Banner Portal
Prosodic correlation between the focusing adverb ozik ‘only’ and focus/givenness in korean
PDF

Keywords

Focusing adverb
Focus
Givenness
Prosody
Discourse

How to Cite

1.
Lee Y- cheo. Prosodic correlation between the focusing adverb ozik ‘only’ and focus/givenness in korean. J. of Speech Sci. [Internet]. 2021 Feb. 4 [cited 2024 Feb. 21];2(2):85-111. Available from: https://econtents.bc.unicamp.br/inpec/index.php/joss/article/view/15034

Abstract

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.

https://doi.org/10.20396/joss.v2i2.15034
PDF

References

Avesani C, Vayra M. Accenting, deaccenting, and information structure in Italian dialogues. In: Dybkjaer L, Minker W, editors. Proceedings of the 6th DIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue; 2005 Sep 2-3; Lisbon; 2005. p.19-24.

Bartels C. Acoustic correlates of ‘second occurrence’ focus: towards an experimental investigation. In: Kamp H, Partee B, editors. Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004. p.354- 361.

Bartels C, Kingston J. Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus. In: Bosch P, van der Sandt R, editors. Focus and natural language processing, Vol. 1: Intonation and syntax. Heidelberg: Working papers of the IBM Institute for Logic and Linguistics; 1994. p.1-10.

Baumann S. Degrees of givenness and their prosodic marking. Paper presented at the International Symposium on “Discourse and prosody as a complex interface”, 2005 Sep 8-9; Aix-en-Provence.

Baumann S, Hadelich K. On the perception of intonationally marked givenness after auditory and visual priming. Proceedings of the AAI Workshop “Prosodic Interfaces”. Nantes; 2003. p.21-26.

Beaver D, Clark B. The proper treatments of focus sensitivity. In: Mikkelsen L, Potts C, editors. Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville: Cascadilla Press; 2002. p.15-28.

Beaver D, Clark B. Always and only: Why not all focus-sensitive operators are alike. Natural Language Semantics. 2003;11:323-362.

Beaver D, Clark B, Flemming E, Jaeger F, Wolters M. When semantics meets phonetics: Acoustical studies of second-occurrence focus. Language. 2007;83(2): 245-276.

Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [computer software]. 1999-2012.

Büring D, Hartmann K. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 2001;19(2):229-281.

Cruttenden A. The de-accenting of given information: A cognitive universal? In: Bernini G, Schwartz M, editors. Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter; 2006. p.311- 356.

Dohen M, Lœvenbruck H. Interaction of audition and vision for the perception of prosodic contrastive focus. Language and Speech. 2009;52:177-206.

Féry C, Ishihara S. The phonology of second occurrence focus. Journal of Linguistics. 2009;45(2):285-313.

Fowler C, Housum J. Talkers’ signaling of “new” and “old” words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language. 1987;26:489-504.

Halliday MAK. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton; 1967.

Hartmann K, Zimmermann M. Not only ’only’, but ’too’, too: Alternative-sensitive particles in Bura. In: Grønn A, editor. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12; 2007 Sep 20-22; Oslo; 2008. p.196-211.

Haviland SE, Clark HH. What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1974;13(5):512-521.

Hirschberg J, Ward G. Accent and bound anaphora. Cognitive Linguistics. 1991;2(2):101-121.

Jackendoff R. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1972.

Jacobs J. The syntax of bound focus in German. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik. 1984;25:172-200.

Jannedy S. Prosodic focus in Vietnamese. In: Ishihara S, Jannedy S, Schwarz A, editors. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 08; 2007. p.209-230.

Jun S-A. The Phonetics and Phonology of Korean Prosody [PhD thesis]. Columbus: The Ohio State University; 1993.

Jun S-A. The accentual phrase in the Korean prosodic hierarchy. Phonology. 1998;15(2):189-226.

Jun S-A. Intonational phonology of Seoul Korean revisited. In: Vance TJ, Jones K, editors. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14. Stanford: CSLI; 2006. p.15-26.

Jun S-A. Prosodic markings of complex NP focus, syntax, and the pre-/post-focus string. In: Washburn MB, McKinney-Bock K, Varis E, Sawyer A, Tomaszewicz B, editors. Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville: Cascadilla Press; 2011. p.214-230.

Kadmon N. Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Oxford: Blackwell; 2001.

Krahmer E, Swerts M. On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication. 2001;34:391- 405.

Krahmer E, Ruttkay Z, Swerts M, Wesselink W. Pitch, eyebrows, and the perception of focus. Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002; 2002 Apr 11-13; Aix-en-Provence; 2002. p.443-446.

Krifka M. Focus and/or context: A second look at second occurrence expressions. In: Kamp H, Partee B, editors. Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004. p.187-207.

Krifka M. Association with focus phrases. In: Molnar V, Winkler S, editors. The architecture of focus. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter; 2006. p.105-136.

Ladd DR. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.

Lee C. 2003. Contrastive topic and/or contrastive focus. In: McClure B, editor. Japanese/Korean linguistics 12. Stanford: CSLI; 2003. p.1-13.

Lee Y-c, Nambu S. Prosody and semantics of the focus particles always and only in Korean: Theoretical implications from a perception experiment. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics. 2012;18(1):151-159. [accessed 10 May 2012]. Available from: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol18/iss1/18/.

Lee Y-c, Xu Y. Phonetic realization of contrastive focus in Korean. Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2010; 2010 May 10-14; Chicago; 2010. p.100033:1-4. 35. Liu F. Intonation systems of Mandarin and English: A functional approach. [PhD thesis]. Chicago: University of Chicago; 2009.

Nooteboom SG, Kruyt JG. Accents, focus distribution, and the perceived distribution of given and new information: An experiment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1987;82(5):1512-1524.

Partee B. Topic, focus and quantification. In: Moore SK, Wyner AZ, editors. Proceedings of the 1st Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference. 1991 Apr 19-21; Ithaca; 1991. p.159-188.

Partee B. Focus, quantification, and semantics-pragmatics issues. In: Bosch P, van der Sandt R, editors. Focus: Linguistics, cognitive, and computational perspectives. Cambridge University Press; 1999. p.213-231.

Rochemont M, Culicover P. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.

Rooth M. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics. 1992;1:75-116.

Rooth M. Focus. In: Lappin S, editor. Handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell; 1996. p.271-297.

Schafer A, Jun S-A. Effects of accentual phrasing on adjective interpretation in Korean. In: Nakayama M, editor. East Asian Language Processing. Stanford: CSLI; 2002. p.223-55.

Schütze C, Sprouse J. Judgment data. In: Sharma D, Podesva R, editors. Research Methods in Linguistics; To appear. [accessed 14 Nov 2012]. Available from: http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jsprouse/papers/ch3.judgment.data.pdf

Schwarzschild R. Why some foci must associate; 1997. [accessed 25 Dec 2011]. Available from: http://lumiere.ens.fr/~bspector/SemPrag06/Schwhartzchild_Focus.pdf.

Schwarzschild R. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics. 1999;7:141-177.

Selkirk E. Contrastive focus, givenness and unmarked status of “discourse new”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica. 2008;55:1-16.

Sudhoff S. 2010. Focus particles and contrast in German. Lingua. 2010;120(6):1458-1475.

Xu Y. TimeNormalizeF0.praat. [accessed 31 Aug 2011]. Available from: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/yi/tools.html. 2005-2012.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2012 Yong-cheo Lee

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.