Download Object Particle Omission in Korean

Object Particle Omission in
Korean
Jieun Kiaer
Oxford
1
Research Questions
Structural relations are realised not by linear
order but by case particles. Then,
• 1) Why do Korean native speakers omit
case particles (though they are so
important)?
• 2) How do they do so?
• 3) Does omission bring any semantic effect?
• 4) Does prosody play any role?
2
Core Examples
Are they different (or not) ?
A)
밥 먹었니?
Bap mek-ess-ni?
Rice eat-PAST-Q ‘Have you eaten?’
B)
밥-을 먹었니?
Bap-ul mek-ess-ni?
Rice-ACC eat-PAST-Q ‘Have you eaten?’
3
Object Particle and (Contrastive)
Focus Effect
E-S Koh (2001), H-J Lee (2003, 2005,2006)
Compare the following examples.
(1)
A: Nana-hanthey os-ponayssni?
Nana-DAT clothes-sent
‘Did you send Nana clothes?’
B: Mian, kkamppakhaysse.
Sorry, I forgot.
4
Object Particle and (Contrastive)
Focus Effect
(2)
A: Sopo-ane mwe issni?
Parcel-inside what exists
‘What is in the parcel?’
B: Nana-ka os-ul ponaysse.
Nana-NOM clothes-ACC sent
‘Nana sent clothes (instead of any other
gift e.g., shoes.)’
5
Counter examples
A: Ne sakwa mekullay? Pay mekullay?
You apple will.eat pear will.eat
‘Will you eat an apple or a pear.’
B: Sakwa mekullay.
Apple will.eat
‘I will eat an apple.’
6
Object Particle Omission
Preference (H-J Lee, 2006)
Hierarchy
• Counter-examples
A: Ne Did you meet Jinyoung or Minsu?
B: Eh, Minsu mannasse.
Minsu met ‘I met Minsu.’
7
Written vs. Spoken Language
Difference
Object particle omission is more frequent and
easy in spoken Korean.
Speech style and prosody matter.
Compare
a??Hama-nun mwul coahanta. (SB Lee 2006)
Hippo-TOP water likes ‘Hippo likes water.’
b.Hama-nun mwul coahanta (H%)
c. Hama-nun mwul coahay.
8
Neo-Gricean Perspective:
Omission is a Marked Situation
• S-B Lee (2006)
• Omission brings forth habitual, repetitive,
generic – meta-pragmatic meaning.
A) Pae-lul-tata
•
boat-ride ‘riding a boat.’
B) Pae-tata
•
boat-ride ‘becoming a sailor.’
9
Yet – not always
What are you doing?
a) Bap-meke. ‘rice-eat’
b) E-mail check-hay. ‘e-mail check.’
(no meta-linguistic meaning added.)
10
Stage-level vs. individual level
predicates
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A >>> B: natural and frequent
A)
Na-nun paint chilha-nun-kess coahay.
I-TOP paint paint-MOD-NML like
B)
?Na-nun paint-lul chilha-nun-kess coahay.
I-TOP paint paint-ACC-MOD-NML like
11
Spoken Syntax vs. Written Syntax
• Naturalness is checked in “speech mode”
by native speakers.
• Cf) Lee’s experiment is based on written
materials.
12
Light Verbs
• (28) 노크하다 ‘knock’, 데모하다 ‘demonstrate’, 데뷔하다 ‘debut’
•
리드하다 ‘lead’, 마사지하다 ‘massage’, 마스터하다 ‘master’
•
마크하다 ‘mark’, 매치하다 ‘match’, 메모하다 ‘memo’
•
서비스하다 ‘service’, 쇼핑하다 ‘do the shopping’
•
스케치하다 ‘sketch’, 스크랩하다 ‘clip’, 스톱하다 ‘stop’
•
인터뷰하다 ‘interview’, 체크되다 ‘checked’, 체크하다 ‘check’
•
커버하다 ‘cover’, 키스하다 ‘kiss’, 테스트하다 ‘test’, 패스하다
‘pass’
• 프러포즈하다 ‘propose’, 프린트하다 ‘print’, 히트시키다 ‘hit’
• 히트하다 ‘make a hit’, 어필하다 ‘appeal’, 디자인하다 ‘design’
• 덤핑하다 ‘dump’, 대시하다 ‘ask someone out’
• 아르바이트하다  알바하다. ‘do a parttime job.’
13
What does prosody do?
• Interestingly, object and verb in Korean
often form one phonological phrase.
• Object particle is omitted in order to put
the object and verb together in one PP.
• According to Shin 2011’s corpus work,
91.5% of the time, the length of PP was
within 5 syllables.
14
Prosodic Structure of Korean
Figure 7.2 Prosodic Structure of Korean
15
Statistics on Korean Prosodic
Structure
Intonational Phrase
1.58
Phonological Phrase
3.47
Syllable
11.39
Phoneme
24.22
Phonological Phrase
2.20
Syllable
7.22
Phoneme
15.35
Phonological
Syllable
3.28
Phrase
Phoneme
6.98
Syllable
Phoneme
2.13
Utterance
Intonational Phrase
16
What do you want to eat?
짜장면(noodles with stir-fried bean paste)
짬뽕(spicy seafood noodle soup)
{짜장면 먹을래}? >>짜장면을 먹을래?
{짬뽕 먹을래}? >>짬뽕을 먹을래?
17
Frozen expressions
Sayings (No object particle)
Eg) Kong sim-un-te/ kong na-ko//,
bean-plant-MOD-place bean appear-CONJ
Pat-sim-un-te/ pat nanta//.
Red.bean-plant-MOD-place red.bean appear
(As one sows, so shall he reap.)
18
Adjacency and Predictability
• Object-Verb : Adjacency expected
• Yuna-ka Mina cal ala? (No object particle)
• Y-NOM M well know
• ‘Does Yuna know Mina well?’
• ?? Mina-lul Yuna cal ala?
• M-ACC Y well know
(No subject particle)
19
Hata verbs (SILIC corpus)
20
Minimise Domains (MiD):
The human processor prefers to minimise
the connected sequences of linguistic
forms and their conventionally associated
syntactic and semantic properties in which
relations of combination and/or
dependency are processed. (Hawkins 2004)
21
Minimize Forms (MiF)
• The human processor prefers to minimize
the formal complexity of each linguistic
form F (its phoneme, morpheme, word or
phrasal units) and the number of forms
with unique conventionalized property
assignments, thereby assigning more
properties
to
fewer
forms.
These
minimizations apply in proportion to the
ease with which a given property P can be
assigned in processing to a given F.
22
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
남승호. 2007. 「한국어 술어의 사건 구조와 논항 구조」. 서울: 서울대학교출판부.
신지영. 2011. 「한국어의 말소리」. 서울: 지식과교양.
신현숙. 1982. “목적격 표지 /-를/의 의미연구.” 「언어」 7-1. 119-139.
이남순. 1998. “격표지의 비실현과 생략.” 「국어학」(국어학회) 31. 340-360
이성범. 2006. “대격 조사 생략의 화용적 분석.” 「담화와 인지」(담화인지언어학회) 13-3. 69-89.
이호승. 2006. “격조사 없는 명사구의 격 문제에 대하여.” 「어문학」(한국어문학회) 93. 139-159.
임홍빈. 2007. “한국어 무조사 명사구의 통사와 의미.” 「국어학」(국어학회) 49. 69-106.
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 633-657.
Hawkins, John. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2004.
Kiaer, Jieum & Shin, Jiyoung. 2012. XX. 'Prosodic interpretation of object particle omission in
Korean’. Korean Linguistics XX
Kim, D. 1993. The Specificity/non-specificity Distinction and Scrambling Theory. Seoul:
Thaehaksa.
Ko, Eon-Suk. 2001. “A discourse analysis of the realization of object NP forms in Korean. In M.
Nakayama and C. Quinn (eds.) 2001. Japanese Korean Linguistics IX, CSLI, Stanford University,
pp. 195-208.
Lee H. 2005. Hierarchies and case ellipsis in Korean: A Stochastic OT analysis. Korean Journal of
Linguistics 30. 295-322.
Lee H. 2006. Effects of focus and markedness hierarchies on object case ellipsis in Korean. 「담화
와 인지」(담화인지언어학회) 13-2. 205-231.
Lee, H. 2003. Parallel optimization in case systems. In M. Butt and T. H. King (eds.) 2003.
Nominals: Inside and Out. 15-58. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
23