PROSODIC CORRELATION BETWEEN THE FOCUSING ADVERB OZIK ‘ONLY’ AND FOCUS/GIVENNESS IN KOREAN

This study investigates the prosodic correlation between the focusing adverb ozik ‘only’ and focus/GIVENness in Korean. The goal is to test the issue of whether or not the element associated with ozik can be dephrased in Korean. This question is answered by a perceptual experiment in which the pitch contours of target sentences (i.e. Jeoneun ozik gichareul tamnida ‘I only take the train’ and Jeoneun ozik daehanhanggongeul iyonghamnida ‘I only take Korean Air.’) are modified using Praat. The modified sentences are embedded in two competing contexts in which focus/GIVENness on the element associated with ozik (i.e. gichareul ‘the train’, daehanhanggongeul ‘Korean Air’) is elicited. The results reveal that DoubleH (where both the focusing adverb and the object have prosodic prominence) is shown to be the most favored prosodic model when the element associated with ozik is focused in discourse. Conversely, OzikH (where the focusing adverb has prosodic prominence) is shown to be most favored when the element associated with ozik is GIVEN. Therefore, we argue that the element associated with ozik can be either prosodically prominent or dephrased depending on the discourse. This finding demonstrates that discourse functions such as focus and GIVENness are not directly contingent on the lexical semantics of the focusing adverb but instead are constrained by the discourse.


Introduction
It is known that the meaning of a sentence varies depending on the type of focusing adverb, such as only, also, or even (Krifka 2006, Hartmann andZimmermann 2008). Consider the following examples.
b. John also loves Mary.
c. John even loves Mary.
What is common in (1) is the assertion that John loves Mary. However, the meaning of these sentences differs depending on the focusing adverb. For instance, the meaning of (1a) is John loves Mary and no one else. (1b) means that John loves Mary and someone else. (1c) also means that John loves Mary and someone else, but (1b) contrasts with (1c) in that the focusing adverb even signals that the assertion (i.e. John loves Mary) is unlikely. Therefore, the different interpretations of (1) demonstrate that focusing adverbs cause changes in the truth conditions of a sentence.
It is also known that focusing adverbs (e.g. only, also, even) are sensitive to the placement of focus, as shown in (2).
(2) a. Jan only gave Bill [money] F . b. Jan only gave [Bill] F money. (Beaver et al. 2007:249) In (2), the focused elements accompanied by prosodic salience are marked by a subscripted F. The interpretation of (2) varies depending on which element is focused. For example, if money receives focus, as shown in (2a), the meaning of the sentence is that all that Jan gave Bill was money. If focus is shifted from money to Bill, as shown in (2b), the sentence means that the one person Jan gave money to was Bill.
Thus, (2) demonstrates that the prosodic marking from focus affects truth-conditional meaning.
While focusing adverbs are known to associate with focus, there has been a longstanding debate as to whether the element associated with only should be prosodically prominent. With reference to this debate, Rooth (1992) proposes two theories of focus: "weak" and "strong." A weak theory of focus interpretation stipulates a focused element in the domain of a focusing adverb such as only. Clark (2002, 2003) claim that prosodic salience of a focused element is required for only to create an association. They test the phonetically reduced pronoun 'im to examine whether it is able to associate with only. 1 The following context and example illustrate the interaction between only and the weak pronoun 'im (Beaver and Clark 2003:343).
(3) Context: You had many discussions with Sandy, but what I want to know is the extent to which you talked about Fred. Of all the times you talked with Sandy, how often was Fred the person you talked about?
(4) #I [only] F discussed'im with Sandy. Beaver and Clark (2003) argue that prosodic prominence on only is natural since it has not been mentioned in the previous context and is also the answer to the wh-question. As is shown, (4) is deemed infelicitous since the element associated with only (i.e. 'im) does not have prosodic prominence. Therefore, in this context, it seems reasonable to say that the element associated with only should be prosodically prominent.
Alternatively, according to the strong theory of focus, the element associated with only does not have to be prosodically prominent, rather the marking of focus may be contextually determined (Büring and Hartmann 2001, Kadmon, 2001, Rooth 1992, Schwarzschild 1997, Sudhoff 2010). Consider the following example (Rooth 1992:109). In (5), the weak theory of focus would predict that the element rice should be focused since it is associated with the focusing adverb only. However, the marking of focus falls on the verb eat since it contrasts with grow in this specific context. The NP rice is not prosodically prominent, although it is associated with only. Thus, focus effects are said to be marked in context.
In related work, Kadmon (2001) proposes a theory on discourse congruence that the marking of focus is directly contingent on the discourse context, in which the position of focus determines whether or not the marking of focus is felicitous. Consider (6). 1 In this sentence, 'im is a reduction of him.  (Kadmon 2001:334) In (6b), Bill contrasts with Steve in the discourse; thus, the marking of focus on Bill is felicitous. In contrast, (6c) is deemed infelicitous since Sue does not reflect contrast. Kadmon's theory on discourse congruence is along the lines that "[t]he focus is licensed in an utterance by a principle that relates that utterance to prior discourse" (Schwarzschild 1997:4).
In this study, we evaluate the two theories of focus (i.e. "weak" vs. "strong") regarding the issue of whether the element associated with ozik 'only' should be prosodically prominent. This study is accomplished by investigating the relationship between the focusing adverb ozik and focus/givenness in Korean, using a perception study of prosody. In relation to the purpose of the study, it is necessary to review the notions of focus and givenness; thus, section 1.1 covers the differences between them. In section 1.2, we consider the prosodic realizations of focus and givenness based on acoustic and auditory status. In section 1.3, we examine second occurrence focus, which is semantic focus and occurs when an element that has been already mentioned in discourse associates with a focusing adverb such as only.
Finally, section 1.4 presents research questions.

What is focus?
Halliday (1967) defines focus as denoting new information or the most crucial element in a sentence. With this definition, Halliday separates sentences into "new" and "given" sections. The new information is textually non-recoverable from the previous context, while the given information is textually recoverable.
Additionally, Jackendoff (1972) defines new information as the element that is not shared between the speaker and the hearer. Haviland and Clark (1974)  In (7b), the NP Andrew is marked by focus since it is new information, whereas the rest is given information serving as the background of the answer. In (7c), the marking of focus on his name is deemed infelicitous since it is given information. (7) demonstrates that appropriate prosody plays an important role in the question-answer pairs in which it is used. An immediate question arises as to whether or not given information can occur with prosodic prominence.
Previous studies have found that given information can also attract prosodic prominence when it reflects contrast (Lee 2003, Rochemont and Culicover 1990, Selkirk 2008 In (8), a subscripted CF represents the CF-marked element. As shown in (8b), William is given information since it has been already mentioned in the discourse. However, it is an exhaustive choice between many people at the party since Mrs. Dalloway introduced Anabel to William and no one else. In Rooth's (1992)  Contrastive focus is also found in alternative disjunctive questions, as in (9). 2 (9) a. agi-ga don-eul meonjeo jib-eot-ni pen-eul meonjeo jib-eot-ni?
baby-NOM money-ACC first pick-PST-Q pen-ACC first pick-PST-Q 'Did the baby pick the money first or did she pick the pen first?' (Lee 2003:5) b. agi-ga [don-eul] CF meonjeo jib-eoss-e baby-NOM money-ACC first pick-PST-DECL 'The baby picked the money first.' (Lee 2003:6) In (9b), the alternative pen-eul 'pen' is excluded and don-eul 'money' is an exhaustive choice of an alternatives set. Thus, the NP don-eul is marked by contrastive focus although it is given information. Lee (2003) argues that in Korean, the CF-marked element is realized with a focal accent.
Before turning to the next section, it is necessary to distinguish between his name in (7b) and William in (8b). What is common between them is that they are textually recoverable from a prior context. we examine the prosodic realizations of focus and GIVENness based on acoustic and auditory dimensions.

Prosodic realizations of focus and GIVENness
It is understood that a focused element is generally marked with prosodic prominence. However, the prosodic realization of focus varies depending on the intonational phonology of the language -e.g.
languages are largely classified as "head-prominent" and "edge-prominent" (Jun 2011 which is demarcated through intonational prominence the edge of a phrase. In these languages, a strong phrase boundary is inserted into the focused area, where a focused element shows a larger pitch range than its non-focused counterpart. 3 Figure 1 shows the prosodic differences between a non-focused and focused element in Korean. 4 In Figure 1, the pitch range is expanded through the entire focused element (i.e. mandureul 'dumplings') in the third area, as opposed to head-prominence languages, in which the primary stressed syllable bears prosodic prominence. In edge-prominence languages, GIVEN information is characterized by dephrasing, which is the absence of accentual phrase boundaries (Ladd 1996). Consider the following examples. In (11), the accentual phrase is represented by curly brackets. 5 In (11a), the NP ireumi 'name' is new information, thus forming an accentual phrase. However, since ireumi in (12b) is GIVEN, the accentual phrase of the NP is dephrased. 6 The NP combines with the preceding phrase, and then the two phrases form one accentual phrase. Jun (2011) argues that a dephrased phrase such as ireumi in (11b) is realized with a substantially lowered/reduced pitch range.
Previous studies have also paid attention to the auditory perception of focus and GIVENness and have found that the distinction between them is well perceived. Fowler and Housum (1987) find that English listeners can distinguish between focus and GIVENness by prosody. Nooteboom and Kruyt (1987) investigate the prosodic status of focus and GIVENness in Dutch, conducting an acceptability judgment test.
They observe that Dutch listeners interpret new information as natural when it is focused, and they interpret GIVEN information as plausible when it is deaccented. Likewise, it has been observed that the prosodic behavior of focus is proven to be perceptually salient in many languages, including Dutch

Second occurrence focus
Second occurrence focus (henceforth SOF) is semantic focus and occurs when an element which has already been mentioned in discourse associates with a focusing adverb such as only.  (Partee 1999:31) In (12), a subscripted F and SOF mark the focused element and the SOF element, respectively. It is understood that the focused phrase the graduate students in (12a) is characterized by prosodic prominence.
However, there still remains a question as to whether SOF is prosodically prominent or not. According to the weak theory of focus, there must be a prosodically prominent element associated with only. In this case, it is assumed that SOF receives prosodic prominence by virtue of being associated with only.
Alternatively, according to the strong theory of focus, the element associated with only does not have to be prosodically prominent. Instead, the marking of focus may be contextually constrained. If this is the case, the graduate students in (12b) may not be prosodically prominent because it has already been mentioned and is not in a contrastive relationship.
Regarding the phonetic realizations of SOF, previous studies have not reached a consensus on the prosodic prominence of SOF based on its phonetic realizations. Krifka (2004) and Partee (1991) argue that SOF is not prosodically prominent. Other authors, such as Bartels (2004)

Research questions
Thus far, we have examined the two theories of focus ("weak" vs. "strong") on how association with focus is established in grammar. From the weak theory of focus point of view, the element associated with only must be prosodically prominent. In the other view, the element associated with only does not have to be prosodically prominent. Moreover, we have discussed the prosodic properties of discourse-new and contrastive focus versus GIVENness. Both contrastive and discourse-new focus attract prosodic prominence, whereas GIVENness is realized with reduced pitch values.
We have found that previous studies have not reached an agreement on the prosodic behavior of SOF. It has been observed that the prosody of SOF is not prosodically prominent (Krifka 2004, Partee 1991 Based on the background information, we formulate a research question: Can the element associated with Korean ozik be dephrased? 7 If the answer is yes, the strong theory of focus interpretation 7 A reviewer claimed that in Korean, the correlation between prosody and focus/GIVENness can be predicted by morpho-syntactic cues. This claim may be true, but there are several cases when prosodic cues are deemed more important than morpho-syntactic cues. We hereby present two cases: First, prosody helps to disambiguate a syntactic ambiguity. Consider (i).
(i) hyeonmyeonghan agi-ui appa wise baby-Gen daddy 'the [wise baby's] daddy' or 'the wise [baby's daddy] (Schafer and Jun 2002:229) As shown in (i), the adjective hyeonmyeonghan modifies the first noun (agi) or the complex noun (agi-ui appa). Schafer and Jun (2002) argue that syntactic information does not resolve a syntactic ambiguity, but instead prosody helps listeners to parse the ambiguous structure.
Second, prosody varies depending on the informational status of a sentence. In the K-ToBI system (Jun 1993(Jun , 1998(Jun , 2006, a three-syllabled accentual phrase shows a high tone (H) at the edge of the constituent regardless of whether the accentual phrase includes a suffix (gicha-reul) or not (bihaenggi-∅). Consider the following example: In (iia), when the sentence is in a non-focus condition, gichareul exhibits a high tone at the edge of the constituent. However, when gichareul has narrow focus (iib), the pitch range of the constituent is significantly more expanded than that in the non-focus condition. Whereas, when the equivalent element is GIVEN (iic), it is characterized with a substantially reduced pitch range. That is, the three-way distinctions between non-focus, narrow focus, and GIVENness are made by only prosodic cues. In the case of (ii), morpho-syntactic cues do not provide detailed information since the structure is morphologically and syntactically the same. The will win out. Conversely, the weak focus of theory will be justified if the element associated with ozik should not be dephrased. To address the issue, we modify pitch contours of ozik and the element associated with the focusing adverb. The goal of the current study is completed through a naturalness rating experiment. Additionally, OcikH is the prosodic model where only the focusing adverb has prosodic prominence. But, unless the high tone on ozik is not perceived as prosodically more prominent that the low tone on an object, it is also unlikely that listeners evaluate this case as OzikH. In order to prevent the unwanted effects of the original utterances, we purposefully employed the TD-PSOLA synthesis function through Praat. test materials in this study are relevant to the examples in (ii). We argue that even the same structure exhibits different prosodic effects depending on the informational status regulated by discourse contexts. The goal of this study was to therefore test whether or not this claim can be substantiated. a spoken language. But instead, to construct a more natural sentence, the reviewer proposed to attach a restrictive suffix (-man) to lexical items, such as Jeoneun gichaman tamnida. This idea is completely acceptable. However, there is a specific and an important motive in utilizing a focusing adverb (ozik) instead of -man. As noted before, focus in Korean is characterized by prosodic phrasing with intonational prominence at the edge of a phrase. Let us examine a sentence Jeoneun gichaman tamnida as an example. In this sentence, when kicha 'the train' is focused, prosodic prominence occurs at the edge of the constituent gichaman. When -man is focused, prosodic prominence also occurs at the edge of the constituent just as before. This scenario would inadvertently raise a confounding effect that may take place when employing -man. In order to eliminate the confounding effect, we did not attach -man to lexical items.   In Figure 2, the shaded area indicates the target words ozik gichareul and the gray dots indicate the original pitch contour of the third syllable of gichareul. It is shown that the F0 peak of gichareul is lower than that of ozik. Using the TD-PSOLA synthesis function, we were able to modify the F0 peak of gichareul properly. 9 Based on the F0 modification, we provided three different prosodic models: OzikH 9 A reviewer expressed concern with the use of synthetic/resynthesized speech in the perception experiment. The reviewer suggested that we run a control experiment to test whether or not there was degradation (e.g. metallic or robotic sounds) in the modified stimuli. Following the reviewer's suggestion, we did a control test. The result showed that there was no degradation of the synthesized stimuli.
Fifteen native Korean speakers, nine females and six males between the ages of 20 and 31, evaluated the naturalness of both the six modified stimuli and the six natural stimuli used in the study. The stimuli were presented to the subjects in a randomized order with no context. The subjects rated each stimulus using a seven-point scale (very natural" = 7; "natural" = 6; "somewhat natural" = 5; "neither natural nor unnatural" = 4; "somewhat unnatural" = 3; "unnatural" = 2; "very unnatural" = 1).
The mean value of the modified stimuli was 3.63 and that of the original stimuli was 3.56. A comparison of these two values unexpectedly reveals the mean value of the naturalness of modified speech as even greater than that of original speech. A paired ttest shows that there is no significant difference between them (t[89] = 0.53, p = 0.57). The result suggests that the modified stimuli are not degraded.
A question remains as to why the overall rating of modified and original speech is relatively both low. Table i displays the mean value of each category by listener. We see that although "very" low ratings were given by some listeners such as L5, L12, and L13, most of the listeners overall gave low ratings, except the listeners L7 and L8. As noted before, we placed a focal accent on ozik, the object, or both, for the purpose of our current study. While a focal accent may sound natural when presented in an appropriate context, it is not generally used in an isolated context. We speculate that this is the reason the participants rated modified and original speech as relatively low.  (the focusing adverb has prosodic prominence), ObjectH (the object has prosodic prominence), and DoubleH (both the focusing adverb and the object have prosodic prominence). Figure 3 displays the three prosodic models.

Stimuli
The three prosodic models were provided in competing discourse contexts. 10 In the first context, the element associated with ozik was designed to be either discourse-new (14a) or contrastive (15a). In the second context, the equivalent element was designed to be GIVEN. For example, in (14a), gichareul 'the train' receives discourse-new focus since it is new information. In (15a), daehanhanggongeul 'Korean Air' receives contrastive focus since it reflects contrast. However, in (14b) and (15b), gichareul and daehanhanggongeul are GIVEN since they have been mentioned in the previous discourse and are not involved in a contrastive relationship. 12 sound files (3 modified prosodic models × 2 target sentences × 2 discourse contexts) served as the target stimuli, and another set of 12 sound files were used as fillers. In total, this study includes 24 sound files. (14) and (15)

Subjects
Twenty native speakers of Korean (12 females and 8 males) participated in this perception experiment.
They were between 21 and 37 years old when the experiment was conducted. The participants were naïve to the purpose of the experiment. They were recruited at Hannam University and were paid for their participation. Before the experiment, consent forms were obtained from each participant. None of the participants reported problems with their hearing.

Procedure
We conducted a rating experiment using a 7-point scale ("very natural" = 7; "natural" = 6; "somewhat natural" = 5; "neither natural nor unnatural" = 4; "somewhat unnatural" = 3; "unnatural" = 2; "very unnatural" = 1). The experiment was made using PowerPoint slides.  Participants first participated in a trial test before the actual experiment in order to become familiar with the procedure of the experiment. Second, participants listened to the discourse context said aloud by the author, and they were also allowed to read the discourse context whenever necessary. Following the discourse context, a target sentence was played through a computer. Note that the target sentences were not shown on the PowerPoint slides. Listeners were asked to rate the naturalness of the target sentences 11 The top of the screenshot can be translated as follows: "The following sound file to be played will occur right after the discourse context. After you listen to the discourse context, please rate the naturalness of the sound file. based on the discourse context. The 24 sound files used for the experiment were presented in randomized order. The answer sheet was presented on paper. They were allowed to listen to the same target sentence up to three times until they felt confident about the judgment. The present experiment was conducted in a quiet room at Hannam University.

Statistics
The responses, based on a 7-point scale, were converted to z-scores to normalize the results across listeners. Schütze and Sprouse (to appear) find the z-score transformation useful since it is able to There were two independent variables in this study: CONTOUR (OzikH, ObjectH, and DoubleH) and DISCOURSE (focus and GIVENness). The dependent variable was the z-score. In order to analyze the prosodic correlation of the focusing adverb and discourse functions in discourse, two-way repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted. Furthermore, we conducted multiple pairwise comparisons to find out which prosodic model was the most favored in a group under the effect of DISCOURSE. Figure 4 shows the sentence Jeoneun ozik gichareul tamnida 'I only take the train.' In this sentence, the element (i.e. gichareul) associated with ozik was designed to be discourse-new or GIVEN depending on the discourse context. Figure 5 shows the sentence Jeoneun ozik daehanhanggongeul iyonghamnida 'I only take Korean Air.' In this sentence, the element (i.e. daehanhanggongeul) associated with ozik was designed to be contrastive or GIVEN depending on the discourse context. Figures 5 and 6   Let us now turn to Figure 6. In both Figure 5a and 6a, the results show little variance regardless of whether the focus is discourse-new or contrastive. That is, DoubleH has the greatest value, followed by ObjectH and OzikH.

Results
The same is true of the case when the element (gichareul or daehanhanggongeul) is GIVEN in context. In this case, the results of OzikH are the greatest, followed by DoubleH and ObjectH. This study does not aim to determine the differences between the focus types: discourse-new and contrastive. Therefore, we collapsed over the two focus types for further analyses. Figure 7 displays the results of the collapsed focus types.    On the other hand, when the element associated with ozik is GIVEN, it turns out that OzikH (z-score: 0.85), which has prosodic prominence on the focusing adverb, is shown to be the most favored prosodic model. Meanwhile in the same discourse context, we find ObjectH (z-score: −0.87) to be the most unnatural prosodic model. That is, when the element associated with ozik is GIVEN, the naturalness of the three prosodic models decreases in this order: OzikH > DoubleH > ObjectH. Lee  In summary, we have examined whether the element associated with the focusing adverb ozik is dephrased in Korean. To settle this issue, we designed two competing contexts. In the first instance, the element associated with ozik was designed to be focused. In the second instance, the corresponding element was designed to be GIVEN. The findings of this study provide the following rankings: (17) The rankings of the three prosodic models a. DoubleH > ObjectH > OzikH when the element associated with ozik is focused in context; b. OzikH > DoubleH > ObjectH when the element associated with ozik is GIVEN in context.

Discussion
The results of the three prosodic models have provided supporting evidence that the element associated with ozik can be dephrased. With this evidence, we first evaluate the two theories of focus: "weak" and "strong." Second, we describe the naturalness of the prosodic models under the DISCOURSE effect.

How is association with focus established?
As noted earlier, according to the weak theory of focus, there must be a prosodically prominent element associated with ozik. Alternatively, according to the strong theory of focus, the element associated with ozik does not have to be prosodically prominent, but rather the relationship between focus and background may be constrained in discourse. Following the results of this study, we support the strong theory of focus interpretation that the element associated with ozik does not always have to show prosodic prominence.
We find that the element associated with ozik can be either prosodically prominent or dephrased depending on the context. Thus, focus and GIVENness can be said to be discourse-driven. We give two reasons for this position.
First and foremost, OzikH, which has prosodic prominence on the focusing adverb, is shown to be the most favored prosodic model when the element associated with ozik is GIVEN. Authors such as Beaver and Clark (2002,2003), and Jacobs (1984) argue that the element associated with only is semantically constrained by the focusing adverb. That is, a focusing adverb such as only requires a salient prosodic element in its domain to construct an association. The finding of OzikH, however, casts doubt on the previous proposals because the element associated with ozik turns out to be dephrased when it is GIVEN in context. Said a different way, the finding of OzikH shows evidence that the element associated with ozik can be dephrased. Second, when the element associated with ozik is focused, DoubleH (where both the focusing adverb and the object have prosodic prominence) is shown to be the most natural prosodic model, as opposed to the finding of OzikH in the other context. That is, the same target sentences behave differently depending on the discourse context. This finding implies that discourse functions such as focus and GIVENness are not directly contingent on the lexical semantics of the focusing adverb. Instead, the relationship between focus and background is constrained in context, which is in agreement with previous findings (Büring and Hartmann 2001, Kadmon 2001, Schwarzschild 1997, Sudhoff 2010).

Naturalness of prosodic models under the DISCOURSE effect
We found that the three prosodic models are highly influenced by discourse context. For example, when the element associated with ozik is focused, DoubleH is shown to exhibit the most acceptable prosodic model. An obvious question to ask now is: why is DoubleH the most favored in this context? First, ozik has not been mentioned in the previous context. Therefore, it receives discourse-new focus due to its nature of novelty. 12 Second, in the case of gichareul, it has not been mentioned in a prior context; it is obvious that the prosodic prominence on gichareul indicates discourse-new focus. As opposed to gichareul, daehanhanggongeul has been mentioned in the previous discourse but contrasts with Delta Airline in context. Hence, it receives contrastive focus. Therefore, DoubleH is most favored when the element associated with ozik is focused. However, in the same environment, OzikH, which has prosodic prominence on the focusing adverb, is shown to be most penalized. This is because OzikH indicates the prosodic model where the element associated with ozik lacks prosodic prominence. Thus, the low phrasal accent on the element associated with ozik is considered most unlikely.
In contrast, when the element associated with ozik is GIVEN, OzikH is shown to be the most acceptable prosodic model. As noted above, this can be explained by the discourse-new focus and presumably the contrastive focus of ozik. In contrast, in the same environment, ObjectH is shown to be most unlikely. This is because the element associated with ozik has already been mentioned in the discourse and is not in a contrastive relationship. Therefore, it should lack prosodic prominence via dephrasing.

Conclusion
This study has addressed the issue of whether or not the element associated with ozik can be dephrased in shown to be the most favored prosodic model when the element associated with ozik is focused in discourse. In contrast, OzikH (where the focusing adverb has prosodic prominence) is shown to be most optimal when the element associated with ozik is GIVEN in discourse. Therefore, we argue that the element associated with ozik does not always have to be prominent, but instead the prosodic status of focus/GIVENness is constrained by the discourse.
This study provides an articulated view of how ozik and focus/GIVENness are managed in discourse by prosody. It demonstrates that Korean listeners make use of prosody to perceive the different levels between ozik and informational status that vary depending on the context.