Lanaguage Research
Language Education Institute, Seoul National University
Article

Ambiguity of Response Particles to Negative Utterances in Korean and English

HaeKyung Wee1,
*Corresponding Author : Professor, British and American Humanities, Dankook University, 152, Jukjeon-ro, Suji-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 16890, Korea , E-mail: hkwee@dankook.ac.kr

ⓒ Copyright 2019 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Oct 02, 2019 ; Revised: Nov 05, 2019 ; Accepted: Dec 26, 2019

Published Online: Dec 31, 2019

ABSTRACT

This study explores the ambiguity of Korean response particles (RP) ung ‘yes’ and ani ‘no’ responding to long form negation (LFN), in comparison to the ambiguity of RPs to the so-called “high negation” and “low negation” in English. The results show that i) the ambiguity of Korean LFN is due to two possible interpretations, i.e., pragmatic and literal, ii) Korean RPs are anaphors, supporting Krifka’s (2013) propositional anaphoric approach to English RPs, but iii) they refer to only one antecedent from the preceding proposition, that is, for the outermost NegP only, for both SFN (short form negation) and LFN. In contrast, the ambiguity of English high negation is two-fold. One type of ambiguity is due to the two possible interpretations of high negation, pragmatic versus literal, just like Korean; the other type of ambiguity occurs within the literal meaning of high negation and is due to the availability of multiple antecedents, just like with English low negation.

Keywords: response particle; ambiguity; long form negation; short form negation; high negation

References

1.

Asher, N. (1986). Belief in discourse representation theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 15, 127-189 .

2.

Büring, D., & Gunlogson, C. (2000). Aren't positive and negative polar questions the same? Talk at Linguistic Society of America (LSA) Annual Meeting .

3.

Cornish, F. (1992). So be it: the discourse-semantics of so and it. Journal of Semantics, 9, 163-178 .

4.

Farkas, D. F., & Roelofsen, F. (2015). Polar initiatives and polar particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language, 91, 359-414. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0017 .

5.

Frank, A. (1996). Context dependence in modal constructions (Doctoral dissertation). Universität Stuttgart .

6.

Geurts, B. (1998). Presuppositions and anaphors in attitude contexts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 545-601 .

7.

Gunlogson, C. (2002). Declarative questions. SALT XII, 124-134. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v12i0.2860 .

8.

Han C-h., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2007). LV-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(1), 1-47 .

9.

Holmberg, A. (2012). On the syntax of yes and no in English. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics, 18, 52-72 .

10.

Kramer R. & Rawlins, K. (2011). Polarity particles: an ellipsis account. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 479-492 .

11.

Krifka, M. (2013). Response particles as propositional anaphors. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 23, 1-18. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2676 .

12.

Krifka, M. (2014). Embedding illocutionary acts. In T. Roeper & M. Speas (Eds.), Recursion: Complexity in cognition. Springer, 125-155 .

13.

Krifka, M. (2017). Negated polarity questions as denegations of assertions. In C. Lee, F. Kiefer, & M. Krifka (Eds.), Contrastiveness in information structure, alternatives, and scalar implicatures. 359-398. Dordrecht: Springer .

14.

Ku, J. (2004). A statistical approach to the answer style to negative questions. Korean Language and Literature, 136, 193-229 .

15.

Ladd, R. D. (1981). A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Chicago Linguistic Society, 17, 164-171 .

16.

Park K. & Dubinsky, S. (2019). The syntax and semantics of negative questions and answers in Korean and English. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 4 .

17.

Pyojunkukedaesajeon. Grand Standard Korean Dictionary. National Institute of Korean Language .

18.

Romero, M. & Han, C-h. (2004). On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 609-658 .

19.

Romero, M. (2005). Two approaches to biased yes/no questions. WCCFL, 24, 352-360 .

20.

Wee, HK. 2019. Semantic function of Korean response particles as anaphors. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 44(4), 831-852 .

21.

Yabushita, K. (1998). Why do Japanese hai and iie not behave like English yes and no all the way? Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 23, 59-74 .