Licensing Condi,ons for Embedded Topic in Korean: An experimental approach Yangsook Park University of MassachuseJs Amherst Background v Restricted distribu,ons of embedded topic in Korean • An embedded complement clause allows a topic marked NP in its clause-‐ini7al posi7on, as does a matrix clause. (1) Tom-‐i [Mary-‐ka/nun yeyppu-‐ta-‐ko] sayngkakhan-‐ta. Tom-‐Nom Mary-‐Nom/Top preFy-‐Decl-‐C think-‐Decl ‘Tom thinks that Mary is preFy.’ • However, a nun-‐marked NP cannot appear in various subordinate clauses, such as a rela7ve clause, a noun complement clause, and various adjunct clauses (Whitman 1989, Han 1998, among others). (2) a. Rela(ve Clause John-‐i [[Mary-‐ka/*nun coaha-‐nun] salam-‐ul] man-‐ass-‐ta. John-‐Nom Mary-‐Nom/*Top like-‐REL person-‐Acc met-‐Decl ‘John met a person who Mary likes.’ b. Because-‐clause John-‐i [Sue-‐ka/*nun apha-‐ss-‐ki Faymwuney] John-‐Nom Sue-‐Nom/*Top sick-‐Past because cenhwa ha-‐yess-‐ta. call-‐Past-‐Decl 'John called because Sue was sick.’ (Han 1998) Two syntac,c analyses on Topic § “Lack-‐of-‐posi,on” analysis (Whitman 1989, Haegeman 2006) • Topic needs a certain syntac7c posi7on that is related to a mood par7cle. • Thus, a mood par7cle can be understood as an indica7on that there is a certain syntac7c posi7on for topic in Korean, either directly or indirectly. (3) a. Tom-‐i [Mary-‐ka/nun cengcikha-‐ta-‐ko] mitnun-‐ta. Tom-‐Nom Mary-‐Nom/Top preFy-‐Decl C think-‐Decl ‘Tom believes that Mary is honest.’ b. Tom-‐i [i chayk-‐ul/un Mary-‐ka ilkess-‐nya-‐ko] mwulepw-‐ass-‐ta Tom-‐Nom this book-‐Acc/Top Mary-‐Nom read-‐INT-‐C asked-‐Decl ‘Tom asked if this book, Mary read.’ § “LF movement” analysis (Han 1998, Portner & Yabushita 1998) • Every topic phrase must be interpreted in the matrix clause. • A topic marked phrase cannot occur inside islands, e.g. rela7ve clauses, adjunct clauses, and complex NPs, because it cannot undergo a covert movement out of islands. Main Ques,ons • What are the actual environments that allow an embedded topic in Korean? • How is it related to the general syntac7c or seman7c proper7es of topic? [email protected] Predic,ons § “LF movement” analysis: Embedded topic phrases inside of any kind of islands, regardless of mood par7cles, will be equally less acceptable. § “Lack of posi,on” analysis: When a topic occurs in an embedded clause with a mood par7cle, it will be equally acceptable no maFer which embedded clause it is, either an island or not. (4) Sample Item, Exp 1 a. NOM, MOOD Context: ‘What did Pippi disclose?’ Pippi-‐ka [[Tommy-‐ka Nilsson-‐ul silhehan-‐ta-‐nun] sasil]-‐ul palkhyessta. P-‐NOM T-‐Nom N-‐Acc hate-‐DECL-‐NM fact-‐Acc disclosed ‘Pippi disclosed the fact that Tommy hates Nilsson.’ b. NOM, NO MOOD Pippi-‐ka [[Tommy-‐ka Nilsson-‐ul silheha-‐nun] sasil]-‐ul palkhyessta. P-‐NOM T-‐Nom N-‐Acc hate-‐NM fact-‐Acc disclosed c. TOP, MOOD Context: ‘What did Pippi disclosed about Tommy?’ Pippi-‐ka [[Tommy-‐nun Nilsson-‐ul silhehan-‐ta-‐nun] sasil]-‐ul palkhyessta. P-‐NOM T-‐TOP N-‐Acc hate-‐DECL-‐NM fact-‐Acc disclosed ‘Pippi disclosed the fact that Tommy hates Nilsson.’ d. TOP, NO MOOD Pippi-‐ka [[Tommy-‐nun Nilsson-‐ul silheha-‐nun] sasil]-‐ul palkhyessta. P-‐NOM T-‐TOP N-‐Acc hate-‐NM fact-‐Acc disclosed (5) Sample Item, Exp 2 a. NOM, CLAUSAL COMPLEMENT Context: ‘What did Pippi hear?’ Pippi-‐ka [Sue-‐ka ecey phathi-‐ey kass-‐ta-‐ko] tul-‐ess-‐ta. P-‐Nom S-‐Nom yesterday party-‐to went-‐DECL-‐C heard ‘Pippi heard that Sue went to the party yesterday.’ b. NOM, NOUN COMPLEMENT CLAUSE Pippi-‐ka [Sue-‐ka ecey phathi-‐ey kass-‐ta-‐nun sasil]-‐ul tul-‐ess-‐ta. P-‐Nom S-‐Nom yesterday party-‐to went-‐DECL-‐NM-‐fact-‐Acc heard ‘Pippi heard the fact that Sue went to the party yesterday.’ c. TOP, CLAUSAL COMPLEMENT Context: ‘What did Pippi heard about Sue?’ Pippi-‐ka [Sue-‐nun ecey phathi-‐ey kass-‐ta-‐ko] tul-‐ess-‐ta. P-‐Nom S-‐Top yesterday party-‐to went-‐DECL-‐C heard d. TOP, NOUN COMPLEMENT CLAUSE Pippi-‐ka [Sue-‐nun ecey phathi-‐ey kass-‐ta-‐nun sasil]-‐ul tul-‐ess-‐ta. P-‐Nom S-‐Top yesterday party-‐to went-‐DECL-‐NM-‐fact-‐Acc heard 6 6 5 5 4 4 Clausal No Mood 3 v Experiment 1 & 2 7 Mood Experiments: OFFLINE ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASKS • 56 na7ve Korean speakers rated the sentences on a seven-‐point scale on “IbexFarm” (Exp1 N=28, Exp2 N=28). • In order to induce a non-‐contras7ve meaning of a topic NP, every target sentence was preceded by a context sentence. • Exp1: Two factors were crossed to examine the effect of mood par7cle on embedded topic: CASE (NOM vs. TOP), MOOD (MOOD vs. NO MOOD). Used noun complement clauses with or without a mood par7cle. • Exp2: Two factors were manipulated to examine the effect of type of embedded clause: CASE (NOM vs. TOP), TYPE (CLAUSAL COMPLEMENT vs. NOUN COMPLEMENT CLAUSE) 7 2 2 1 1 0 0 Nom Noun 3 Nom Top Chart 1. Mean acceptability ra7ngs, Exp 1. Top Chart 2. Mean acceptability ra7ngs, Exp 2. Results • Exp 1 par7ally supported the “Lack of posi7on” analysis: A CASE × MOOD interac7on was significant in the par7cipants analysis. • Exp 2 supported the “LF movement” analysis: A CASE X CLAUSAL TYPE interac7on was significant both in the par7cipants and items analysis. Discussion • The results have shown that neither account is sufficient to predict fully the usage of embedded topic with respect to its licensing condi7on. • Given the examples of embedded topic without a mood par7cle (Tomioka 2012), the effect of mood par7cle cannot mean that MOOD is a direct gramma7cal licensing condi7on for embedded topic (contra MoodP in Whitman 1989). v HYBRID APPROACH: • An embedded topic needs to undergo covert movement to the matrix clause to be interpreted as topic in TopP due to the lack of TopP in embedded clauses. • An embedded topic also needs a certain syntac7c posi7on in an embedded clause, the “Speaker Deixis” Phrase (Haegeman 2006), that can be indicated by a mood marker or other speaker anchoring-‐ related elements. References and Acknowledgments [1] Haegeman, L. 2006. Condi7onals, fac7ves and the len periphery. Lingua 116, 1651-‐1669. [2] Han, Chung-‐hye. 1998. Asymmetry in the Interpreta7on of ‘-‐(n)un’ in Korean. In Noriko Akat-‐ suka et al., editors, Japanese/Korean Linguis(cs 7, pages 1–15. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publica7ons. [3] Portner, Paul & Katsuhiko Yabushita. 1998. The seman7cs and pragma7cs of Topic phrases, Linguis(cs and Phillosophy 21, 117–157. [4] Tomioka, Satoshi. 2012. Embedded Wa-‐phrases, Predica7on, and Judgment Theory. Ms. University of Delaware. [5] Whitman, J., 1989. Topic, modality, and IP structure. In: Kuno, S., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Harvard Workshop on Korean Linguis(cs. Hanshun, Seoul. * I would like to thank Lyn Frazier, Rajesh BhaF, Brian Dillon, Lisa Green, Kyle Johnson, and Peggy Speas for their helpful advice and insighvul comments at various stages of this work. Of course, all remaining errors are mine. The 37th Penn Linguis(cs Colloquium
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz