15.1014, Qs: Korean Exclusion Particles;Semitic Plural Acq

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-15-1014. Fri Mar 26 2004. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 15.1014, Qs: Korean Exclusion Particles;Semitic Plural Acq

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Sheila Collberg, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Fox <fox at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it
is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have
taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:27:29 -0500 (EST)
From:  Alan Hyun-Oak  Kim <alanhkim at siu.edu>
Subject:  Exclusion Particles ONLY in Cleft Constructions

2)
Date:  Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:11:26 +0000
From:  "nesreen nawwab" <nawwab4 at hotmail.com>
Subject:  requist for review

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:27:29 -0500 (EST)
From:  Alan Hyun-Oak  Kim <alanhkim at siu.edu>
Subject:  Exclusion Particles ONLY in Cleft Constructions

Dear Linguists:

Of the two lexical items typically used as focus markers for exclusion
in Korean, MAN and PPUN (equivalent to the English ONLY), the latter
occurs always in the pre-copular position of cleft sentences, and the
other elsewhere, as shown in (1).

(1)	a.	Minho-nun mayki-MAN cap-a-ss-ta.
		Minho-TOP catfish-only caught
		'Minho caught only catfish.'

b.	Minho-ka cap-un-kes-un mayki-PPUN-i-ta.
Minho-NOM caught thing-TOP catfish-only be
'All that Minho caught were catfish.'
		'What Minho caught were only catfish.'

In appearance, as the English translations show, one does not see any
significant contrast between (1a) and (1b), except for foregrounding
of ''only catfish'' in a pseudo-cleft construction of (1b), although a
similar effect may also be achieved simply by stressing 'only' in
(1a).

Most native speakers of Korean would consider (1a) somewhat odd, for
it sounds as if Minho had a magic hand and caught catfish selectively
in the premeditated fashion by eliminating all other kinds of
fish. For a normal interpretation 'all the fish John caught that
afternoon were catfish and nothing else,' a Korean speaker would
prefer (1b) to (1a). I find this rather puzzling.  Why should there be
two distinct lexemes for ONLY in Korean, while English does the job
just fine with a single 'only'?

One other property associated with PPUN is the feature of recurrence,
as seen in Minho's repetitive catching action in the example. In this
conjunction, Japanese also seems to make this sort of distinction of
ONLY. Consider (2a) and (2b) below.

2.	a.	Nyuuintyuu-no boku-wo Naomi-DAKE-ga mimai-ni kit-te kure-ta.
		hospitalized     I-TOP     Naomi-only-NOM visit-come-give-PAST
		'Only Naomi visited me at the hospital.'

	b.	Nyuuintyuu-no boku-wo Naomi-BAKARI-ga mimai-ni kit-te kure-ta.
		hospitalized     I-TOP     Naomi-only-NOM visit-come-give-PAST
		'The only person who visited me at the hospital was Naomi.'

In (2b) with BAKARI, only Naomi repeatedly visited the hospitalized
speaker, whereas the DAKE sentence (2a) is ambiguous in the sense that
either Naomi was the only person who knows the speaker was
hospitalized and made repeated visits or everyone at work knew the
speaker in the hospital and no one but Naomi showed up. The contrast
between DAKE and BAKARI in Japanese is very similar to the Korean
MAN/PPUN opposition, although BAKARI has no restriction in
distribution, unlike its PPUN counterpart. I refer to the type of
exclusion lexeme PPUN (BAKARI in Japanese) for the sake of convenience
as a marker for 'inductive exclusion' or 'post factum exclusion' in
Kim (2003).

I am just curious to see any other languages that make such a
distinction as in Korean and Japanese. Your help is most appreciated.


Reference

Kim, Alan Hyun-Oak.  2003. Functional specialization of Exclusion
Particles: Korean man/ppun and Japanese dale/bakari. In Explorations
in Korean Language and Linguistics. Seoul: Hankook Publishing
Co. 133-66.

Subject-Language: Korean; Code: KKN


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:11:26 +0000
From:  "nesreen nawwab" <nawwab4 at hotmail.com>
Subject:  requist for review

I'm working on my ph.D on the acquisition of plurals in Arabic. I
would like to review similar research studies, with special refference
to related psycholinguistic theories explaining the process of
development, experimental studies and elicitation techniques for
testing childern production and comprehension of plurals in semitic
languages or English.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-15-1014