The Why-not Construction in Korean:

A Direct Interpretation Approach*

* This study was supported by 2016 Research Grant from Kangwon National University (No. 520160337).

Sae-Youn Cho & Han-gyu Lee**

https://doi.org/10.24303/lakdoi.2018.26.2.1

** The first author is Sae-Youn Cho and the corresponding author, Han-gyu Lee.

∣ Sae-Youn Cho & Han-gyu Lee

The Why-not Construction in Korean: A Direct Interpretation Approach ∣

(Kangwon National University & Kyung Hee University)

Cho, Sae-Youn & Lee, Han-gyu. (2018). The Why-not construction in Korean: A direct interpretation approach. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 26(2), 1-19. The why-not construction in Korean seems to have such patterns as Why NP+SubjCase Negative Copula(NC)+Q. However, a careful examination reveals that the Korean why-not construction exhibits various idiosyncratic properties depending on its subtypes. We argue that the construction in Korean should be divided into two types: Why NP+SubjCase NC+Q (Type I) and Why VP[(NP+SubjCase) NC+Q] (Type II). Then we claim that the two subtypes can be analyzed in the Construction-based HPSG under a Direct Interpretation Approach. To support this claim, we propose a why-not construction rule for Korean, which can enable us to capture the various grammatical and pragmatic properties of the patterns at hand.

Key Words: Korean why-not construction, Direct Interpretation Approach, Construction-Based HPSG, negative copula

1. Introduction

The why-not construction in English refers to the one which consists of ‘why’, ‘not’, and an NP. This has been briefly discussed as part of why-stripping in Merchant (2006), Weir (2014), and Yosida et al. (2015), and one of the typical examples is as below:

(1) A: Mary didn’t fix her printer. She didn’t fix her computer, either.
B: Why not her computer?/?*Why her computer?	(Weir, 2014:241)

The syntactic approach which assumes movement and deletion seeks to account for the reason why the negative not is required when the NP mentioned in the preceding utterance, her computer, occurs with why.

Similar to the why-not construction in English, one of the why-not constructions in Korean consists of way ‘why’, NP combined with the subject marker (SM), and the negative copula (NC) ani- combined with a question ending (way NP-SM ani-Q), which produces a perfect propositional meaning. Some of its Korean examples are seen in (2) below;

There are many question endings in Korean which attach to a predicator to form a question. In this paper, -ci and -ya are mainly used. Different endings represent different pragmatic implications, which are beyond the scope of this paper.

Abbreviations: SM: subject marker, OM: object marker, Q: question ending, QE:     quotative ending, DE: declarative ending, and TP: topic marker. In addition, we use ‘*’ for unacceptability here.

(2)A: Swunii-ka	hakkyo-ey	kass-tay.

-SM	school-to	went-QE

‘I heard that Swuni went to school.

B: a. Way	Namswuk-ka	ani-ci?

why	-SM	not.be-Q

‘Why not Namswu?’

b. *Way	Swunii-ka	ani-ci?

why	-SM	not.be-Q

‘Why not Swuni?’

The construction of way NP-SM ani-Q as a response to (2A) is appropriate if Namswuk, not mentioned in (2A), occurs at the position of NP, as in (2a). However, the occurrence of Swunii mentioned in (2A) makes (2b) inappropriate. Furthermore, pragmatically, Namswuk is used to contrast with Swunii in association with the event of going to school, so that Namswuk attracts the listener’s attention; that is, the position of NP is focused. Thereby the speaker is looking for the information about why it is not Namswu, but Swuni, who went to school. This demonstrates that the speaker expected Namswu to be more likely to go to school than Swuni.

It is interesting that Korean has another construction which appears to be identical to the construction of way NP-SM ani-Q? in (2a). One example is provided in (3), which demonstrates that it shows different characteristics from those of (2a).

(3)A: Swunii-ka   haksayngj-i    ani-lay.

-SM	student-SM	not.be-QE

‘I heard that Swuni is not a student.’

B: Way	Swunii-ka/haksayngj-i	ani-ci?

why	-SM/student-SM	not.be-Q

‘Why not Swuni/a student?’

As a response to (3A), (3B) is good unlike (2b), even if Swunii or haksayngj in (3A) is repeated in it. Pragmatically, it is uttered under the same assumption for (2b) that the speaker of (3B) did not expect the state of affairs (SOA) described by (3A) to occur. Thereby the speaker expresses his surprise about the information of (3A) by mentioning Swunii or haksayngj again. Then how can we represent them in grammar?

If the observations above are correct, any analysis of the construction way NP-SM ani-Q in Korean should provide an explanation for why the co-indexed NPs are allowed in (3B), while they are not in (2b). And it should also give a pragmatic account for how the constructions in (2a) and (3B) are similar and different. To answer the two questions, we will investigate the grammatical and pragmatic properties of the construction way NP-SM ani-Q. Based on these properties, we will suggest a DIA (Direct Interpretation Approach) analysis within the framework of Construction- based Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) (Boas & Sag 2012, Ginzburg 2012, Ginzburg & Sag 2000, Kim 2015). Through this suggestion, we will claim that the construction should be distinguished into 2 types; way NP-SM ani-Q (Type I) and way VP[NP-SM ani-]-Q (Type II), and that they can be treated properly through the DIA.

This paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 provides the grammatical and pragmatic properties of the construction of way NP-SM ani-Q. Section 3 discusses the theoretical implications of those properties, and then suggests our analysis of the construction in Construction-based HPSG under the DIA, which will be applied to some typical examples. And the concluding remarks will follow.

2. Properties of Why-not Construction in Korean

2.1. The Grammatical Properties

In this section, we will describe the four grammatical properties which the 2 types of the why-not construction in Korean show, demonstrating how they behave in different ways.

The first property to deal with is concerned with the (in-)occurrence of the negative copula ani- in the previous utterance. The two types of the why-not construction in Korean were already demonstrated in section 1; (2a) belongs to Type I, and (3B) to Type II. Superficially, they look like the same. They are used in different contexts; Type II construction requires the occurrence of the negative copula ani- in the previous utterance, as seen in (3A), while Type I does not as in (2A). So, the (non-)existence of the negative copula in the preceding utterance is the key property for the 2 types.

Type II construction is a case of ‘predicate’ stripping constructions dealt with in Cho & Lee (2017), which indicates that the verb of the preceding utterance is copied into the constructions. In some sense, Type I construction, we believe, is a special case, which needs to be treated with Construction Grammar.

The second property of this construction is concerning the issue of the co-indexation between the NP of each type and the relevant NP of the preceding utterance. The NP in Type I must not be co-indexed with the relevant NP in the preceding utterance as follows:

(4) A: Yengi-ka tayhak  iphak    sihem-ul	phokihayss-tay.

-SM  college  entrance exam-OM	gave.up-QE

‘It is said that Yengi gave up the college entrance exam.’

B: a. Way Namswu-ka  ani-ci?

why         -SM not.be-Q        ‘Why not Namswu?’

b. *Way Yengi-ka    ani-ci?

why        -SM   not.be-Q       ‘Why not Yengi?’

The NP of Type I, Namswu, freely occurs in (4a) when it is not co-indexed with the relevant NP, Yengi, in (4A). However, (4b) is impossible because the NP in the why-not construction is co-indexed with the relevant NP, Yengi, in (4A).

On the other hand, the NP in Type II must be co-indexed with the relevant NP in the preceding utterance. In Type II (5a), the NP, Yengi or wuli maknay, can occur freely, when it is co-indexed with the relevant NP, Yengi, in (5A). However, (5b) is not allowed since Namswu in it is not co-indexed with Yengi in (5A).

(5) A: Yengi-ka  ku sihem-ey hapkyek-han kes-i	ani-lay.

-SM  the exam.-in pass-do      that-SM	not.be-QE

‘It is said that it is not true that Yengi passed the exam.’

B: a. Way Yengi-ka/wuli maknay-ka	ani-ci?

why     -SM/our youngest-SM	not.be-Q

‘Why not Yengi/my youngest sister?’

b. *Way Namswu-ka  ani-ci?

why         -SM  not.be-Q        ‘Why not Namswu?’

The third property is related to the Cases of the NPs in the why-not constructions. Following Kim (2015), we consider Korean Cases to be classified into two types: Grammatical Cases such as Subject (Nominative) and Object (Accusative) and Semantic Cases such as Locative and Dative. Under this Case system, the relevant NP in Type I should have the same Subject case due to the negative copula, ani-, which requires its complements to have the Subject case, while it optionally may have Semantic Cases, as follows:

(6)   A: Yengi-ka Seoul-ey	kass-tay.

-SM      -to	went-QE

‘I heard that Yengi went to Seoul.’

B: a. Way Busan-i/Busan-ey-ka/*Busan-ey	ani-ci?

why      -SM     -to-SM       -to   not.be-Q

‘Why not Busan?’

b. Way Swuni-ka/*Swuni-lul	ani-ci?

why      -SM       -OM	not.be-Q

‘Why not Swuni?’

Specifically, the NP of Type I combined with the SM, -i, or the LOC+SM, -ey+ka is acceptable, whereas the NP only with the LOC, -ey, is disallowed, as in (6a). Further, when it is combined with the OM, -lul, the result is not accepted, as in (6b).

Interestingly, the same case connectivity between the NP in Type II and the relevant NP in the preceding utterance is also observed, as seen in (7-8).

(7) A: Yengi-ka haksayng-i   ani-lay.

-SM  student-SM not.be-QE

‘It is said that Yenghi is not a student.’

B: a. Way Yengi-ka/haksayng-i   ani-ci?

why      -SM/student-SM not.be-Q

‘Why not Yenghi/a student?’

b. *Way Yengi-lul/haksayng-ul   ani-ci?

why       -OM./student-OM not.be-Q

(8) A: Yengi-ka Seoul-ey  kan  kes-i   ani-lay.

-SM     -to went rel-SM  not.be-QE

‘It is said that it is not true that Yengi went to Seoul.’

B: Way Seoul-i/Seoul-ey-ka  ani-ci?

why      -SM/   -to-SM not.be-Q

‘Why not to Seoul’?‘

If the NPs of Type II co-occur with the SM, then the result is acceptable as in (7a). On the other, if they do not, then the result is unacceptable as in (7b). Similar to (6a), when the NP of Type II occurs with the SM or LOC+SM, it is allowed as in (8B).

The final property of the NP in the why-not constructions is the distributional behaviors of the NP in the preceding utterance. It is well-known that the wh-island constraint is syntactic due to the fact that no element in a wh-clause can be moved out. For example, (9) is ungrammatical because Swuni-lul, the object of pinanhan ‘criticized’, is moved out of the wh-clause, which violates the constraint.

Both types of the construction seem mainly to require an NP right in front of the negative copula, ani-, to occur. Other categories such as an AP or a VP cannot occur as a subcategorized element by ani-. Refer to Cho & Lee (2017) for further information.

(9) *Swunij-lul ece Namswu-ka [NP[S ___j pinanhan] salam-ul mannass-ta.

-OM yesterday    -SM          criticized person-OM met-DE

(Intended meaning: Namswu met a person who criticized Swuni.)

However, both types of the why-not construction in Korean appear to allow the violation of such island constraints as shown in (10-11).

(10) A: Swuni-nun [pwule-lul   cal  hanun] salam-ul cohahan-tay.

-TP   French-OM well do  person-OM like-QE

‘It is said that Swuni likes a person who speaks French well.’

B: Way tokile-ka	ani-ci?

why German-SM	not.be-Q

‘Why not German?’

(11) A: Swuni-nun [pwule-lul    cal hanun] salam-i	ani-lay.

-TP  French-OM  well do    person-SM   not.be-QE

‘It is said that Swuni is not a person who speaks French well.’

B: Way pwule-ka	ani-ci?

why French-SM	not.be-Q

‘Why not French?’

In other words, the NP of Type I, tokile-ka, ‘German’, in (10B), and that of Type II, pwule-ka, in (11B), are allowed to occur even when their relevant NPs in the preceding utterances are a constituent in the wh-clause. The fact that the NPs can violate the island condition appears to point out that the why-not construction in Korean may not be derived syntactically but base-generated and interpreted directly.

2.2. The Pragmatic Properties

This section will describe what interpretations the Type I construction carries in the discourse, and what pragmatic properties it has.

When the speaker feels a surprise at the occurrence of the state of affairs (SOA) described by the preceding utterance, he can use the questions like the following seen in (12a-c);

(12) A: Wuli pan taypyo-lo         Hyocwu-ka nakan-tay.

our class representative-as         -SM go out-QE

‘It is said that Hyocwu will join the contest for our class.’

B: a) Way?   b) Way Hyocwu(-i)-ya?    c) Way Yeli-ka ani-ya? (Type I)

why      why         -be-Q               -SM not-be-Q

‘Why?’    ‘Why Hyocwu?’           ‘Why not Yeli?’

In (12), A and B are talking about the English speech contest of their school, to which each class can send one student. A told B about the SOA that Hyocwu would join the contest for their class. Using different utterances (a-c), B is responding to A by asking for how come the SOA occurred; thereby he is expressing his surprise, implying that he did not expect that Hyocwu would be selected for the contest.

The differences in (a-c) are closely related to the speaker’s different intentions, which result in different pragmatic interpretations. The utterance (a) consists of only one word way ’why,’ while (b&c) additionally include an individual that the speaker believes to be likely to attend the contest; Hyocwu(b), and Yeli(c). Uttering (a), the speaker is intending to get the reason for the occurrence of the SOA. On the other hand, uttering (12b&c), the speaker B expresses his surprise at the occurrence of the SOA in association with Hyocwu and Yeli, respectively. Thereby, B is attracting A’s attention on Hyocwu(b) and Yeli(c), which can show that B did not expect Hyocwu to be sent to the contest(b), and that B expected Yeli to be sent(c). The reason that B focuses on Hyocwu and Yeli is that B assumes an expectation scale on the likelihood of the SOAs to occur; the SOAs involving students with better English are more likely to occur, and the order of the SOAs in the scale depends on the students’ English ability. So, for (b&c), the speaker should have an expectation scale, which includes other students whose English is better than Hyocwu, and one of them is Yeli. However, as for (a), the speaker is not necessarily required to assume such an expectation scale.

Though (12b&c) require the speaker to assume an expectation scale, they are different in use. In (b), Hyocwu is just copied from the preceding utterance, and in (c) Yeli, never mentioned before, is picked out of B’s expectation scale where Yeli’s state of affairs should be listed higher than that of Hyocwu. So the speaker cannot use (c) if he does not have the specific information about someone who will be better than Hyocwu in English: for (c), that someone is Yeli. On the other hand, the speaker can use (b), even if he does not have such specific information (Cho & Lee 2017). This does not mean that (b) cannot be used when the speaker has the specific information. If he does not want to mention directly Yeli or other students who he believes to be better in English than Hyocwu, he can utter (b). Likewise, (a) can be used even when the speaker assumes an expectation scale, if he does not want to expose it outwardly. So, out of the 3 constructions in (12a-c), the Type I construction (c) has the most strict pragmatic constraint, and (b) comes next, and (a) can be used even when the speaker assumes no expectation scale. Then, the speaker B can utter (a), or (b&c) at a time, as a response to A, only if B has an expectation scale where not only Hyocwu, but also Yeli is listed.

The pragmatic conditions for the two constructions such as (12b&c) can predict correctly why the phrasal category copied from the previous utterance cannot occur in the Type I construction, as seen in (13B).

(13) A: Wuli pan tayphyo-lo          Hyocwu-ka nakan-tay. (=12A)

our class representative-as            -SM join-QE

‘It is said that Hyocwu will join the contest for our class.’

B: *Way Hyocwu-ka	ani-ya?	(Type I)

why        -SM     not.be-Q

‘Why not Hyocwu?’

In (13), A said that Hyocwu would be sent to the contest for their class, and B responded by using the type I construction containing Hyocwu, which requires B to believe that Hyocwu is more qualified but not sent to the contest; this contradicts the fact of what A said. That is why (13B) cannot be used as a reply to A.

However, as shown in (14B), it looks like (13B) can be used as a reply to (14A).

(14) A: Wuli pan tayphyo-ka        Hyocwu-ka	ani-lay.

our class representative-SM        -SM	not.be-QE

‘It is said that Hyocwu will not join the contest for our class.’

B: Way Hyocwu-ka ani-ya?   (Type II)

why        -SM not.be-Q

‘Why not Hyocwu?‘

The question (14B) looks like the Type I construction including Hyocwu. However, a careful look at (14A) shows that its predicator is the negative copula ani-, so that the verb in (14B) is just a copy of it, which belongs to the Type II construction, which was classified and explained in 2.1. In (14), A says that Hyocwu was not chosen on behalf of her class. And B responds by just repeating the verb used in A’s utterance. Pragmatically, B believes Hyocwu is well qualified for the contest, so that the SOA involving Hyocwu is most likely to occur in B’s expectation scale. Using the Type II construction, B expresses his surprise and asks for the why. This shows that the Type II construction like (14B) is different in use from the Type I construction, which has the condition that the SOA involving the NP in the construction should rank higher in the expectation scale than the one mentioned in the previous utterance.

Up to now, we have looked at how the Type I construction is used in the discourse and how it is different in use from the Type II construction. It requires the speaker to have an expectation scale on the likelihood of the SOA to occur, and to have information about a particular individual (expressed by NP in the Type I construction) who is more likely to be involved in the SOA than the one mentioned in the previous utterance.

3. A New Proposal Under a DIA

There seem to be at least two approaches to account for the peculiar properties of the why-not construction in Korean: a Movement-based Ellipsis Approach (MEA) and a Direct Interpretation Approach (DIA). Though there are few analyses of the English why-not construction under a MEA including Merchant (2006) and Weir (2014), there has been no previous analysis for the Korean why-not construction not only under a MEA, but a DIA. To give an explanation on the properties of the construction at issue, we adopt a Construction-based analysis under a DIA, instead of a MEA, in that a MEA seems to face theoretical and empirical difficulties including the violation of the wh-island constraint.

More specifically, a syntactic analysis under a MEA must give an account of how to derive the why-not construction from a proper D-structure. To do this, we may adopt the analysis of the English why-not construction proposed by Weir (2014), as in (15).

(15) a. Why not her computer?

b. [CP Why not [FocP her computer [VoiceP she did fix t]]]?

Assuming (15b) to be a proper D-structure, we may get the surface form (15a) through the NP movement of her computer and the VP deletion. If this analysis is adopted to explain the Type I construction in Korean, sentences like (16B) should be assumed to be a D-structure to get the right surface form.

(16) A: Swuni-ka  cip-ey	on-tay.

-SM house-to	come-QE

‘It is said that Swuni will come.’

B: *?[Way  [Yengi-ka    [ t cip-ey on-tay]  ani-ci]?

why        -SM    house-to come   not.be-Q

‘Why not Yengi?’

However, we are not sure whether (16B) is uniformly regarded as a proper D-structure for the Korean why-not construction. Furthermore, the fact that the relevant NP in the preceding utterance can violate island constraints as in (17), points out that the why-not construction is not a purely syntactic issue.

(17) A: Swuni-nun [pwule-lul   cal hanun] salam-ul    cohahan-tay. (=10)

-TP   French-OM well do   person-OM like-QE

‘It is said that Swuni likes a person who speaks French well.’

B: Way tokile-ka     ani-ci?

why German-SM not.be-Q

‘Why not German?’

Again, this proves that any syntactic analysis under a MEA can be problematic. Lastly, it is obvious that the two types of the Korean why-not construction deliver different pragmatic meanings, as described in Section 2.2. Nonetheless, the syntactic analysis under a MEA does not appear to provide an appropriate reading to each type of the construction. Hence, we adopt a Construction-based analysis under a DIA to account for the properties of the why-not construction in Korean, rejecting syntactic analyses under a MEA.

The Construction-based analysis under a DIA here base-generates Korean why-not sentences by employing construction rules and provides an interpretation to each construction. To explain the properties of the two types of the construction, we introduce two construction rules: one for Type I and the other for Type II.

First, we adopt the predicative-stripping construction rule proposed by Cho & Lee (2017), and modify it slightly as in (18) in order to explain the Type II construction. In addition, we also employ the Korean wh-stripping construction rule in (19). Originally, the predicative-stripping construction rule was proposed to account for the Korean why construction, but it can be applied to Type II of the why-not construction in Korean, since this type is a subtype of the predicative-stripping construction. These two construction rules, i.e. (18) and (19), enable us to provide a neat explanation for the various properties of the Type II construction discussed above. Before demonstrating how they work, we will sketch the construction rules briefly.

Cho & Lee (2017) propose the predicative-stripping construction rule to account for the Korean why construction such as Way Yengi-ya/ci? ‘Why Yengi?’. Refer to Cho & Lee (2017) for further questions.

The construction rule (18) consists of a mother and its daughter. The daughter AVM (Attribute Value Matrix) specifies that its CAT value is V, which can be a verb, a VP, or an S, and the head of the V attached by the Q like ci- or ya- must be the Negative Copula (NC), ani-. When the NP in the why-not construction occurs, its INDEX value is focused as encoded in the SAL-UTT (Salient-Utterance) value of the DGB (Dialogue Game Board). In postulating this construction rule, we adopt the DGB proposed by Ginzberg (2012) whose value has the MAX-QUD (Maximal Question Under Discussion) and the SAL-UTT and further add more information such as the PRE-UTT (Preceding Utterance) and the REL-UTT (Relevant Utterance), which will play an important role to account for various stripping constructions. In the DGB as a pragmatic part, the NP tagged with  is focused and the co-indexed NP, i.e. the i-indexed NP, must exist in the proposition of the PRE-UTT. Further, as specified in the CONTEXT|SPEAKER|EXPECT, the SOA of the preceding utterance  is not expected, because the value is empty list < >.

(18) Predicative Stripping Construction Rule (Revised)

For more detailed explanation, refer to Ginzberg (2012) and Cho & Lee (2017).

⇒

SYN    S

DGB

SAL-UTT

SYN  [CAT ]

SEM [INDEX  i]

Q-MARK <-ci,...>

HEAD [NC +]

SYN  [CAT ]

SEM  [INDEX  i]

V

CONTXT|SPEAKER|EXPECT <  >]]

MAX-QUD λP[P causes  ]

PRE-UTTS0 = λQ[V’(...,Q...)](Q=i)

REL-UTT  S0

SEM

In fact, the whole meaning of Type II of the why-not construction is the value of the MAX-QUD, , which is provided in terms of the korean-stripping-construction in (19).

(19) Korean Wh-Stripping Rule (Informal Version)

SYN  S

QUE +

CONTXT|SPEAKER|UNEXPECT <>

MAX-QUD λP[P causes  ]

ADV

[WH+]

→

SYN S

PRE-UTT

FOCUS +

strip-constr

Now we will demonstrate how the two rules, (18) and (19), can explain the Type II construction in Korean with the example (20).

(20) A: Wuli pan tayphyo-ka         Hyocwu-ka	ani-lay.

our class representative-SM          -SM	not.be-QE

‘It is said that Hyocwu will not join the contest for our class.’

B: Way Hyocwu-ka	ani-ya?

why        -SM	not.be-QE

‘Why not Hyocwu?’

C:

S[Q +]

S[FOCUS+]

Adv

Way

V[Q-MARK -ya]

Hyocwu-ka   ani-ya

The example of Type II, (20B), where the NP in it is co-indexed with an NP in (20A), can be represented as shown in (20C) under this analysis. Specifically, the top local tree is syntactically licensed by the Korean Wh-Stripping Rule in (19), and the bottom one by the Predicative Stripping Construction Rule in (18). As for the reading issue, the two rules, in principle, provide the MAX-QUD value, namely “what causes the unexpected SOA which is the value of the PRE-UTT”. If this is applied to (20B), we can get the MAX-QUD value: what causes the occurrence of the unexpected SOA, which is, ‘Hyocwu is not a representative of our class for the contest’?. So this unexpected SOA does not appear in the expected list in (18). In addition, the Q value will be attached to the negative copula, ani-, by the definition of the rule in (18) while the NP with the SM by the NC, Hyocwu-ka, must be focused via the rule (19) and the HFP (Head Feature Principle). Thus the grammatical and pragmatic information encoded in (18-19) enables us to account for why the Type II construction in Korean exhibits such properties as discussed in 2.1.

From now on, we will discuss the Type I construction in Korean, In fact, Type I syntactically consists of a mother and two daughters, namely a focused NP+SM and an NC+Q ani-ya/-ci. Semantically, Type I expresses what did not cause the SOA which is more likely to occur than the unexpected SOA in the PRE-UTT. To satisfy these syntactic and semantic requirements, we propose the so-called why-not stripping construction rule as in (21).

(21) Why-not Stripping Construction Rule7)

⇒

SYN    S

DGB

SAL-UTT

SYN  [CAT ]

SEM [INDEX  i]

CONTXT|SPEAKER|EXPECT <.........>

MAX-QUD λP[P ￢causes  ]

PRE-UTT  S0 = λQ[V’(...,Q...)](j)

REL-UTT  S1= λQ[V’(...,Q...)](i)

SEM

NP+SM

Q-MARK <ci,...>

NC	+

SYN   COMP<>

ADJ why-adv

SEM  [INDEX  i]

The ADJ(unct) value should be why-adverb including way or ettehkey ‘how’ as shown in the AVM of the head daughter in (21). This notation is intended to mean that the NC+Q requires the adverbs such as way.

It is important to understand how this rule enables us to get the appropriate reading for Type I. The strategy is as follows: when an NP+SM with an index is subcategorized by the NC, it is focused as a salient utterance. On the basis of the unexpected SOA  in the PRE-UTT with a relevant index, we can decide the unexpected SOA with the salient utterance, , as the REL-UTT (Relevant Utterance) value. In turn, the value of the MAX-QUD is decided on the basis of the REL-UTT value , as shown in (21).

Now we will demonstrate how the construction rule (21) can account for the Type I construction in Korean with the example (22).

(22) A: Yengi-ka	hakkyo-ey	kass-tay.

-SM	school-to	went-QE

‘I heard that Yengi went to school.’

B: a. Way  Hyocwu-ka	ani-ci?

why	-SM	not.be-Q

‘Why not Hyocwu?’

C:

S[Q +]

S[FOCUS+]

Adv

Way

V[Q-MARK -ci]

Hyocwu-ka    ani-ci

The example of Type I, (22B), in which the NP, Hyocwu, is not co-indexed with an NP, i.e. Yengi or hakkyo, in (22A), can be represented as shown in (22C) under this analysis. More specifically, the top local tree is syntactically licensed by the Korean Wh-Stripping Rule in (19), and the bottom one by the Why-not Stripping Construction rule in (21). As for the reading issue, the two rules, in principle, provide the MAX-QUD value: What did not cause the occurrence of the expected SOA which is more likely to occur than the unexpected SOA in the PRE-UTT? If this works for (22B), we can get the MAX-QUD value: What did not cause the occurrence of the expected SOA ‘Hyocwu went to school’? As for morpho-syntactic issues, the Q value will be attached to the NC, ani-, and the NP selected by the NC must have a SM like Hyocwu-ka by the definition of the rule in (21). Thus, the grammatical and pragmatic information encoded in (21) leads to a proper explanation for the properties of the Type I construction in Korean.

4. Concluding Remarks

It is interesting that the why-not construction in Korean superficially seems to have one pattern as Why NP+SM NC+Q. However, a careful examination reveals that the construction exhibits various idiosyncratic properties depending on the subtypes of the pattern. To account for the peculiar properties of the construction at issue, we argue that the construction in Korean should be divided into two subtypes: Why NP+SM NC+Q (Type I) and Why V[(NP+SM) NC+Q] (Type II), and then claim that the two subtypes can be analyzed in the Construction-based HPSG under a Direct Interpretation Approach. To support this claim, we have proposed 2 construction rules for the two types, and demonstrated how they can account for the peculiar properties of the two types. Unlike a MEA, the Construction-based HPSG theory under the DIA we proposed here gives a neat explanation on the why-not construction in Korean. We believe our analysis based on background knowledge including the preceding utterance to be on the right track in that we cannot get an appropriate reading from the why-not construction in Korean without contextual information.

References

Boas, H., & Sag, I. (2012). Sign-based construction grammar. CSLI Publications/Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Cho, S.-Y., & Lee, H.-G. (2017). Properties of Why Construction in Korean: A Direct Interpretation Approach. Inmoonkwahakyeonku, 55, 97-120. Kangwon National University.

Ginzburg, J. (2012). The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. (2000). Interrogative investigations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Kim, J.-B. (2015). Fragments in Korean: A Direct Interpretation Approach. Studies in Generative Grammar, 25(3), 703-733.

Kim, J.-B.. (2017). Why-Stripping in English and Korean: A Direct Interpretation Approach. Unpublished manuscript.

Merchant, J. (2006). Why no(t)? Style, 40, 20–23.

Sag, I., & Nykiel, J. (2011). Remarks on sluicing. In S. Muller (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG11 Conference. CSLI Publications.

Yoshida, M., Nakao, C., & Ortega-Santos, I. (2015). The syntax of	Why-stripping. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33(1), 323-370.

Yoo, E.-J. (2014). Base-generated approach to why-stripping in English. Ene, 39(4), 921-943.

Weir, A. (2014). Why-stripping targets Voice Phrase. In Proceedings of NELS, Vol. 43, 235-248.

Sae-Youn Cho

Professor

Department of English Language & Literature

College of Humanities, Kangwon National University

Chuncheon, Gangwon-do 24341, Republic of Korea

Email: sycho@kangwon.ac.kr

Han-gyu Lee

Professor

School of Global Communication

College of Foreign Language and Literature, Kyung Hee University

Yongin, Gyeonggi-do 17104, Republic of Korea

Email: hglee@khu.ac.kr

Received on May 15, 2018

Revised version received on June 11, 2018

Accepted on June 30, 2018