The Pragmatic Scope of

Indefinite Adverbs in Korean*

* This paper was supported by research funds of Chonbuk National University in 2015.

Jeong Khn Ahn

(Chonbuk National University)

∣ Jeong Khn Ahn

The Pragmatic Scope of Indefinite Adverbs in Korean ∣

Ahn, Jeong Khn. (2016). The Pragmatic Scope of Indefinite Adverbs in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 24(4), 61-79. This study examines pragmatic scope of some indefinite adverbs in Korean such as myechil cen (‘a few days ago’),  choykun (‘lately’), yakkan (‘a little’), cokum (‘a little’), manhi (‘greatly’), and emcheng (‘excessively’). In order to examine age and gender differences in their pragmatic scope, 254 subjects were participated in this study. They were given a questionnaire to fill out pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs in Korean. Using SPSS 12.0 the study analyzed their responses and found out that their average pragmatic scope of myechil cen is 4.3 days ago, choykun 7.1 days ago, yakkan 4.0 cm, cokum 5.6%, manhi 16.2%, and emcheng 25.5%. Paired-samples T test indicated that difference in pragmatic scope was statistically significant between myechil cen and choykun (t= -6.453, p<0.001), between yakkan and cokum (t= -4.295, p<0.001), and between manhi and emcheng (t= -4.295, p<0.001) as well. Gender difference was not found in their pragmatic scope of the indefinites, whereas age difference was found statistically significant in choykun (F= 4.102, p= .044), yakkan (F= 8.961, p= .003), cokum (F= 4.707, p= .031), and manhi (F= 4.586, p= .033) when age was divided into the two groups (under 20 vs. over 20 years of age).  The findings in the study indicate that indefinites are measured pragmatically and that they are used in a certain range of scope in reality.

Key Words: pragmatic scope, indefinites, indefinite adverbs, age and gender difference in the use of indefinites

1. Introduction

The term ‘indefinite’ refers to not specific, so that indefinite adverbs in grammar are adverbs of quantity, time, degree, etc. that are not stated or mentioned specifically in sentence or discourse. This intrinsic vagueness of indefinite adverbs and other parts of grammar including indefinite pronouns and indefinite quantifiers often brings some misunderstanding in interpreting them. For example, the following sentences such as “Each man is digging a hole.” and “A baker is decorating every cake.” (Oh, 2014) are ambiguous.

In recent years much attention has been paid to indefinite quantifiers, in particular universal quantifiers, all and both, and distributive quantifiers, every and each, to study the vagueness or the ambiguity of the sentence in which these quantifiers are used (Ioup, 1975; Tunstall, 1988; Yun, 1996; Lee, 2001; Yun, 2004; Rakhlin, 2007; Ionin, 2010; Oh, 2014; Park, 2012). Some studies (Kim, 2004; Marsden, 2004; Rakhlin, 2007; Kang, 2010; Lee, 2012; Park, 2012; Joh, 2014; Oh, 2014; Yoo, 2014) examine the difference in the interpretation and learning of these quantifiers between Korean learners of English and native speakers of English.

Since these quantifiers act like adjectives modifying nouns or noun phrases followed by in sentence, they are very similar to numeral quantifiers. In this regard some studies (Miyagawa, 2006; Shin, 2009; Lee, 2013) investigate numeral quantifiers in Korean, too. Some other studies (Kang, 2001; Rakhlin, 2007; Park, 2007; Kim & Lee, 2010; Lee, 2013; Shin, 2014; Lim, 2015) also look at quantifier floating in Korean and other languages since universal quantifiers appear not only in NP modifying positions but in other parts of the sentence as do numeral quantifiers.

As indicated, most of the indefinite quantifiers studies have focused on universal, distributive, and numeral  quantifiers, thus leaving existential quanti- fiers such as some, any, few, and little somewhat neglected. This is due to the fact that these indefinite quantifiers do not make more trouble in interpreting and learning them than other indefinite quantifiers. By the way, some indefinite quantifiers might raise an ambiguity problem, too, such as the following sen- tence: “Someone gets mugged in New York every ten minutes.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantifier_(linguistics) (2016. 10. 16.)

Most of the indefinite quantifiers, whether they are universal, distributive, numeral, or existential, have been studied in NPs (noun phrases) as pronouns, determiners, or adjectives, modifying noun or NP in sentence. However indefinites do appear in other positions, too, as indefinite adverbs are frequently used in ADPs (adverb phrases) such as the sentence: “Snow fell a little.” In particular, they are used quite often when they refer to time (‘lately’, ‘recently’, and ‘finally’), frequency (‘later’, ‘sometimes’, and ‘often’), quantity (‘a few’, ‘a little’, and ‘much’), degree (‘greatly’, ‘highly’, and ‘somewhat’), etc.  Recently, some studies (Hong, 2004; Kim, 2009; Kang, 2010; Lee, 2012; Mo, 2012) began to look at the indefinite adverbs mainly of having negative meaning in Korean such as acik (‘yet’) and kyeu (‘barely’) and indicated some semantic difference in the use of them.

As the term ‘indefinite’ implies, indefinite adverbs of frequency, for instance, tell us the somewhat vague scope of the frequency something occurs. When asked, we would say something happens 100% if it occurs always, 90% usually, 80% normally, 70% frequently, 50% sometimes, 30% occasionally, 10% seldom, 5% rarely, and 0% never. Of course, these pragmatic scope would vary in different language groups and result in misunderstanding between them. Artur Parreira & Lorga (2016) even asked participants in their study to attribute a numerical value to the two adverbs (‘very’ and ‘frequently’) on a scale of 0% to 100%. That is, they were asked to indicate the numerical value of adverbs on the scale such as “How much is very much when you love red roses very much?”. As Parreira & Lorga (2016) did, there need a variety of studies which examine pragmatic scope of indefinites, in particular the indefinites of adverbs, to overcome their vagueness in reference and avoid misunderstanding in commu- nication. In reality, we use indefinite adverbs quite often without knowing their exact meaning, that is their pragmatic scope which would be agreed on in a speech community. Thus it will be of great help for us to figure out the pragmatic scope of the indefinite adverbs in any language in order to avoid misunderstanding and overcome not specific reference in discourse.

http://www.grammarcl/Basic/Adverbs_Frequency.htm (2016. 10. 17.)

In this regard, the present study is to examine the pragmatic scope of indefinite adverbs in Korean such as myechil cen (‘a few days ago’), choykun (‘lately’), yakkan (‘a little’), cokum (‘a little’), manhi (‘greatly’), and emcheng (‘excessively’) which are used very often in reality. As evident, myechil cen and choykun are the indefinite adverbs of time, yakkan and cokum adverbs of quantity, and manhi and emcheng adverbs of degree. Unlike Parreira & Lorga’s (2016), the present study asked participants to attribute a numerical value to each adverb in the Questionnaire whatever they think it would be, not on a scale.

2. Data gathering

To examine the pragmatic scope of the indefinite adverbs in Korean, 254 subjects were participated in the Questionnaire in the study. Of 254 subjects, 137 (53.9%) are male and 117 (46.1%) female. Their age ranges from 10 to 64. They are all native Koreans living in Korea. They were given the Questionnaire to fill out the pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs in Korean in the blank. The Questionnaire was written in Korean in which the six indefinite adverbs such as myechil cen, choykun, yakkan, cokum, manhi, and emcheng were underlined, as shown in the following Questionnaire. The participants filled out the blanks in the Questionnaire in numbers.

The Questionnaire

Please indicate the followings.

You are male (   ) female (   )

Your age (    )

Please indicate the pragmatic scope of the following six indefinite adverbs

in Korean.

Sentence 1:

myechil       cen-ey        kutul-un     ttena-ss-ta.

a few day    ago-PTCL     they-SBJ    leave-PAST-DEC

‘They left a few days ago.’

Q:  How many days are myechil cen?

A:  (       ) days ago.

Sentence 2:

choykun-ey   khun   sakken-i      thecye-ss-ta.

lately-PTCL    big   accident-SBJ   occur-PAST-DEC

‘A big accident occurred lately.’

Q:  How many days are choykun?

A: (        ) days ago.

Sentence 3:

nun-i      yakkan   ssaye-ss-ta.

snow-SBJ  a little   pile up-PAST-DEC

‘Snow piled up a little.’

Q: How little is yakkan?

A: (       ) cm

Sentence 4:

mulka-ka  cokum   olla-ss-ta.

price-SBJ   a little   go up-PAST-DEC

‘Price went up a little.’

Q: How little is cokum?

A: (      ) %

Sentence 5:

mulka-ka  manhi    olla-ss-ta.

price-SBJ   greatly   go up-PAST-DEC

‘Price went up greatly.’

Q: How much is manhi?

A: (      ) %

Sentence 6:

mulka-ka   emcheng   olla-ss-ta.

price-SBJ    excessively   go up-PAST-DEC

‘Price went up excessively.’

Q: How much is emcheng?

A: (      )%

3. Results

The numbers the 254 subjects had given in the blanks in the Questionnaire were coded as they were in SPSS 12.0. Decimals were rounded out to the next whole number.

3.1. The participants’pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs

Using SPSS 12.0, the study analyzed the coded data and found out that the participants’ average pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs in Korean is as follows, shown in Table 1.

Table 1. The average pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs in Korean

	N	Min	Max	Average	SD
myechil cen (‘a few days ago’)	254	1.00	17.00	4.30	2.67
choykun (‘lately’)	254	1.00	30.00	7.06	6.95
yakkan (‘a little’)	254	1.00	20.00	3.96	3.45
cokum (‘a little’)	254	1.00	30.00	5.59	5.40
manhi (‘greatly’)	254	1.00	110.00	16.15	15.71
emcheng (‘excessively’)	254	2.00	150.00	25.47	25.27

As indicated in Table 1, their average pragmatic scope of myechil cen (‘a few days ago’) in Korean is 4.3 days ago, which means that Koreans implicitly use myechil cen to refer to 4 or 5 days ago. In contrast, they use choykun (‘lately’) to refer to approximately 7 days ago as shown in Table 1. Their average pragmatic scope of choykun is 7.1 days ago. Although we use these two similar indefinites of time in Korean quite often in reality and think they mean almost the same, the study clearly indicates that they are quite different from each other, choykun having wider pragmatic scope than myechil cen. In order to see the difference between these two indefinites in detail, paired-samples T test was done and the result is as follows:

Table 2. Paired-samples (myechil cen–choykun) correlation coefficient and T test

	N	Average	SD	R	p-value
myechil cen	254	4.30	2.67	.234	.000
choykun	254	7.06	6.95

	Difference					t	df	p-value (two sided)
	Mean	SD	SE Mean	95% Cl for difference
myechil cen - choykun	-2.77	6.84	.429	-3.612	-1.923	-6.453	253	.000

As shown in Table 2, ch’oegǔn is almost three days far remote past than myechil cen (mean difference = -2.8 days) and the difference between these two time indefinites in Korean is statistically very significant (t= - 6.453, p< .001). It indicates that these two time indefinites could not be used to mean nearly the same, but each having its unique pragmatic time scope in Korean.

Koreans use the indefinite adverbs of degree, yakkan (‘a little’) and cokum (‘a little’), interchangeably, suggesting that the two indefinites are almost the same.  Although they are used interchangeably, they may indicate quite a different degree when they are used in a different context. In other words, their prag- matic scope of degree may differ when they modify different objects. In order to see the difference between yakkan and cokum when they are used in a different context, these two indefinites of degree were also examined in the study.

As indicated in Table 1, the participants’ average pragmatic scope of yakkan (‘a little’) is 4.0, which means that they think 4.0cm is yakkan when “The snow piled up a little.” However 5.6% is cokum (‘a little’) when “Price went up a little,” which indicates the difference in degree when indefinite adverb a little modifies different objects (i.e., snow vs. price). Paired-samples T test in Table 3 below clearly shows the difference between the two indefinite adverbs in Korean statistically.

Table 3. Paired-samples (yakkan–cokum) correlation coefficient and T test

	N	Average	SD	R	p-value
yakkan	254	3.96	3.45	.126	.045
cokum	254	5.59	5.40

	Difference					t	df	p-value (two sided)
	Mean	SD	SE Mean	95% Cl for difference
yakkan - cokum	-1.63	6.03	.379	-2.372	-.880	-4.295	253	.000

As shown in Table 3, the mean difference between the two indefinite adverbs, yakkan and cokum, is –1.6, which is statistically very significant (t= -4.295, p< .001). It indicates that the two indefinites of degree in Korean show quite different pragmatic scope when they are used in a different context, although it is believed they are used alternatively in practice.

As anticipated, the pragmatic scope difference in the indefinite adverbs of degree between cokum and manhi is great even when their use are controlled, which means they are used in the same context as shown in 4 & 5 in the Questionnaire. The great difference between them is clearly shown in the mean difference, -10.56, which is statistically very significant (t= -13.710, p< .001) as shown in the following Table 4.

Table 4. Paired-samples (cokum–manhi) correlation coefficient and T test

	N	Average	SD	R	p-value
cokum	254	5.59	5.40	.737	.000
manhi	254	16.15	15.71

	Difference					t	df	p-value (two sided)
	Mean	SD	SE Mean	95% Cl for difference
cokum - manhi	-10.56	12.28	.770	-12.080	-9.046	-13.710	253	.000

The pragmatic scope difference in the indefinite adverbs of degree between manhi and emcheng is also found great in the study even when they are used in the same context as shown in 5 & 6 in the Questionnaire. The mean difference between them is -9.31, which is statistically very significant (t= -6.941, p< .001) as shown in the following Table 5.

Table 5. Paired-samples (manhi–emcheng) correlation coefficient and T test

	N	Average	SD	R	p-value
manhi	254	16.15	15.71	.539	.000
emcheng	254	25.47	25.27

	Difference					t	df	p-value (two sided)
	Mean	SD	SE Mean	95% Cl for difference
manhi - emcheng	-9.31	21.39	1.342	-11.958	-6.672	-6.941	253	.000

The pragmatic scope difference between manhi and emcheng has been assumed since emcheng is regarded as far greater than manhi in degree when they are used even in the same context, which is proved to be the case in the study as indicated in Table 5 above.

4.2. Gender difference

Of 254 participants in the study, 137 (53.9%) are male and 117 (46.1%) female. Gender difference in the pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs in Korean was not found in the study as shown in the following Table 6.

Table 6. The average pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs by gender

Descriptive Statistics

		N	Average	SD	Min	Max
myechil cen	Male	137	4.39	2.97	1.00	17.00
	Female	117	4.19	2.28	1.00	15.00
	Total	254	4.30	2.67	1.00	17.00
choykun	Male	137	7.30	7.20	1.00	30.00
	Female	117	6.79	6.66	1.00	30.00
	Total	254	7.06	6.95	1.00	30.00
yakkan	Male	137	4.17	3.83	1.00	20.00
	Female	117	3.73	2.96	1.00	15.00
	Total	254	3.96	3.45	1.00	20.00
cokum	Male	137	6.01	5.81	1.00	30.00
	Female	117	5.09	4.86	1.00	30.00
	Total	254	5.59	5.40	1.00	30.00
manhi	Male	137	16.73	17.15	1.00	110.00
	Female	117	15.48	13.87	2.00	75.00
	Total	254	16.15	15.71	1.00	110.00
emcheng	Male	137	27.80	2.50	2.00	150.00
	Female	117	22.74	19.44	3.00	120.00
	Total	254	25.47	25.27	2.00	150.00

One-way ANOVA

		Sum of Squares	df	mean Square	F	Sig.
myechil cen	Between groups	2.495	1	2.495	.348	.556
	Within groups	1804.360	252	7.160
	Total	1806.854	253
choykun	Between groups	16.604	1	16.604	.343	.559
	Within groups	12192.388	252	48.382
	Total	12208.992	253
yakkan	Between groups	12.295	1	12.295	1.031	.311
	Within groups	3004.387	252	11.922
	Total	3016.681	253
cokum	Between groups	53.481	1	53.481	1.839	.176
	Within groups	7327.937	252	29.079
	Total	7381.417	253
manhi	Between groups	98.808	1	98.808	.400	.528
	Within groups	62312.204	252	247.271
	Total	62411.012
emcheng	Between groups	1620.783	1	1620.783	2.553	.111
	Within groups	160000.465	252	634.922
	Total	161621.248	253

As indicated in Table 6, gender difference in the pragmatic scope of all the six indefinites was not found. Gender difference was not statistically significant in myechil cen (F= .348, p= .556), choykun (F= .343, p= .559), yakkan (F= 1.031, p= .311), cokum (F= 1.839, p= .176), manhi (F= .400, p= .528), and emcheng (F= 2.553, p= .111) since the observed p-value in each indefinite was not less than the significant level of p< .05. It means that there is no significant gender difference in the pragmatic scope of the six indefinites of adverbs although the average scope of male is greater than that of female in each indefinite adverb, as shown in the following; 4.39 vs. 4.19 in myechil cen, 7.30 vs. 6.79 in choykun, 4.17 vs. 3.73 in yakkan, 6.01 vs. 5.09 in cokum, 16.73 vs. 15.48 in manhi, and 27.80 vs. 22.74 in emcheng.

4.3. Age group difference

In order to see age difference in the pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs, the participants’ age was divided into the following five age groups in the study: 1) 10–19, 2) 20–29, 3) 30–39, 4) 40–49, and 5) over 50 years of age, which is regarded as the classic. In this classic age group division age group difference in the six indefinites was only found in yakkan (F= 2.671, p= .033), as shown in Table 7. In particular, age group difference in yakkan was found statistically significant only between age group 1 and age group 5 (p= .05) by Tukey HSD.

Table 7. The average pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs

by age group (1. 10-19, 2. 20-29, 3. 30-39, 4. 40-49, 5. over 50)

One-way ANOVA

		Sum of Squares	df	mean Square	F	Sig.
myechil cen	Between groups	29.114	4	7.278	1.019	.398
	Within groups	1777.741	249	7.140
	Total	1806.854	253
choykun	Between groups	340.682	4	85.171	1.787	.132
	Within groups	11868.310	249	47.664
	Total	12208.992	253
yakkan	Between groups	124.102	4	31.025	2.671	.033
	Within groups	2892.579	249	11.617
	Total	3016.681	253
cokum	Between groups	258.857	4	64.714	2.262	.063
	Within groups	7122.560	249	28.605
	Total	7381.417	253
manhi	Between groups	2179.152	4	544.788	2.252	.064
	Within groups	50231.860	249	241.895
	Total	62411.012	253
emcheng	Between groups	3866.770	4	966.692	1.526	.195
	Within groups	157754.479	249	633.552
	Total	161621.248	253

Since the classic age group division had not shown age group difference much in the indefinites, other than yakkan, as shown in Table 7, there needed other age grouping in the study. When age was divided into the following two groups in which age group 1 was under 25 and age group 2 over 25 years of age, age group difference was found in three indefinites as shown in Table 8.

Table 8. The average pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs

by age group (1. under 25, 2. over 25)

One-way ANOVA

		Sum of Squares	df	mean Square	F	Sig.
myechil cen	Between groups	4.456	1	4.456	.623	.431
	Within groups	1802.398	252	7.152
	Total	1806.854	253
choykun	Between groups	.144	1	.144	.003	.957
	Within groups	12208.848	252	48.448
	Total	12208.992	253
yakkan	Between groups	54.235	1	54.235	4.614	.033
	Within groups	2962.446	252	11.756
	Total	3016.681	253
cokum	Between groups	144.537	1	144.537	5.033	.026
	Within groups	7236.880	252	28.718
	Total	7381.417	253
manhi	Between groups	1235.110	1	1235.110	5.088	.025
	Within groups	61175.902	252	242.762
	Total	62411.012	253
emcheng	Between groups	243.351	1	243.351	.380	.538
	Within groups	161377.897	252	640.388
	Total	161621.248	253

In this age grouping, age group difference was found significant in yakkan (F= 4.514, p= .033), cokum (F= 5.033, p= .026), and manhi (F= 5.088, p= .025) as shown in Table 8.

Further, when age was divided into the following two groups in which age group 1 was under 20 and age group 2 over 20 years of age, age group difference was found in four indefinites as shown in Table 9.

Table 9. The average pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs

by age group (1. under 20, 2. over 20)

Descriptive Statistics

	age group	N	Average	SD	Min	Max
myechil cen	under 20	31	3.61	1.69	1.00	8.00
	over 20	223	4.39	2.77	1.00	17.00
	Total	254	4.30	2.67	1.00	17.00
choykun	under 20	31	4.71	5.27	1.00	30.00
	over 20	223	7.39	7.10	1.00	30.00
	Total	254	7.06	6.95	1.00	30.00
yakkan	under 20	31	5.68	5.10	1.00	18.00
	over 20	223	3.73	3.10	1.00	20.00
	Total	254	3.96	3.45	1.00	20.00
cokum	under 20	31	7.55	5.43	1.00	20.00
	over 20	223	5.32	5.35	1.00	30.00
	Total	254	5.59	5.40	1.00	30.00
manhi	under 20	31	21.77	18.17	2.00	75.00
	over 20	223	15.37	15.21	1.00	110.00
	Total	254	16.15	15.71	1.00	110.00
emcheng	under 20	31	29.77	21.74	5.00	90.00
	over 20	223	24.87	25.71	2.00	150.00
	Total	254	25.47	25.27	2.00	150.00

One-way ANOVA

		Sum of Squares	df	mean Square	F	Sig.
myechil cen	Between groups	16.441	1	16.441	2.314	.129
	Within groups	1790.413	252	7.105
	Total	1806.854	253
choykun	Between groups	195.547	1	195.547	4.102	.044
	Within groups	12013.445	252	47.672
	Total	12208.992	253
yakkan	Between groups	103.593	1	103.593	8.961	.003
	Within groups	2913.088	252	11.560
	Total	3016.681	253
cokum	Between groups	135.345	1	135.345	4.707	.031
	Within groups	7246.072	252	28.754
	Total	7381.417	253
manhi	Between groups	1115.485	1	1115.485	4.586	.033
	Within groups	61295.527	252	243.236
	Total	62411.012	253
emcheng	Between groups	654.600	1	654.600	1.025	.312
	Within groups	160966.648	252	638.757
	Total	161621.248	253

In this age grouping, age group difference was found significant in choykun (F= 4.102, p= .044), yakkan (F= 8.961, p= .003), cokum (F= 4.707, p= .031), and manhi (F= 4.586, p= .033) as shown in Table 9.

What these three different age grouping in the study indicates is that age group difference in the pragmatic scope of the indefinites becomes clearer when age was divided into the two age groups than the classic five age groups and when age was divided into the two groups of under 20 and over 20 than the two groups of under 25 and over 25 years of age shown in Tables 8 and 9. In other words, there is a tendency for younger participants to regard myechil cen (m= 3.61) and choykun (m= 4.71) as not far away from the present than older ones (m= 4.39 in myechil cen and m= 7.39 in choykun) and to see yakkan (m= 5.68), cokum (m= 7.55), manhi (m= 21.77), and emcheng (m= 29.77) as having greater pragmatic scope than older ones (m= 3.73 in yakkan, m= 5.32 in cokum, m= 15.37 in manhi, and m= 24.87 in emcheng).

4. Conclusion

The study examined the pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs in Korean and found out some important findings. Although the indefinite adverbs have all been used indefinitely as the term implies, the study indicated that there is a certain range of scope that may be agreed on when we use them in reality. For instance, we think of choykun as approximately 7 days ago from the present although it is termed indefinite in grammar. Similarly we regard myechil cen as 4 or 5 days ago from the present which is quite different from the pragmatic scope of choykun. The pragmatic scope difference between the two has not been studied before the present study.

The study also found out that the indefinite adverbs of degree, yakkan and cokum, could have quite different pragmatic scope when they were used in different contexts. That is, the pragmatic scope of these two similar or nearly identical adverbs might differ when they modify a different kind of NPs such as the N snow and the N price in the study. The pragmatic scope difference between the two was found statistically significant in the study. In addition, the  same indefinite adverbs would have different pragmatic scope whether they are used in an affirmative sentence or a negative one. For instance, the indefinite adverb greatly would have different pragmatic scope whether it is used in “The price of daily goods has jumped greatly.” or in “The price of daily goods hasn’t jumped greatly.” Even though the difference in the use of indefinite adverbs between affirmative and negative sentences comes out as obvious, it would still not be sure whether the difference is due to our cognitive difference in the use of affirmative vs. negative sentences.

As anticipated, the difference in the pragmatic scope between cokum, manhi, and emcheng was found great in the study even when they were used in the same context. The difference in the pragmatic scope between cokum and manhi was clear, shown in their mean difference, –10.56, which is very significant at the level of .001. Surprisingly the difference in the pragmatic scope between manhi and emcheng was also found great in the study although these two indefinite adverbs of quantity are assumed to be used in a similar way. Their mean difference is –9.31, which is very significant at the level of .001. Like the difference in the pragmatic scope between myechil cen and choykun, the difference between manhi and emcheng indicates that we actually use these indefinite adverbs of time, degree, and quantity in Korean in quite different ways in reality although they are believed to mean almost the same in grammar.

Gender difference was not found in the pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs in the study, although there is a clear tendency for male to report higher pragmatic scope than female in all of the six indefinites. The tendency, however, did not lead to the overall gender differences in the pragmatic scope statistically at any significant level.

Age group differences in the pragmatic scope of the six indefinite adverbs were found significant in some indefinite adverbs in the study such as choykun, yakkan, cokum, and manhi when age was divided into the two groups of under 20 and over 20 years of age. In these indefinite adverbs it is evident that the former age group reported greater pragmatic scope of the indefinites than the latter. There was also a tendency for age group difference to appear more clearly when age was divided into the two groups than the classic five groups.

Above all, the study is the first attempt to examine the pragmatic scope of the indefinite adverbs in Korean and thus it broadens the area of indefinite studies, indicating that indefinites could be measured pragmatically and there is a certain range of pragmatic scope of the indefinites we all have in mind and  agree with in the real use of them.

References

Hong, M. (2004). Focused indefinites and emphatic assertion in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 12(3), 59-79.

Ionin, T. (2010). The scope of indefinites: An experimental investigation. Nat Lang Semantics, 18, 295-350.

Ioup, G. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, 4 (pp. 37-58). New York: Academic Press.

Joh, Y. (2014). English each and Korean kakkak. The Journal of Modern British & American Language & Literature, 32(2), 31-50.

Kang, H. K. (2001). Quantifier spreading: Linguistic and pragmatic considerations. Lingua, 111, 591-627.

Kang, H. L. (2010). Presentation methods for co-occurrence information of adverbs with negativity and adverb vocabularies: Focused on cenhye (never) and pyelo (not much). The Education of Korean Language and Culture, 4(1), 25-52.

Kim, H. (2009). The usage of degree adverbs in spoken language. Master’s Thesis, Korea University.

Kim, M. (2004). The collective and distributive interpretation in second language acquisition: Evidence from Korean EFL learners. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 1-15.

Kim, M. (2010). Korean EFL learners’ interpretation of quantifier-negation scope interaction in English. English Studies, 16(1), 164-183.

Kim, T. & Lee, H. (2010). An empirical approach to quantifier floating in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korean Journal, 18(1), 1-20.

Lee, B. (2001). The semantics and problems of indefinite descriptions, The New Studies of English Language & Literature, 20, 163-181.

Lee, K. (2013). Focus and floating numeral quantifiers in Korean. Master’s Thesis, Kyungpook National University.

Lee, W. (2012). A study of negativity adverbs in Korean language education. Master’s Thesis, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.

Lim, D. (2015). What the partitive reading of floating quantifiers in Korean tells us about the Korean extended DP structure. Eoneohag, 73, 59-80.

Marsden, H. (2004). L2 knowledge of quantifier scope in Korean and English learners of Japanese. In M. Cazzoli-Goeta, M. Mukai & L. Van Espen (Eds.), Durham working papers in linguistics, 10 (pp. 137-150), Durham: University of Durham, School of Linguistics and Language.

Miyagawa, S. (2006). Locality in syntax and floated numeral quantifiers in Japanese and Korean. Japanese Korean Linguistics, 14, 270-282.

Mo, S. (2012). A study on the Korean temporal adverbs ‘ajik’ ‘yeotae’. Master’s Thesis, Yonsei University Weonju Campus.

Oh, Y. (2014). L2 English speakers’ acquisition of English universal quantifiers. Ph.D Thesis. Chonnam National University.

Park, C. (2012). Quantifiers and meaning. Korean Semantics, 39, 1-23.

Park, Y. (2007). A Study of the semantic characteristics of the proportional quantifier floating in Korean. Master’s Thesis, Seoul National University.

Parreira, A. & Lorga, A. (2016). The use of numerical value of adverbs of quantity and frequency in the measurement of behavior patterns: Transforming ordinal scales into interval scales. Ensaio, 24, 109-126.

Rakhlin, N. (2007). A new pragmatic account of quantifier-spreading. Nanzan Linguistics, 3(1), 239-282.

Shin, K. (2009). Numeral quantifiers: NP modifiers and relational quantity nominals. Language Research, 45(1), 131-156.

Shin, K. (2014). English floating quantifiers as intensifiers. The 21st Century Association of English Language and Literature, 21, 373-393.

Tunstall, S. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and processing. Ph.D Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Yoo, M. (2014). Scope interpretation of sentences with double quantifiers by native and Korean speakers of English: A case study of double object and to-dative constructions. Master’s Thesis, Ewha Womens University.

Yun, E. (1996). Discourse representation theory and the semantic interpretation of quantifiers. Ph.D Thesis. Chonnam National University.

Yun, H. (2004). Scope ambiguity in discourse representation theory. Journal of Language Sciences, 11(1), 165-181.

Jeong Khn Ahn

Department of English

College of Humanities

Chonbuk National University

Jeonju, Korea 561-756

Phone: 82-63-270-3213

Email: jkahn@jbnu.ac.kr

Received on September 30, 2016

Revised version received on December 5, 2016

Accepted on December 30, 2016