the topic"s nature. Second, the ‘presupposition-focus’ does not analyse all constituents of sentence because of its lack of attention to complementary constituent of topic. The presupposition does not have equal status with the topic and focus. Although the trinominal hierarchical articulation of Vallduví(1990) solved many problems of the binary structure and presupposition setting, it still raise a problem because topic and focus does not have an equal stats. Lastly, the discourse context of the question-answer pairs uses the ‘Background-focus’. However, a simple sentence without discourse context uses ‘topic-comment’. This multi-level structure setting has limits in that it produces lax articulation system in the case of overlapping between two articulations. In addition, it has to unify analysis tool under the sentence grammar level of information structure. Therefore, to remove the hierarchical status and correct terms in Vallduví (1990)"s system is the real articulation method, or ‘topic - focus - background’. These horizontal articulation method has directional nature of the analysis of ‘focus→topic’ or ‘topic→focus’ according to the context of question.

한국어, 영어, 스페인어, 러시아어에 나타난 초점구조와 정보분절성

조은영 현대문법학회 2004 현대문법연구 Vol.37 No.-

This paper aims at revisiting the information structure of sentences in languages such as Korean, English, Spanish and Russian. For this purpose, we refered to three types of focus structure, suggested by Lambrecht (1994), which include predicate-focus, argument-focus and sentence-focus structures. The information structure can be represented by the categorical statement and the thetic statement. The first is divided into two information segments— <topic> and <comment>, which typically corresponds to predicate-focus structure, while the second can not be divided but constitutes only one unit <comment>, which represents the sentence-focus structure. Given that the existence of topic is the factor of determining categorical/thetic statements, there ll be possibility of interpreting certain argument-focus structures as secondary thetic sentences and of considering some of Lambrecht s thetic structures as categorical sentences. On the other hand, the linguistic ways to realize the information division vary across languages, even if they are commonly available in affirming or negating the existence of ‘topic’.

Focus Projections in English, Korean, and Greek and Their Topological Implications

Jong-Bok Kim 현대문법학회 2003 현대문법연구 Vol.32 No.-

One of the important issues in information packaging theory is how to capture the projection of focus at sentence level. This paper shows that in three typological different languages (English: SVO, Korean: SOV, Greek: VSO), the order in argument structure (rather than linear order) plays an important role in determining various possibilities of inheritance of focus. This paper proposes that what is relevant for determining the possibility of VP focus in such cases is the argument structure ordered not in terms of theta-roles but in terms of grammatical relations. The need for such a level of argument structure gets strong motivations from phenomena such as binding, control, relativization, and so forth. Following this line, we assume that the argument structure with grammatical functions is ordered as SUBJ-OBJ-OBJ2-OBLIQUE in which if A precedes B in the argument-structure, A has a higher rank than (i.e. outranks) B. This comparative study among three typologically different languages reveals that the variations in the ordering of grammatical functions induce the differences in focus projections. In addition, the focus projections in the three languages support the view that the argument structure hierarchy is the locus of focus projection.

영어 화제와 초점의 억양 실현 양상

강선미,옥유름,김기호 한국음성과학회 2003 음성과학 Vol.10 No.4

This paper investigates the tonal patterns of English infomation structure composed of topic and focus. It has been argued in previous theories that there is a significant relationship between English topic-focus structure and intonation. The English topic is marked with L+H* pitch accent and focus is marked with H* pitch accent These theories, however, are oversimplified ones since they do not consider the contextual differences of topic and focus. To examine more concrete tonal patterns of English topic and focus, we classified topic into two subcategories of reminding topic and oldinformation topic. Focus was categorized into three: information focus, contrastive focus, and reference focus. The overall results show that native English speakers are inclined to use both the L+H* and H* pitch accent for the topic and focus of an utterance. We also observe a tendency to deaccentuate the topics given as old information and to mark the topics given as noun phrase with H* pitch accent. As for the intonation of focus, H* pitch accent is the most frequent type of accent, but L+H* also shows a high percentage of implementation especially in the context of correction or contrast.

Prosodic Structure of Wh-interrogatives and Intervention Effects in North Kyungsang Korean

손형숙 한국언어학회 2017 언어 Vol.42 No.4

Sohn, Hyang-Sook. 2017. Prosodic Structure of Wh-interrogatives and Intervention Effects in North Kyungsang Korean. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 42-4, 735-760. Resorting to prosodic structure of double foci construction, this study aims to provide a prosody-based account of intervention effects, and claims that fronting of the wh-in-situ as a syntactic operation is prosodically motivated. In this approach, intervention effects arise as a consequence of prosodic search for the optimal form to resolve the conflicts among prosodic constraints induced by focus. Selection of optimal prosodic structure is accounted for in the framework of Optimality Theory and this study shows how resolution of conflicts among prosodically motivated constraints results in asymmetry in linear precedence between interveners and wh-operator. This supports the claim that prosody is a crucial factor in determining grammatical linearization. Prosodic constraints induced by wh-operator and focus are further extended to indefinite pronominals in focus construction. As a corollary to interactions of prosodic constraints induced by focus, linear precedence relation between indefinite pronominals and focus naturally falls out from the constraint ranking required anyway. Examining a set of pairwise precedence relations based on prosodic structure, we draw the generalization that indefinite pronominals are followed by wh-operator, which in turn is followed by focus-inducing items. This indicates that fronting of DPs, relative to another focus, is a necessary condition for optimal phrasing in focus construction, and corroborates the claim that syntactic structure is conditioned by prosodic structure. (Kyungpook National University)