Abstract
It has been observed that prosodic accents on wh-phrases improve the acceptability of Intervention Effect configurations in Korean and Japanese. However, this prosody-driven salvation effect has been studied only with the subject-intervener configuration, not with an object-intervener configuration, and surprisingly, the object-intervener configuration is actually not saved by prosody, unlike the situation with subject-interveners. Based on this new observation, the main goal of this paper is to argue that intervention effects, at least in Korean (and Japanese),do not constitute a single phenomenon which can be uniformly explained; structurally similar sentences may have different derivations, and prosody provides a clue to discern the different syntactic derivations which are involved. I crucially assume Korean has two distinct types of covert wh-movement-phrasal movement and ff-movement, as proposed in (Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its Kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). I propose the wh-phrasal movement hypothesis in Korean: when a wh-phrase undergoes phrasal movement in Korean, this movement is represented by means of prosodic accent. As a result of this, the prosody-driven salvation effects in the subject-intervener configuration are attributed to semantic intervention effects applying to ff-movement (not phrasal movement) and the lack of the prosody-driven salvation effects in the object-intervener configuration are suggested to be due to the other locality constraints (Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its Kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
References
Arregi, Karlos. 2001. Focus and word order in Basque. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Beaver, David & Clark Brady. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444304176Search in Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics 4. 1–56.10.1007/BF00263536Search in Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretations. Natural Language Semantics. 14. 1–56.10.1007/s11050-005-4532-ySearch in Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid & Shin-Sook Kim. 1997. On Wh- and operator-scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics. 6. 339–384.10.1023/A:1008280026102Search in Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cédric. 1999. Some in-situ, some in SpecCP. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Search in Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cédric. 2000. Properties of French interrogatives. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Search in Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2008. On the operator freezing effect. Natural Language and Linguist Theory 26. 249–287.10.1007/s11049-008-9037-1Search in Google Scholar
Breen, Mara. 2007. The identification and function of English prosodic features. Doctoral dissertation, Brain and Cognitive Science, MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1995. Focus and checking theory. In István Kenesei (ed.), Levels and structures, approaches to Hungarian 5, 31–43. Szeged: JATE.Search in Google Scholar
Brody, Michael & Kriszta Szendrői. 2010. Exhaustive focus is an answer. http://ling.auf.net /lingBuzz/001113.Search in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view. In Li Charles (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chang, Suk-Jin. 1973. A generative study of discourse: Pragmatic aspects of Korean with reference to English. Language Research 9(Supplement). 2.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Johan Rooryck. 2002. Types of Wh-in-situ, Ms., Leiden University.Search in Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mi. Yu. 1990. Syntax and phrasing in Korean. In S. Inkelas & D. Zec (eds.), The phonology-syntax connection, 47–62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Choe, Hyon-Sook. 1994. Syntactic WH-Movement in Korean and Licensing. In Young-Key Kim-Renaud (ed.), Theoretical issues in Korean linguistics, 275:302. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications for Stanford Linguistics Society.Search in Google Scholar
Choe, Jae-Woong. 1985. Pitch-accent and q/wh words in Korean. In Susumu Kuno et al. (eds.), Proceedings of Harvard studies in Korean linguistics, 113–123. Cambridge: Harvard University.Search in Google Scholar
Choi, Hye-won. 1996. Optimizing structure in context: Scrambling and information structure. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & And Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Deguchi, Masanori & Yoshihisa Kitagawa. 2002. Prosody and Wh-questions. In Masako Hirotani (ed.), The Proceedings of NELS 32, 73–92. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Search in Google Scholar
Domínguez, Laura. 2004. Mapping focus: The syntax and prosody of focus in Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Boston.Search in Google Scholar
Drubig, Bernhard. 2000. Towards a typology of focus and focus constructions. Linguistics 41(1). 1–50.10.1515/ling.2003.003Search in Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245–273.10.1353/lan.1998.0211Search in Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Lenertová. Denisa 2011. Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Lang Linguist Theory 29. 169–209.10.1007/s11049-010-9109-xSearch in Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Shinichiro Ishihara. 2010. How focus and givenness shape prosody. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (ed.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives, 36–63. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0003Search in Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Samek-Lodovici Vieri 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in Nested Foci. Language 82. 131–150.10.1353/lan.2006.0031Search in Google Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Hirotani, Masako. 2005. Prosody and LF: Processing Japanese wh-questions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Search in Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1986. FOCUS in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110849165Search in Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2006. Separating “focus movement’’ from focus. In V. S. S. Karimi et al. (eds.), Clever and right: A Festschrift for Joe Emonds. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1075/la.101.07horSearch in Google Scholar
Horvath. Julia. 2010. “Discourse features”, syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua 120. 1346–1369.Search in Google Scholar
Hwang, Heeju. 2007. Wh-Phrase questions and prosody in Korean. Paper presented at the 17th, Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference.Search in Google Scholar
Hwang, Hyun Kyung. 2011. Scope, prosody, and pitch accent: The prosodic marking of Wh-scope in two vrieties of Japanese and South Kyeongsang Korean. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Search in Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2002. Invisible but audible Wh-scope marking: Wh-constructions and deaccenting in Japanese. The Proceedings of WCCFL 21, 180–193. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out. The Linguistic Review 24. 137–167.Search in Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2011. Japanese focus prosody revisited: Freeing focus from prosodic phrasing. Lingua 121. 1870–1889.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.008Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 1993. The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Los Angeles.Search in Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah & Oh Mira. 1996. A prosodic analysis of three types of Wh-phrases in Korean. Language and Speech 39. 37–61.10.1177/002383099603900103Search in Google Scholar
Jung, Yeun-Jin. 2010. Syntax-phonology interface of Wh-questions. Studies in Generative Grammar 20(1). 549–576.10.15860/sigg.20.1.201002.73Search in Google Scholar
Jung, Yeun-Jin. 2012. On the nature of wh-prosody and its syntactic dependency. Korean Journal of Linguistics 37(2). 417–444.10.18855/lisoko.2012.37.2.009Search in Google Scholar
Jung, Yeun-Jin. 2014. On the syntactic grounding of the prosodic interpretation of Wh-questions. Studies in Generative Grammar 24(1). 105–131.10.15860/sigg.24.1.201402.105Search in Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Hyang-Sook Sohn. 1997. Phrasing and focus in Northern Kyungsang Korean. In Pier Marco Bertinetto, Livio Gaeta, Georgi Jetchev & David Michaels (eds.), Certamen phonologicum III, 137–156. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Shin-sook. 2005. Focus intervention effects in questions. Handout of Theoretical East Asian Languages 3. Harvard University.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Shin-Sook. 2002. Focus matters: Two types of intervention effect. Paper presented at WCCFL 21, Santa Cruz.Search in Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa, Katsuo Tamaoka & Satoshi Tomioka. 2012. Prosodic matters in intervention effects in Japanese: An experimental study. Lingua 124. 41–63.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.01.006Search in Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of Why-in-situ: Merge into [SpecCP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 23. 867–916.10.1007/s11049-004-5923-3Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Representation of focus. In A Von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.), Handbook of semantics, 825–834. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110126969.10.825Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Elisabeth Selkirk. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24. 93–135.10.1515/TLR.2007.005Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Elisabeth Selkirk. 2010. Distinguishing contrastive, new and given information. Talk delivered at the International Conference on Information Structure, sponsored by SFB 632: Informationsstruktur. Potsdam, July 2010.Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25(1). 1–49.Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In C. Fery & W. Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Akademie Verlag (= Studia Grammatica 52), 287–319. Berlin: AKademie Verlag10.1515/9783050080116.287Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 243–276.10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2Search in Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1990. Scrambling in German and the specificity effect. Ms., MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Szendröi Kriszta. 2004. Superman sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 149–159.10.1162/ling.2004.35.1.149Search in Google Scholar
Park, Duk-soo. 2010. A pitch analysis of two types of Wh-Clauses in Korean. In Sang-Oak Lee (eds.), Contemporary Korean linguistics: International perspectives, 252–270. Paju-si, Korea: Thaehaksa Publishing Co.Search in Google Scholar
Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying open the cleft. Northeast Linguistic Society 27. 337–351.Search in Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Eric J. Reuland & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its Kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5365.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet & Beckman Mary. 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7Search in Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing Co.10.1075/sigla.4Search in Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Search in Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.10.1007/BF02342617Search in Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9781444343069.ch14Search in Google Scholar
Soh, Hooi Ling. 2005. Wh-in-situ in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 143–155.10.1162/ling.2005.36.1.143Search in Google Scholar
Sohn, Keunwon. 1995. Negative polarity items, scope and economy. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Search in Google Scholar
Stjepanović, Sandra. 2003. Multiple Wh-fronting in serbo-croatian matrix questions and the matrix sluicing construction. In B. Cedric & K. Grohmann (ed.), Multiple wh-fronting, 255–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.64.14stjSearch in Google Scholar
Sugahara, Mariko. 2003. Downtrends and post-FOCUS intonation in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Search in Google Scholar
Sun-Ah, Jun & Hyuck-Joon Lee. 1998. Phonetic and phonological markers of contrastive Focus in Korean, in Proceedings of the 5th ICSLP, 4: 1295–1298. Sydney.Search in Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20. 37–78.10.1515/tlir.2003.002Search in Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2007. Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Wh-interrogatives in Japanese and Korean. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 1570–1590.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.03.002Search in Google Scholar
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1994. On nominal islands and LF extraction in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12. 121–175.10.1007/BF00992747Search in Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric & Maria Vilkuna. 1998. On Rheme and Kontrast. In Peter.W. Culicover and Louise. McNally (eds.), Syntax and semantics, 79–108. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004373167_005Search in Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Wold, Dag. 1996. Long distance selective binding: The case of focus. In T. Galloway & S. Spence (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 6. 311–328. Ithaca, N.Y: CLC.10.3765/salt.v6i0.2766Search in Google Scholar
Xie, Zhiguo. 2013. Focus, (non-)exhaustivity, and intervention effects in Wh-in-situ argument questions. The Linguistic Review 30(4). 585–617.10.1515/tlr-2013-0019Search in Google Scholar
Xu, Yi. & Xu Ching X. 2005. Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics 33. 159–197.10.1016/j.wocn.2004.11.001Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Barry C.-Y. 2008. Focus intervention effects as competition effects. In Proceedings of NELS-39, Cornell University, NY, November 7–9Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Barry C.-Y. 2012. Intervention effects and Wh-construals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21. 43–87.10.1007/s10831-011-9080-5Search in Google Scholar
Yoon, Suwon. 2011. A structural asymmetry in intervention effects. Lingua 121. 942–962.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.12.006Search in Google Scholar
Yun, Jiwon. 2012. The deterministic prosody of indeterminates. Paper presented at WCCFL 29, Somerville, MA.Search in Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2006. Contrastive focus. In G. Fanselow C. Fery and Manfred Krifka (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure (ISIS), volume 6, 147–160. Potsdam: Universitatsverlag Potsdam.Search in Google Scholar
Zubizarrreta, Maria-Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 2003. Intervention effects in the French Wh-in-situ construction: Syntax or interpretation? In Rafael Núñez-Cedeño, Luis López & Richard Cameron (eds.), A romance perspective in language knowledge and use, 359–379. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.238Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
