Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T09:11:06.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 21 - “Expletive” Negation in Korean

from Part IV - Semantics and Pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2022

By
Suwon Yoon
Edited by
Sungdai Cho  and
John Whitman
Sungdai Cho
Affiliation:
Binghamton University, State University of New York
John Whitman
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

Chapter 21 provides a unified analysis of the phenomena known as expletive negation (EN), focusing on Korean data. Contrary to the traditional term “expletive negation”, the chapter proposes that the particular type of negation in a variety of contexts has semantic content that can be analyzed on two dimensions: (i) in terms of licensing, there is a crucial semantic dependency on nonveridicality, involving, e.g., polarity items; (ii) in terms of semantico-pragmatic factors, the crucial and evaluative sense of undesirability or unlikelihood, comparable to uses of subjunctive mood in some languages. The chapter shows that expletive negation in Korean (and Japanese) occurs in typical subjunctive contexts such as polite requests, emphatic sentences, dubitatives, and also shows how the nonveridical semantics of the predicates that select EN can be represented. It proposes that these evaluative contents of EN, modifying the whole utterance, can be captured by the conventional implicature (CI) logic in the sense of Potts (2005). This has the important implication that various subspecies of EN in language are indeed part of grammar.

Keywords

expletive negationevaluative negationsubjunctive moodnonveridicalitypolarityexpressivescross-linguistic variation
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics , pp. 607 - 634
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abels, K. 2002. Expletive (?) negation. In Bloomington, J. T., ed., Proceedings of FASL 10. Michigan: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Abels, K. 2005. “Expletive negation” in Russian: A conspiracy theory. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 13: 5–74.Google Scholar
Brown, S. 1999. The Syntax of Negation in Russian: A Minimalist Approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Brown, S., and Franks, S.. 1995. Asymmetries in the scope of Russian Negation. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 3: 239–87.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donati, C. 2000. A note on negation in comparison. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica – Università di Firenze 10: 55–68.Google Scholar
Eilam, A., and Scheffler, T.. 2006. Until and Expletive negation in Modern Hebrew. Swarthmore Workshop on Negation and Polarity, April 14–15.Google Scholar
Ernst, T. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27(3): 497–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M. T. 1997. Non-negative negation and wh-exclamatives. In Forget, D., Hirschbühler, P., Martineau, F., and Rivero, M. L., eds., Negation and Polarity. Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 75–93.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T. 2000. Expletive negation, negative concord and feature checking. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 47–69.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. F. 1992a. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In Hirschbűhler, P. et al., eds., Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 69–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, D. F. 1992b. Mood choice in complement clauses. In Kenesei, I. and Pleh, E., eds., Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 4: The Structure of Hungarian. Szeged: JATE, pp. 77–103.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1992. Syntax. In Blake, N., eds., The Cambridge History of the English Language II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1066–476.Google Scholar
Gaatone, D. 1971. Étude descriptive du système de la negation en français contemporain. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 1994. The semantic licensing of NPIs and the Modern Greek subjunctive. Language and Cognition 4: 55–68.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non) Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 2009. The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua 119(12): 1883–1908.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Stavrou, M.. 2008. Metalinguistic comparatives and negation in Greek. In Hill, D., ed., MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 57.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Yoon, S.. 2011. The subjective mode of comparison: Metalinguistic comparatives in Greek and Korean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9(3): 621–55.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Yoon, S.. 2010. No NPI licensing in clausal comparatives. In Grinsell, T., Baker, A., Thomas, J., Baglini, R., Keane, J., eds., Proceedings of the 46th Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 46). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Yoon, S.. 2009. Metalinguistic comparatives in Greek and Korean: Attitude semantics, expressive content, and negative polarity items. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13: 141–56. Online Publikationsverbund der Universität Stuttgart (OPUS).Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Zwarts, F.. 1999. Aspectual properties of temporal connectives. In Mozer, A., ed., Greek Linguistics ’97: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Athens: Ellinika Grammata, pp. 104–13.Google Scholar
Grévisse, M. 1986. Le bon usage. Paris: Éditions Duculot.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.Google Scholar
Jabłónska, P. 2003. Quirky n-words in Polish: NPIs, Negative Quantifiers or neither? In Dahl, A., Bentzen, K., and Svenonius, P., eds., Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 31(1).Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Host.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Larrivée, P. 2005. Variation diachronique, variation synchronique et réseaux de polysémie: à propos des certaines régularités apparentes dans le changement sémantique. Verbum 25(4): 431–42.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–86.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. 2008. Quantification and perspective in relativist semantics. University of Chicago Compositionality Workshop, May 9.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. 2009. Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese 166: 359–74.Google Scholar
Löbner, S. 2002. Understanding Semantics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Manzotti, E. 1982. Fenomeni di negazione espletiva in italiano. Studi di Gramatica Italiana 9: 273–338.Google Scholar
Manzotti, E., and Rigamonti, A.. 1991. La negazione. In Renzi, L. and Salvi, G., eds., Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 2: I sintagmi verbale, aggettivale, avverbiale; la subordinazione. Bologna: Il Mulino, pp. 245–317.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J. 1990. Sentence mood, lexical category filling, and non-propositional nicht in German. Linguistische Berichte 130: 441–63.Google Scholar
Muller, C. 1991. La négation en français: syntaxe, sémantique et elements de comparaison avec les quatres langues romanes. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Portner, P., and Zanuttini, R.. 1999. The force of negation in wh exclamatives and interrogatives. In Horn, R. L., and Kato, Y., eds., Negation and Polarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 193–231.Google Scholar
Portner, P., and Zanuttini, R.. 2000. The characterization of exclamative clauses in Paduan. Language 76(1): 123–32.Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–98.Google Scholar
Quer, J. 1998. Mood at the interface. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Restan, Per A. 1960. The objective case in negative clauses in Russian: The genitive or the accusative? Scando-Slavica VI: 92–112.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. 1971. Queclaratives. In Adams, D., Cambell, M. A., Cohen, V., Levins, J., Maxwell, E., Nygren, C., and Reighard, J., eds., Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 223–32.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York, San Francisco, and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sawada, O. 2010. Pragmatic aspects of scalar modifiers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tovena, L. M. 1996. An expletive negation which is not so redundant. Grammatical Theory and Romance Languages 4: 263–74. Selected Papers from the 25th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XXV).Google Scholar
Tovena, L. M. 1998. The Fine Structure of Polarity Sensitivity. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Van der Wouden, T. 1997. Polarity and “illogical negation”. In Kanazawa, M. and Pinon, C. J., eds., Dymanics, Polarity, and Quantification. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 17–45.Google Scholar
Van der Wouden, T., and Zwarts, F.. 1993. A semantic analysis of negative concord. SALT III: 202–19. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Van der Wurff, W. 1999. On EN with adversative predicates in the history of English. In van Ostade, I. T-B., Tottie, G., and Van der Wurff, W., eds., Negation in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Helten, W. L. 1883. Vondel’s taal. Grammatica van het Nederlandsch der zeven-tiende eeuw. Syntaxis. Groningen: J. B. Wolters.Google Scholar
Villalta, E. 2006. Context dependence in the interpretation of questions and subjunctives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tubingen.Google Scholar
Villalta, E. 2008. Mood and gradability: An investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 467–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, J-H. 1993. Different semantics for different syntax: Relative clauses in Korean. OSUWPL 42: 199–226.Google Scholar
Yoon, S. 2011. Not in the mood: The syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of evaluative negation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Yoon, S. 2013. Parametric variation in subordinate evaluative negation: Japanese/Korean vs. Others. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 22(2): 133–66.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×