The so-called Plural Copy in Korean as a marker of distribution and focus

ELSEVIER

Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

The so-called Plural Copy in Korean as a marker of distribution and focus Jae J u n g Song*

Linguistics Section, School of Languages, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand Received FebrmLry 1995; revised version February 1996

Abstract This paper provides a detailed account of the so-called Plural Copy phenomenon in Korean, wherein the plural marker of the subject nominal is copied and suffixed to non-subject elements including 'unorthodox' categories such as adverbs, complementizers, illocutionary markers, etc. Contrary to what has been claimed in previous studies, the Plural Copy is not optional, because it has its own semantic function of signaling conceptual, spatial, and/or temporal distribution. Arguments are brought to bear in demonstrating that its occurrence is far from random, but externally motivated by the speaker's intention to indicate what s/he wishes to assert.

1. Introduction K o r e a n exhibits an intriguing, and possibly unique, p h e n o m e n o n called 'Plural C o p y i n g ' , wherein the plural marker of the subject n o m i n a l is 'optionally c o p i e d ' and then suffixed to various n o n - s u b j e c t elements i n c l u d i n g ' u n o r t h o d o x ' categories such as adverbs, complementizer% etc. (S. Song, 1975: 5 4 3 - 5 4 5 ; Kuh, 1987: 240; Gerdts and Youn, 1988: 163; Gerdts and Youn, 1989: 2 3 8 - 2 3 9 ; Youn, 1990: 2 9 - 3 4 ; H.-G. Lee, 1991: 515; Kim, 1994: 303). For example, in (1) the plural marker -tul of the subject n o m i n a l ai-tul-i m a y be repeated on the mass n o m i n a l

I am grateful to Keith Allan, who kindly read, and provided insightful comments on, an earlier draft, and to the two anonymous Journal of Pragmatics reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions, to which the current shape of the paper owes a great deal. I am also indebted to comments from the audience of the 1996 NZ Linguistics Society Conference, where a somewhat different version of this paper was delivered. Of course, I alone am responsible for all remaining errors of fact or interpretation. The following abbreviations are used in the present paper: Ace = accusative, ADV= adverbializer, ALL = allative, ¢OM= comitative, COMP- - complementizer, CONJ---- conjunctive, DAT= dative, r~= Hearer, HON = honorific, IMP = imperative, IND ---- indicative, INST= instrumental, LOt2--.-- locative, NOM.,---- nominative, NPST----- non-past, PL = plural, PST= past, s = Speaker, ToP = topic, Q = question. * E-mail: [email protected]; Fax: +64 3 4798689. 0378-2166/96/$15.00 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved PH S0378-2166(96)00042-2

204

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

mwul 'water', whereas in (2) the copying of the plural marker -tul onto the same nominal mwu! is not possible since plural marking cannot appear on the singular subject nominal han ai-ka 'one child' in the first place: (1) ai-tul-i mwul(-tul)-ul masi-ess-ta child-PL-NOM water(-PL)-ACC drink-PST-IND 'The children drank water.' (2) han ai-ka mwul(*-tul)-ul masi-ess-ta one child-NOM water(*-PL)-ACC drink-PST-IND 'One child drank water.' In this paper, the plural marker -tul of the subject nominal ai-tul-i in (1) is called 'intrinsic', since it is intrinsically associated with the nominal (cf. 'inherent' in Kuh, 1987: 240). That is to say that its function is to enumerate entities. On the other hand, the copied plural marker -tul of the direct object nominal mwul(-tul)-ul in (1) is called 'extrinsic', since it comes from somewhere else, that is from the plural subject nominal of the clause that the direct object nominal appears in (cf. 'subjectinduced' in Kuh, 1987: 240). Its function is not enumerative. It is not used to multiply entities. If it were, the nominal mwul(-tul)-ul would be ungrammatical, since the head noun denotes an uncountable entity, e.g. *han mwul '*one water', *yeles mwultu! '*several waters', etc. (also see Gerdts and Youn, 1989: 238; note that in this paper plural marking that is enclosed in parentheses in both data and glosses should be interpreted as extrinsic). In the literature, Plural Copying has been analyzed as a mechanistic process of copying the plural marker from the plural subject nominal to other elements (e.g. S. Song, 1975: 544-545) or as a grammatical phenomenon that relates the subject nominal to other elements or vice versa in terms of plurality (e.g. Kuh, 1987: 243-245). Not surprisingly, scholars (Choe, 1961: 232; S. Song, 1975: 544; Kuh, 1987: 240; Youn, 1990: 31; Sohn, 1994: 268)seem to agree that the only function of extrinsic plural marking (hereafter EPM) is to express simply the plurality of the subject nominal (the notable exceptions may be H.-G. Lee, 1991, and Kim, 1994, who explore the semantic function of EPM; but see 2.4). Thus, in (1) the plural marker suffixed to the direct object nominal mwul(-tul)-ul redundantly indicates the plurality of the subject nominal ai-tul-i, which indeed carries its own intrinsic plural marking (hereafter IPM). For instance, this 'redundancy' has motivated Kuh (1987) to put forth a proposal that functors or non-arguments may inherit the number feature of the subject nominal (i.e. agreement), and that the subject nominal may impose its number feature on arguments (i.e. government). Whether it is conceived of as agreement or government, what is shared between the subject nominal and the element bearing EPM is thus just the feature of plurality. Further, Plural Copying has been widely believed to be optional, as Youn (1990: 30) puts it: "the plural marker can optionally appear on various categories other than the noun it pluralizes [emphasis added]". What is implied here is that the use of EPM is of no semantic or pragmatic significance. So, (1) with the plural marker -tul suffixed to the direct object nominal is synonymous with (1) without, since as

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

205

already noted, the sole function of EPM is to express the plurality of the subject nominal redundantly. Consequently, the occurrence of EPM has been thought to be merely random. Regardless of where it appears in a given clause, EPM is claimed to express invariably the plurality of the subject nominal. The main aim of this paper is indeed to argue that EPM has its own important semantic and pragmatic functions to perform. It is far from optional. Nor is its occurrence random. The semantic function of EPM is to signal distribution, not to express simply the plurality of the subject nominal.Z EPM is used to distribute events, activities or qualities individually over the members of a set, as opposed to the set as a whole. And the distribuand (Allan, 1986: 75) or what is distributed is not the plural subject nominal, but rather it is whichever element that EPM is suffixed to (cf. H.G. Lee, 1991 : 518, and Kim, 1o94: 316-318, who depict EPM as a kind of operator which only generates a distributive relation between the plural subject nominal and the whole predicate; for further discussion, see 2.4). It will also be argued that the plural suffix is copied to a given element to mark the information expressed by that element overtly as the focus of a given utterance. The pragmatic function of EPM is to identify what is asserted in an utterance. Therefore, the occurrence of EPM is not random at all, but rather externally motivated. Although it has been noted by a number of scholars (Choe, 1961 : 232; S. Song, 1975: 543; Lukoff, 1982: 362; Kuh, 1987: 239; Youn, 1990: 30; H.-G. Lee, 1991: 513; Kim, 1994: 303) that EPM can occur on various types of nominal, adverbs, subordinate clause markers, etc., no detailed discussion seems to be available as to what types of category or element EPM cannot cooccur with, let alone exactly what types of category or element it can cooccur with. Due to limitations of space, unfortunately, a complete account of the occurrence of EPM cannot be provided in this paper, either. But an attempt will be made not only to rectify certain incorrect claims that have so far been made as to the occurrence of EPM, but also to identify those categories or elements that have not yet been characterized as potential hosts of EPM. It will be shown here, contrary to Kuh (1987: 239) and Kim (1994: 303), that verbs are unable to bear EPM. Nor can adjectives host EPM. On the other hand, EPM is found to occur on WH-words and even illocutionary markers. The rest of the paper is struclured as follows. In section 2, a reasonably detailed description of the Plural Copy phenomenon will be provided in order to delineate the conditions under which EPM is permitted or disallowed. Further, the distributive function of EPM will be explained with respect to each type of hosting element and then critically contrasted in brief with the view put forward by H.-G. Lee (1991 ) and Kim (1994). In section 3, it will be argued that the pragmatic function of EPM is to There, in fact, exist translational equivalents in Korean for English distributive each: quantifiers like may- and kak-, and a postpositional particle mata (Sohn, 1994: 270). So, what is expressed by (1) with EPM may also be expressed by (i): (i) ai-tul mata mwul-ul masi-ess-ta child-PL each water-Ace drink-esT-IND 'Each of the children drank water.' A comparison between these distributive elements and EPM is, however, beyond the scope of this paper.

206

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

signal the focal element of an utterance. In section 4, a summary of the major points discussed in the paper will be provided.

2. EPM in Korean In this section, what S. Song (1975: 544) refers to as "the question of ubiquitous appearance of the [extrinsic] plural marker" is dealt with. As will be seen, however, there are certain conditions under which Plural Copying is permitted to take place. Therefore, EPM is far from 'ubiquitous', pace S. Song (1975). At the same time, the semantic function of EPM will also be explained. But first, a brief general account of plural marking in Korean seems to be in order. 2.1. Plural marker -tul

Korean lacks dual, trial or paucal marking, but as has already been shown, it uses the suffix -tul to signal plurality (e.g. Lukoff, 1982: 28-29, 361-362, 426-427; Sohn, 1994: 268-270). As in many other languages, however, plural marking is not always obligatory. For instance, when not marked by the definite article ku, nouns without plural marking, e.g. salam 'person', can be interpreted either as singular or plural. But when in use, the plural marker occurs mainly with human nouns, less frequently with nonhuman animate nouns, and far less frequently with inanimate nouns (S. Song, 1975: 542-543; Lukoff, 1982: 361; also see Comrie, 1 9 8 9 : 1 8 9 - 1 9 0 for a general discussion on the relationship between animacy and number marking). Further, when a noun is preceded by a plural quantifier such as myech 'a few, many', yeles 'several', or a plural numeral such as seys 'three', it is regarded as redundant, and thus normally not used (S. Song, 1975: 541-542). When a noun is 'definitized' by means of the definite article ku (that is, when a noun is preceded by the article), however, plural marking is obligatory (Sohn, 1994: 269). Thus, while definitized nouns without plural marking must always be understood to be singular, e.g. ku salam 'the person', the plural marker must always be overtly used to express the plurality of definitized nouns, e.g. ku salam-tul 'the persons'. 2.2. EPM: Its occurrence and distributive function

As has been shown in (1) and (2), the subject nominal, from which plural marking is spread, is marked for plurality. When not marked for plurality, 'undefinitized' (i.e. lacking the definite article) subject nominals do not seem to spread plural marking, despite the fact that they can be interpreted as either singular or plural: z

2 Naturally, nouns with the definite article ku must only be interpreted as definite, but those without can be understood to be either definite or indefinite (Sohn, 1994: 278). The nominal ai-tul-i in (1) thus means either 'the children-NOM' or 'children-NOM'. If the same nominal is preceded by the definite article (i.e. ku ai-tul-i), it only means 'the children-NOM'. For this reason, in this paper I will only make referenceto the distinction between definitized(i.e. when nominals cooccur with the definite article) and

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

207

(3) ai-ka mwul(*-tul)-ul masi-ess-ta child-NOM water(*-PL)-ACC drink-PST-IND 'A child drank water.' or 'Children drank water.' When it appears with a plural quantifier or numeral, however, the subject nominal without overt plural marking participates in Plural Copying, as in:

(4) yele

ai-ka mwul(-tul)-ul masi-ess-ta several child-NOM water(-PL)-ACC drink-PST-IND 'Several children drank water.'

This is because the plural marker can still be used, albeit redundantly, as in: (5) yele ai-tul-i mwul(-tul)-ul masi-ess-ta several child-PL-NOM water(-PL)-ACC drink-PSTqND 'Several children drank water.' In order to be able to spread plural marking, the subject nominal must then be either explicitly marked for plurality or at least contain a plural quantifier or numeral, whereby plural marking is rendered redundant. Since Plural Copying is sensitive to the subject relation, grammatical relations initially seem to be crucial to discussion of the Plural Copy phenomenon. Furthermore, as will be shown below, direct object nominals may behave differently from indirect object or oblique nominals with respect to Plural Copying, depending on whether they are definitized or not. The basis of the next three subsections will thus be grammatical relations such as direct object, indirect object, and oblique. It will then be examined whether or not other elements, e.g. adverbs, verbs, WH-words, etc., are also able to host EPM. 2.2.1. Direct object nominals

The examples in (1), (4) and (5) clearly demonstrate that direct object nominals can inherit plural marking from plural subject nominals. However, not all direct object nominals seem to be able to bear EPM. Plural marking may not be copied onto definitized direct object nominals (although there appear to be speakers who accept the presence of EPM in definitized direct object nominals). Consider: (6) cengchiin-tul-i ku paywu(*-tul)-ul pinan ha-ess-ta politician-PL-NOM the actor(*-PL)-ACC criticism dO-PST-IND 'Politicians criticized the actor.'

undefinitized(i.e. whennominalsappeaxwithoutthe definitearticle),and avoidmentioningthe distinction betweendefiniteand indefinite.

208

JJ. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

The above sentence with the plural marker suffixed to the direct object nominal may be grammatical, only if that plural marker is interpreted as intrinsic, or if it is understood to signal plurality. In that case, (6) means: 'Politicians criticized the actors'. 3 The reason why definitized direct object nominals may not be able to inherit plural marking from the subject nominal seems to be that, as has already been pointed out, definitized nominals must always be overtly marked for plurality. Thus, because of this requirement the plural marking of definitized direct object nominals may only be understood to be intrinsic (see in 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 how this constraint can be 'bypassed' with respect to (definitized) indirect object or oblique nominals). Undefinitized direct object nominals, however, can freely inherit plural marking from the subject nominal: (1) ai-tul-i child-PL-NOM 'The children (7) ai-tul-i child-PL-NOM 'The children

mwul(-tul)-ul masi-ess-ta water(-PL)-ACC drink-PST-IND drank water.' chayk(-tul)-ul ilk-ess-ta book(-PL)-ACC read-PST-IND read a book.'

The plural marker of the uncountable direct object nominal in (1), as noted earlier, can only be interpreted as extrinsic. Mass entities such as water cannot be pluralized. Note that what Giv6n (1994: 266--267) calls the 'propositional kernel' is invariable in (1) or (7), regardless of whether or not EPM is used. For instance, in (1) aitul is identified as the agent, m w u l as the patient, and masi- as the event type, irrespective of whether or not EPM is suffixed to the direct object nominal. Without EPM, (1) could be used to describe even a situation in which a large majority of the children drank water, e.g. when eight or nine out of the ten children drank water and the rest juice. On the other hand, (1) with EPM suffixed to the direct object nominal can never be used to encode such a situation. Because of the presence of EPM, it can only report a situation in which each of the children actually drank water. This is precisely the difference that EPM gives rise to. The semantic function of the EPM of the direct object nominal in (1) is to indicate that the entities that were drunk are distributed individually over the multiple agents. So, a more accurate translation of (1) would be: 'For each of the children, it was water that s/he drank'. Thus, the semantic function of the EPM in (1) is distributive. So is the semantic function of 3 One of the Journal of Pragmatics reviewers, in fact, reports that plural marking can be copied onto definitized direct object nominals (cf. Hong, 1992: 25). The reviewer thus suggests that (6) also means: 'Each of the politicians criticized the actors', because the plural marker of the direct object nominal in (6) could also be extrinsic. The sense of distribution embodied in the reviewer's reading, however, seems to be created pragmatically by the plural subject nominal itself, not by the EPM. In this connection, attention is drawn to the fact that in the reviewer's reading above, the direct object nominal is interpreted as plural (the actors, not the actor), that is to say that its plural marker is understood to be intrinsic. This apparent variation among speakers needs to be verified through further research. In this paper, however, it is assumed that definitized direct object nominals are prohibited from hosting EPM, since it has no bearing on what will be concluded about the semantic and pragmatic functions of EPM.

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

209

the EPM in (7). The EPM in (7) is used to distribute the entities that were read individually over the multiple agents: For each of the children, it was a book that s/he read. This effect of distribution will be completely lacking in (1) and (7), if EPM is absent. When plural marking is copied onto count nominals as in (7), it may also be interpreted as signaling plurality, but only by a secondary effect. 4 This is so, because there are in fact two situations associated with (7): (i) Each of the children read the same book; or (ii) The children read a (different) book each. In the latter case, it is further implied that multiple books were read. It should be borne in mind, however, that the primary function of EPM is still not to enumerate entities. That the EPM in (7) has a secondary function of signaling nominal plurality is supported by the fact that it depends on the context whether or not multiple books were read. 2.2.2. Indirect object nominals Indirect object nominals are also found to inherit plural marking from the plural subject nominal. However, unlike direct object nominals, they can host EPM only at the end of the DAT case marker (Kuh, 1987: 240). In other words, EPM must be positioned after or suffixed to the DAT case marker, as in:

(8) salam-tul-i ku ai-eykey(-tul) ton-ul cwu-ess-ta person-PL-NOM the child-DAT(-PL) money-ACC give-PST-IND 'People gave the child money.' Note that the plural marker, intrinsic or extrinsic, can never be positioned after the ACC case marker (Kuh, 1987: 240-241). For example, -tul cannot be placed after -ul in the direct object nominal in (7); chayk-ul(-tul) is ungrammatical (cf. H.-G. Lee, 1991: 515, 526-527). On the other hand, if the plural marker is positioned before the DAT case marker as in (9), the former must only be interpreted as intrinsic (Hong, 1992: 25). To put it differently, IPM must be suffixed to the head noun, preceding the DAT case marker. (9) salam-tul-i ku ai-tul-eykey ton-ul cwu-ess-ta person-PL-NOM the child-PL--DAT money-ACC give-PST-IND 'People gave the children money.' In both (8) and (9), the indirect object nominal is marked by the definite article ku. As has already been explained, there is a constraint in Korean to the effect that the plural marking of definitized nominals may only be understood to be intrinsic. Because of this constraint, definitized direct object nominals are indeed barred from hosting EPM, as in (6). However, because the DAT case marker must precede EPM 4 Of course, IPM can also appear on the direct object nominal in (7), in which case (7) would mean: 'The children read books'. In other words, the plural marking in (7) is ambiguous between intrinsic and extrinsic interpretations.

210

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

as in (8) and follow IPM as in (9), the constraint is, so to speak, 'bypassed' with respect to (definitized) indirect object nominals. Because of the different positions of EPM and IPM vis-~t-vis the DAT case marker, indirect object nominals are allowed to bear EPM, regardless of whether or not they cooccur with the definite article. The semantic function of the EPM of the indirect object nominal in (8) is to distribute the recipients to whom people gave money (in fact, multiple 'instances' of the same recipient) individually over the multiple benefactors. So, the EPM is used to indicate that the (same) child was given money by each member of the set. 2.2.3. Oblique nominals Oblique nominals such as locative, instrumental, comitative, etc. can also host EPM. Consider:

(10) ai-tul-i child-PL-NOM 'The children (11) ai-tul-i child-PL-NOM 'The children (12) ai-tul-i child-PL-NOM 'The children

kongwon-eyse(-tul) nol-ass-ta park-LOC(-PL) play-PST-IND played in the park.' cha-lo(-tul) hakkyo-ey ka-ass-ta Car-INST(-PL) school-ALL gO-PST-IND went to school by car.' sensayng-nim-ilang(-tul) ttena-ass-ta teacher-noN-fOM(-PL) leave-PST-IND left with a teacher.'

As with indirect object nominals, EPM must only be positioned at the end of the OBL case markers. Further, because of this ordering requirement definitized oblique nominals are also allowed to host EPM. For instance, the sequence in (12) sensayng-nim-ilang(-tul) can be preceded by the definite article ku; in that case as well, the plural marker must only be interpreted as extrinsic (cf. 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). The function of the EPM in (10), (11) and (12) is not to enumerate locations, instruments or companions, respectively, but to distribute certain aspects of the events denoted over the multiple agents involved. For instance, in (10) the EPM of the locative nominal is used to distribute the locations where the event took place individually over the agents. Thus, (10), with the EPM suffixed to the locative nominal, means that the children played in different parks or even in the same park at different times (in the latter case, in fact, multiple 'instances' of the same location are distributed). Note that space or even time is distributed individually over the multiple agents. In other words, EPM can signal not only conceptual distribution, but also spatial or temporal distribution. What the speaker (hereafter S) does not commit himself or herself to here is, however, that they played together. By contrast, when used without EPM, (10) is more likely to imply that the children played together. By further implication, they must then have played in the same park. 2.2.4. Adverbs Manner adverbs can inherit plural marking from the plural subject nominal:

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

211

(13) ai-tul-i cal(-tul) nol-ass-ta child-PL-NOM welI(-PL) play-PST-IND 'The children played well.' In fact, EPM applies to all types of manner adverb, whether they are derived (by means of -key as in (14) or -(h)i as in (15)) or not (i.e. 'primitive' adverbs such as cal in (13)) (Lukoff, 1982:209-21 l, 265-266): (14) ai-tul-i child-PL-NOM 'The children (15) ai-tul-i child-PL-NOM 'The children

yongkamha-key(-tul) nase-ess-ta brave-ADV(--PL) come=forward-PST-IND came forward bravely.' coyong-hi(-tul) ttena-ass-ta quiet-AOV(-PL) Ieave-PST-1ND left quietly.'

The plural marking that appears on adverbs can never be intrinsic. Clearly, its function is not to enumerate entities, since it is impossible to multiply what is expressed by an adverb. Instead, the manner specified is ascribed to the action performed by each of the agents involved. By means of the EPM on the adverb yongkamha-ke in (14), the way how each member of the set carried out the act specified, not the way how the set as a whole did so, is described as brave. Thus, the semantic function of the EPM suffixed to adverbs is distributive. Similarly, other types of adverb can also bear EPM, namely sentential, temporal and spatial adverbs, as in (16), (17) and (18), respectively. (16) ai-tul-i tahaynghi(-tul) cip-ey tol-a o-ass-ta child-aL-NOM fortunately(-PL) house-ALL turn-coNJ come-PST-IND 'Fortunately, the children returned home.' (17) ai-tul-i ecey(-tul) cip-ey tol-a o-ass-ta child-aL-NOM yesterday(-PL) house-ALL tum-coNJ come-PST-IND 'Yesterday the children retuned home.' 0 8 ) ai-tul-i keki(-tul) moi-ess-ta child-PL-NOM there(-PL) gather-PST-IND 'The children gathered together there.' The function of the EPM in these sentences is also distributive. In (16), for instance, S's subjective evaluations of the situation denoted are distributed individually over the multiple agents: S thinks that each of the children returning home is fortunate. 2.2.5. WH-words WH-words also host EPM, as can be seen in: (19) nwukwu(-tul)-ul ai-tul-i manna-ass-nya who(-PL)-ACC child-PL-NOM meet-PST-Q 'Who did the children meet?'

212

j.l. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

(20) mwues(-tul)-ul ai-tul-i ha-ess-nya what(-PL)-ACC child-PL-NOM dO-PST-Q 'What did the children do?' (21) ettehkey(-tul) ai-tul-i nol-ass-nya hOW(-PL) child-PL-NOMplay-PST-Q 'How did the children play?' (22) oay(-tul) ai-tul-i ttena-ass-nya why(-PL) child-PL-NOM leave-PST-Q 'Why did the children leave?' (23) etise(-tul) ai-tul-i nol-ass-nya where(-PL) child-PL-NOM play-PST-Q 'Where did the children play?' (24) encey(-tul) ai-tul-i ttena-ass-nya when(-PL) child-PL-NOM leave-PSW-Q 'When did the children leave?' Note that the subject WH-word can only bear IPM, since that is where EPM originates from in the first place. Thus, the plural marker of the subject WH-word in (25) can only be interpreted as signaling plurality. (25) nwukwu-tul-i chengso-lul ha-ess-nya who-PL-NOM cleaning-ACE dO-PST-Q 'Who (plural) did the cleaning?' The function of the EPM of the WH-words is exactly the same as that of the elements which they take the place of. For instance, in (21) the WH-word ettehkey is used to question the manner in which the children played. When EPM appears on ettehkey, it is intended to ask about the manner in which every individual member of the set in question played. In other words, the questions about the manner are distributed individually over the multiple agents. Conversely, the hearer (hereafter H) is expected, if not required, to give an answer as to how each of the children actually played. A typical answer to (21) may run: X played quite well, Y played badly, Z played extremely well, and so forth. By contrast, (21), when used without EPM, can be answered in such a way that a single reply is given, providing an overall assessment of the manner in which the children in general played. Similar comments can be made with regard to the other WH-words, when they cooccur with EPM.

2.2.6. Verbs Verbs are unable to inherit plural marking from plural subject nominals. Consider: (26) ai-tul-i mwul-ul masi(*-tul)-ess(*-tul)-ta child-PL-NOM water-AcC drink(*-PL)-PST(*-PL)-INO 'The children drank water.'

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragrnatics 27 (1997) 203-224

213

EPM cannot be suffixed to verb stems. It does not make any difference even if the plural marker is positioned after the tense marking, as is also shown in (26). Kuh (1987: 239, 243-244) and Kim (1994: 303) claim that EPM can be suffixed to verbs as well. This, however, is incorrect, since their analyses are based on the plural marker being suffixed to the illocutionary marker, which is in turn suffixed to verb stems (e.g. as in (32) to (34)). As will be seen in 2.2.8, the illocutionary marker itself is able to host EPM. However, Plural Copying is evident in the conjunctive device of -a(se)/-e(se), or -ko, which appears immediateily after the verb (Lukoff, 1982:105-106, 129-132, 159, 364-365; Kuh, 1987: 239,247-248). 5 Only the first conjunctive device or the so-called A conjunctive device will be exemplified here with respect to EPM; similar comments can be made of -ko or the K conjunctive device (cf. J. Song, 1991: 205-211). Two verbs can be connected by means of the conjunctive device to form a verbal composite. The conjunctive device of -a(se)/-e(se) is normally used to denote "a series of connected or related actions, conditions, and so on" (Lukoff, 1982: 106). 6 (27) ai-tul-i kil-ul kennu-e ka-ass-ta child-PL-NOM road-ACE CYOSS-CONJ gO-PST-IND 'The children crossed the road.' In (27), for instance, the composite of two verbs, kennu- and ka-, denotes a single cohesive action. It does not refi,~r to two separate unrelated actions. The plural marker can be optionally copied from the plural subject nominal to the end of the conjunctive device. (28) ai-tul-i kil-ul kennu-e(-tul) ka-ass-ta child-PL-NOM road-ACE cross-coNJ(-PL) gO-PST-IND 'The children crossed the road.' As has already been explained, however, the verb itself cannot directly inherit plural marking at all. Consider: kil-ul kennu(*-tul)-e ka(*-tul)-ass(*-tul)-ta (29) ai-tul-i child-PL-NOM road-ACE cross(*-PL)-CONJ gO(*-PL)-PST(*-PL)-IND 'The children crossed the road.' Note that EPM cannot be suffixed to the tense marker, which appears only once after the last member of the verbal composite (cf. (26)). Thus, EPM is not allowed with

5 The conjunctivemarker -ase-/-ese- is abbreviatedto -a-/-e-, particularly in informal Korean (Lukoff, 1982: 159). 6 For this and other reasons, sentences such as (27) are not regarded as biclausal (see J. Song, 1988; 1991 : 205-211). Further, the other function of the A conjunctivedevice is to encode the idea of 'cause', as shown in (31) (Lukoff, 1982: 130-132).

214

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

respect to verbs, whether they appear alone or as members of the verbal composite. 7 In the latter case, however, verbs can bear EPM indirectly, that is when the conjunctive device intervenes between the two. Since EPM cannot be hosted directly by verbs, it seems that the 'contact' between the two is facilitated by the conjunctive device, which serves as a 'buffer', as it were. Although EPM is suffixed to the conjunctive device, which is in turn suffixed to the first member of the verbal composite in (28), its distributive function applies to the whole composite, not just part thereof (see Kuh, 1987:248 for a similar view). In other words, it is not the case that the EPM has only its 'scope' over kennu-e in (28). This may be due to the fact that the verbal composite denotes a single cohesive action, and not just unrelated actions or conditions. Thus, the semantic function of the EPM that appears at the end of the conjunctive device in a verbal composite is to distribute the actions denoted by the whole verbal composite individually over the multiple agents. The same propositional kernel is expressed by (27) and (28): 'the children' is identified as the agent, 'the road' as the location, and 'crossing' as the event type. However, S would choose to use (28) instead of (27) in order to assure H that the event in question actually occurred with respect to every member of the set. This kind of assurance is indeed conveyed by (28), rather than by (27), precisely because of the distributive function of the EPM used in the former. Further, it is implied as a secondary effect that the actions are distributed over space or time. Thus, (28) may also imply that the children crossed different roads or the same road at different times. By contrast, (27) strongly implies that the children crossed the same road together. To put it differently, spatial or temporal distribution is not implied in (27). 2.2.7. Adjectives

Perhaps it is not surprising that adjectives cannot host EPM, since they can function as predicates, just like verbs. Consider: (30) sensayng-tul-i celm(*-tul)-ta teacher-PL-NOM young(*-PL)-IND 'The teachers are young.' The sentence in (30) clearly shows that EPM cannot be copied from the subject nominal and suffixed to the adjective. As with verbs, adjectives can host EPM only indirectly, that is if they are immediately followed by the conjunctive device, as in: (31) sensayng-tul-i celm-e-(-tul) cal molu-n-ta teacher-PL-NOM young-coNJ(-PL) well not=know-NPST-IND 'The teachers are young, so they don't know (it) well.' 7 The reasons why the plural marking is not taken to be associated with the final verb in the composite as in (27) are: (i) it is a suffix, not a prefix; and (ii) there can be a pause between the plural marker and the final verb, not between the initial verb and the plural marker.

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

215

Again, the conjunctive device seems to serve as a 'buffer' between the adjective and the EPM. 8 The semantic function of the EPM that appears at the end of the conjunctive device in (31) is also distributive. The attributes of being young are distributed individually over the teachers. The attribute in question is thus ascribed to each member of the set, not to the set as a whole. So, a more accurate translation of (31) would be: 'Each of the teachers is young, so s/he doesn't know it well'. 2.2.8. lllocutionary markers Although it is incompatible, with verbs or adjectives in principle, EPM does appear at the end of the sentence. In (33), for instance, the EPM is suffixed to the illocutionary marker of interrogative. K u h ' s (1987: 239) or K i m ' s (1994: 303) claim that EPM can be attached to w,~rbs is, in fact, based on examples such as (33). The other illocutionary markers of indicative and imperative are also able to host EPM in (32) and (34), respectively. 9

(32) ai-tul-i hakkyo-ey ka-ass-ta(-tul) child-PL-NOM school-ALL gO-PST-IND(-PL) 'The children went to school.' (33) ai-tul-i hakkyo-ey ka-ass-nya(-tul) child-PL-NOM school-ALL gO-PST-Q-(-PL) 'Did the children go to school?' (34) hakkyo-ey ka-a(-tul) school-ALL gO-IMP(-PL) ' G o tO school!' In the indicative sentence in (32), S is expressing as a statement what S believes or knows: The children went to school. The function of the indicative illocutionary marker is, of course, to signal that S is making a statement, and that S is neither asking a question nor issuing a cornmand, The EPM suffixed to the indicative marker in (32) is used to distribute the statements individually over the multiple participants. That is to say, it emphasizes that the same statement is made with respect to each of the children in question. In fact, it can be regarded as equivalent to making the same statement once for each of the ,children without using EPM, e.g. X went to school, Y went to school, Z went to school, and so on. That would, however, be very ineffective or time-consuming, if the number of the children involved is large. 8 The conjunctive device in (31) is not used to form verbal composites, but rather to serve as a causal marker (cf. note 6). 9 The illocutionary markers in other speech styles can also host EPM, e.g. honorific ordinary style (cf. Lukoff, 1982: 318): (i) ai-tul-i cip-ey tol-a o(*-tul)-ass(-*tul)-eyo(-tul) child-PL-NOM home-ALL tum-CONJ come(*-PL)-PST(*-PL)-IND(-PL) 'The children came back home.' Although there are some speakers who may find the use of EPM in (32) slightly odd, EPM is used freely in conjunction with the other indicative markers, as illustrated in (i) above.

216

JJ. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

In (33), S is asking H about what H knows or believes. The function of the interrogative marker is exactly to inquire whether or not the proposition contained in a given question is 'true'. The function of the EPM in (33) is to distribute the questions individually over the multiple participants involved. By placing EPM immediately after the interrogative marker, S is achieving the same effect of asking H the same question with respect to each of the children in question, e.g. Did X go to school?, Did Y go to school?, Did Z go to school?, and so on. In fact, it would indeed be a very economical way of asking the same question when a large number of participants are involved. Further, H is expected, if not required, to answer the question individually: As for X, s/he went to school, As f o r Y, s/he did not go to school, As f o r Z, s/he went to school, and so on. ~° If S chooses to utter (33) without using EPM, however, such 'individual' answers may not be expected of H. In that case, the question is not asked with respect to each of the children, anyway. S may give a command to a single person or to a group of people. Since the addressee is understood to be the subject of the imperative, there must thus be more than one addressee in the case of (34) with the EPM suffixed to the imperative marker. In other words, (34), when used with EPM, must have second person plural subject, which the EPM originates from. The use of EPM after the imperative marker in (34) has the same effect of issuing the command to each of the addressees present. Thus, the function of EPM here is also distributive in that the commands are distributed over the multiple addressees. By choosing to use EPM in (34), S expects the addressees to respond to the command on an individual basis. Again, it is indeed a very economical way of issuing the same command to a (large) group of people. The use of EPM in conjunction with the illocutionary marker achieves the same degree of communicative effectiveness that can only be gained by producing the same utterance once for each of the multiple participants involved. In fact, it does so, while greatly economizing on the number of times that the utterance is produced. 2.3. Plural Copying as a clause level phenomenon

As H.-G. Lee (1991: 516-517) and Kim (1994: 309-312, 319-321) both provide enough evidence, suffice it to note here that Plural Copying is a clause level or 'local' phenomenon: Both the source and the host of EPM are found in the same clause. In (35), for instance, the plural marker suffixed to the subordinate clause marker -ca is motivated by the subject nominal of the main clause, not by that of the subordinate clause, since the whole subordinate clause is one of the constituents of the main clause, in fact, a temporal adjunct.

~0 O f course, H may answer the question by uttering (32) (that is, with EPM suffixed to the indicative marker). Alternatively, H can give such an answer as in (i), if it is the case that all the children went to school: (i) ai-tul-i motu hakkyo-ey ka-ass-ta child-PL-NOM all school-ALL gO-PST-IND 'All the children went to school.'

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

217

(35) ai-tul-i ku kicha-ka tochakha-ca(-tul) soli-lul cilu-ess-ta child-PL-NOM the train-NOM arrive-as=soon=as(-PL) noise-ACC shout-PST-IND 'As soon as the train arrived the children screamed.' Note that the subject nominal of the subordinate clause in (35) cannot be interpreted as plural, since it is preceded by the definite article ku, with which the overt plural marker must always be used to ,;ignal plurality. The function of the EPM in (35) is distributive; a more accurate translation of (35) with the EPM would thus be: 'For each of the children, it was as soon as the train arrived that s/he screamed'. In other words, the times of the event denoted are distributed individually over the multiple agents. 2.4. Summary

Plural marking can be inherited from the subject nominal by various elements other than verbs and adjectives. However, EPM can be indirectly associated with verbs or adjectives if the conjunctive device intervenes between the two. The semantic function of EPM has been shown to be distributive, not enumerative. What is distributed depends on where EPM actually appears. For instance, if it is suffixed to a manner adverbial, the distribuand is the manner specified by that adverbial. The function of EPM is not to express simply the plurality of the subject nominal (i.e. enumerative), contrary to what has been claimed in previous studies. That particular misconception seems to have arisen from the fact that EPM is spread from none other than the plural subject nominal. Indeed, when the subject nominal is 'pro-dropped' or omitted, which is very frequent in Korean, the presence of EPM alone is indicative of the plurality of the understood subject (e.g.S. Song, 1975: 544; Kuh, 1987: 239; Kim, 1994: 305-312). This, however, is merely an epiphenomenon associated with EPM by virtue of it being spread from the plural subject nominal. Clearly, EPM has its own special semantic function to perform: to signal distribution. Therefore, EPM is not optional at all. The fact that EPM has the distributive function has also been noted by H.-G. Lee (1991 : 518) and Kim (1994:316-318). They, however, believe that what EPM does is to ensure that there be a distributive relation between the plural subject nominal, from which EPM is spread, and the whole predicate (or VP). They claim that by means of EPM, the property denoted by the whole predicate is assigned to each individual of the set denoted by the plural subject nominal. This means that it makes no difference where EPM actually is located in a given clause; regardless of which element EPM is suffixed to, the distributive relation is only between the plural subject nominal and the whole predicate. In H.-G. Lee's or Kim's view, then, what matters is just the presence of EPM, the exact position of EPM being immaterial. For them, the following two sentences should thus be synonymous, although EPM is suffixed to the direct object nominal in (36) and to the manner adverb in (37). (36) ai-tul-i mwul yak(-tul)-ul cal masi-ess-ta child-PL-NOM water medicine(-PL)-ACC well drink-PsT-IND 'The children drank liquid medicine well.'

218

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

(37) ai-tul-i mwul yak-ul cal(-tul) masi-ess-ta child-PL-NOM water medicine-Acc welI(-PL)drink-PST-IND 'The children drank liquid medicine well.' As has already been demonstrated, however, this clearly is not the case. The position of EPM dictates exactly what is to be distributed individually over the plural subject nominal. So, the distribuand is none other than what was drunk in (36), whereas in (37) it is the manner of the action specified.

3. E P M as a m a r k e r of focus

Plural marking can potentially be copied to more than one element (e.g. Youn, 1990: 31). For instance, (38) shows that all the major elements of the sentence can simultaneously inherit plural marking from the subject nominal.ll (38) ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse(-tul) chinkwu-lang(-tul) culkepkey(-tul) child-PL-NOM park-LOC(-PL) friend-coM(-PL) cheerfully(-PL) nolay(-tul)-ul pwulu-ko(-tul) siph-e(-tul) ha-ess-ta song(-PL)-ACC sing-COM(-PL) like-CONJ(-PL) dO-PST-IND 'The children wanted to sing a song cheerfully with their friends in the park.' Although it definitely is fully grammatical, such multiple EPM is extremely rare or even contrived. In fact, it seems that only one instance of EPM is normally found per sentence, as in most of the examples cited in this paper or in other studies. Thus, an interesting question arises: Is the occurrence of EPM random or motivated? If not random, why is one particular element rather than another selected as the host of EPM? It seems that the best way to determine whether or not the occurrence of EPM is random is to compare versions of the same sentence, with different elements bearing EPM, and to see further whether or not there are any discernible differences between them. For instance, when (38) is taken as an example, there are at least six elements to which plural marking can potentially be copied from the subject nominal (the illocutionary marker -ta excepted). Thus, each of these six can be chosen as a host of EPM, as in: (39) ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse(-tul) chinkwu-lang culkepkey nolay-lul child-PL-NOM park-LOC(-PL) friend-coM cheerfully song-ACC pwulu-ko siph-e ha-ess-ta sing-coMP like-coNJ dO-PST-IND 'The children wanted to sing a song cheerfully with their friends in the park.' ~ It is assumed here that in (38), the subject of the subordinate clause is a zero anaphor or PRO, and that it is coreferentialwith the subject of the main clause (cf. H.-G. Lee, 1991: 516-517; Kim, 1994: 309-312, 319-321).

J.J. Song / Jo~trnal of Pragrnatics 27 (1997) 203-224

219

(40) ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse chinkwu-lang(-tul) culkepkey nolay-lul child-PL-NOM park-LOC friend-COM-(PL) cheerfully song-ACC pwulu-ko siph-e ha-ess-ta sing-coMP like-coNJ dO-PST-IND 'The children wanted to sing a song cheerfully with their friends in the park.' (41) ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse chinkwu-lang culkepkey(-tul)nolay-lul child-PL-NOM park-LOC friend-COM cheerfully(-PL) song-ACC pwulu-ko siph-e ha-ess-ta sing-coMP like-CONJ dO-PST-IND 'The children wanted to sing a song cheerfully with their friends in the park.' (42) ai-tul-i kongwon-ey,;e chinkwu-lang culkepkey nolay(-tui)-ul child-PL-NOM park-LOC friend-coM cheerfully song(-PL)-ACC pwulu-ko siph-e ha-ess-ta sing-coMP like-coNJ dO-PST-IND 'The children wanted to sing a song cheerfully with their friends in the park.' (43) ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse chinkwu-lang culkepkey nolay-lul child-PL-NOM park-LOC friend-COM cheerfully song-Ace pwulu-ko(-tul) siph-e ha-ess-ta sing-coMP(-PL) like-coNJ dO-PST-IND 'The children wanted to sing a song cheerfully with their friends in the park.' (44) ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse chinkwu-lang culkepkey nolay-lul pwulu-ko child-PL-NOM park-LOC friend-COM cheerfully song-ACC sing-coMP siph-e(-tul) ha-ess-ta Iike-coNJ(-PL) dO-PST-IND 'The children wanted to sing a song cheerfully with their friends in the park.' All the six versions certainly contain the same propositional kernel, as indicated by the same translation given to them: The children wanted to sing a song cheerfully with their friends in the park. However, there are clear differences in emphasis among them. In (39), what is emphasized is the location where each of the children wanted to perform the activity in question: It was in the park(s) that each child wanted to perform the activity. In (40), emphasis is given to the friends with whom each child wanted to perform the activity together. What is highlighted in (41) is the manner in which each child wanted to perform the activity. In (42), emphasis is given to the fact that what each of the children wanted to sing was a song. In (43), what is emphasized is what each child wanted to do: For each child, what s/he wanted to do was to perform the activity specified. Finally, in (44) what is underscored is each child's wish (to perform the activity specified). Therefore, whichever element bears EPM seems to be the focus of emphasis in terms of distribution. To put it differently, if S wishes to focus the distributive function of EPM on the man-

220

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

ner in which each of the children wanted to perform the activity specified, S will copy the plural marking from the subject nominal to the end of the manner adverb, as in (41). 12 The interpretation of the position of EPM as signaling S's focus of emphasis can easily be subsumed under a general conception of focus. For instance, Lambrecht (1986, 1987, 1988) proposes a theory of information structure, wherein topic and focus are identified as the two primary information statuses that referring expressions may have in an utterance. A topic referent is what is active or accessible in the discourse. Thus, it "is contained in the pragmatic presupposition or is an element of the pragmatic presupposition" (Lambrecht, 1986: 102). Presupposition is what "the speaker assumes the hearer considers true (believes, knows) and is aware of at the time of utterance and [what] is relevant in the context of utterance" (Lambrecht, 1988: 1). By contrast, the focus of an utterance is what is asserted by S in that utterance. The focus is then "the proposition which is added to or superimposed on the pragmatic presupposition by an utterance" (Lambrecht, 1988: 1). The element to which S copies plural marking from the subject nominal is thus claimed here to be the focus of the whole utterance. EPM is in turn understood to be an indication of the focus. For instance, in (41) repeated below the element which carries EPM is effectively marked as the focus of the whole utterance, whereas the rest of the utterance is more or less (assumed to be) presupposed. (41) ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse chinkwu-lang culkepkey(-tul)nolay-lul child-PL-NOM park-Loc friend-COM cheerfully(-PL) song-ACE pwulu-ko siph-e ha-ess-ta sing-fOMP like-coN~ dO-PST-IND 'The children wanted to sing a song cheerfully with their friends in the park.' Thus, S assumes that H knows that the children wanted to sing a song with their friends in the park. What S does not assume H to know in (41) is the manner in which they wanted to perform the activity specified. By placing the EPM at the end of the manner adverbial, culkepkey, S now asserts that the manner in which each of the children involved wanted to perform the activity was cheerful. While the semantic function of EPM is to signal distribution, its position precisely determines what is asserted by S in a given utterance. Evidence for the foregoing interpretation comes from two areas of Korean grammar. The first concerns what Bresnan and Mchombo (1987) call the functional clash between topic and focus: the incompatibility of topic marking and EPM in the present case. The second arises from the nonrandom occurrence of EPM in WHquestions. ~2 H.-G. Lee (1991: 514) asserts in a single sentence that EPM is used as a focus marker. But regrettably, he does not provide any exemplification or discussion whatsoever because in his view, it is not appropriate to consider pragmatic factors in a syntactic account of EPM. Incidentally, Allan (1986: 75) notes that distributive each in English is placed behind the distribuand; interestingly enough, he also observes that the distribuand typically represents new information (i.e. part of S's assertion) (also Allan, 1980: 7, 46-48).

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

221

Bresnan and Mchombo (1987: 758-760) correctly point out that the same constituent cannot be both topic and focus of the same clause, because that would lead to inconsistent presuppositions. In terms of Lambrecht's theory, this means that what is asserted cannot be presented as a topic, which is necessarily part of the presupposition, or vice versa. In Korean, topics are identified by the so-called topic marker, -(n)un. Topicmarked nominals, however, are prohibited from inheriting plural marking from the subject nominal, regardless of what grammatical relation they may bear within the clause. (45) ku ai-eykey(*-tul)-nun(*-tul) salam-tul-i ton-ul cwu-ess-ta the child-DAT(*-PL)-TOP(*-PL) person-eL-NOM money-Ace give-PST-IND 'People gave the child money.' In (45), the indirect object nominal is unable to attract EPM, which cannot appear before or after the topic marker. This can be explained by stating that EPM, which signals the focal element of an utterance, cannot appear on the topic-marked indirect object nominal, because the functional clash between topic and focus in Bresnan and Mchombo's sense would take place. The second piece of evidence; comes from the interaction between the WH-word and EPM. First, consider: (46) nwukwu-lul ku ai-ka ttayli-ess-nya who-Acc the child-NOM hit-pST-Q 'Whom did the child hit?' What is questioned is the focus constituent by definition: the direct object WH-word in (46). A potential answer to (4.6) is (47), in which the nominal nwuna is the focal element, representing the asserted part of the utterance. (47) ku ai-ka nwuna-lul 1Etayli-ess-ta the child-NOM sister-Ace hit-PSTqND 'The child hit her sister.' Now, compare the following WH-question and potential answers. Attention must be paid to what is the focus of the question (or what is questioned), and to where EPM appears in both contextually acceptable and unacceptable answers, the latter being marked by #. (48) mwues-ul ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse culkepkey ha-ess-nya what-ACC child-eL-hOM park-LOC cheerfully do-PST-Q 'What did the children cheerfully do in the park?' (49) ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse culkepkey kongnoli(-tul)-ul ha-ess-ta child-PL-NOM park-LOt cheerfully ball=game(-PL)-ACC dO-PST-IND 'The children cheerfully played ball in the park.'

222

J.J. Song /Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

(50) #ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse(-tul) culkepkey kongnoli-lul ha-ess-ta child-PL-hOM park-Lof(-PL) cheerfully ball=game-ACE dO-PST-IND 'The children cheerfully played ball in the park.' (51) #ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse culkepkey(-tul) kongnoli-lul ha-ess-ta child-PL-NOM park-Loc cheerfully(-PL) ball=game-ACC dO-PSTqND 'The children cheerfully played ball in the park.' In (48), the WH-word m w u e s (or the direct object nominal) is the focus of the WHquestion. In fact, only the first answer, (49), presents the direct object nominal as the focus by allowing it to inherit plural marking from the subject nominal. Neither in (50) nor in (51) is the direct object nominal presented as part of S's assertion, as it does not bear EPM. Instead, part of the presupposition carries EPM and is thus presented as the focal element: the location in (50) and the manner in (51). This explains why they are contextually unacceptable. On the basis of the foregoing, it can further be predicted that in a WH-question itself, only the WH-word is allowed to host EPM, precisely because it is the part that is questioned. As has already been noted, the WH-word functions as the focus of a WH-question. Compare the following three different versions of the WH-question in (48): (52) mwues(-tul)-ul ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse culkepkey ha-ess-nya what(-PL)-ACC child-PL-NOM park-LOC cheerfully do-PST-Q 'What did the children cheerfully do in the park?' (53) ?mwues-ul ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse(-tul) culkepkey ha-ess-nya what-ACe child-PL-NOM park-Loc(-PL) cheerfully dO-PST-Q 'What did the children cheerfully do in the park?' (54) ?mwues-ul ai-tul-i kongwon-eyse culkepkey(-tul) ha-ess-nya what-ACC child-PL-NOM park-Loc cheerfully(-PL) do-PST-Q 'What did the children cheerfully do in the park?' By virtue of being the focus of the utterance in (52), the WH-word is allowed to host EPM comfortably. In (53) and (54), on the other hand, elements other than the WH-word (i.e. non-focal) are chosen to bear EPM. Again, what is presupposed cannot be taken to be asserted, thus accounting for the oddity of the ?-marked sentences. EPM is thus used as an indication of the focus of a given utterance. Accordingly, whatever is chosen as the focal element of a given utterance is permitted to inherit plural marking. The occurrence of EPM is, therefore, far from random, but rather it is externally motivated by S's intention to indicate what S wishes to assert. Although many different types of element are grammatically able to bear EPM, they actually may not do so in a given utterance, because they are part of the pragmatic presupposition shared by S and H. Finally, it has to be borne in mind that in Korean, focus is not obligatorily signaled by EPM, which is subject to the conditions explained in section 2. But when in use, EPM identifies the focal element of a given utterance.

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

223

4. Conclusion This p a p e r has p r e s e n t e d a discussion o f the so-called Plural C o p y in Korean. N o m i n a l s , adverbs, W H - w o r d s , and even illocutionary m a r k e r s can host E P M , whereas verbs and adjectives cannot do so, at least not directly. The semantic function o f E P M has been characterized as distributive, not e n u m e r a t i v e : It is used to signal the distribution o f that which it is suffixed to, not the plurality o f the subject n o m i n a l which it originates from, as has indeed been c l a i m e d in previous studies. J3 Thus, E P M is not optional. Furthermore, E P M has been shown to p e r f o r m the pragmatic function o f identifying the focal e l e m e n t o f an utterance. The occurrence o f E P M is, therefore, far from random, but rather externally motivated. Finally, partly b e c a u s e one o f the o b j e c t i v e s o f this p a p e r was to find out what types o f c a t e g o r y or e l e m e n t E P M can or cannot c o o c c u r with (cf. section 1), the present study has not been carried out on the basis o f natural discourse data. F o r this reason alone, a great deal o f w o r k r e m a i n s to be done in the r e a l m o f testing the findings and conclusions presented in this p a p e r against conversations, spoken narratives, written texts, and the like.

References Allan, Keith, 1980. The grammar of distributive each. Ms., Monash University, Melbourne. Allan, Keith, 1986. Linguistic meaning, Vol. 2. London: Routledge. Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo, ]t987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chiche~,a. Language 63: 741-782. Choe, Hyun-Pae, 1961. Uli malpon [Our grammar]. Seoul: Chungwumsa. Comrie, Bernard, 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Gerdts, Donna B., 1987. Surface case and grammatical relations in Korean: The evidence from quantifier float. Studies in Language 11: 181-197. Gerdts, Donna B. and Cheong Youn. 1988. Korean psych constructions: Advancement or retreat'? Papers for the Twenty Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 155-175. Gerdts, Donna B. and Cheong Youn, 1'989. Non-nominative subjects in Korean. In: S. Kuno et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, Vol. 3,235-247. Seoul: Hanshin. Givrn, Talmy, 1994. Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language 18: 265-337. Hong, Ki-Sun, 1992. Argument selection and case marking in Korean. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Huh, Wung, 1990. Yeys malpon [The grammar of the old languagel. Seoul: Kwahaksa. Kim, Yookyung, 1994. A non-spurious account of 'spurious' Korean plurals. In: Y.-K. Kim-Renaud, ed., Theoretical issues in Korean linguistics, 303-323. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Kuh, Hakan, 1987. Plural copying in Korean. In: Susumu Kuno et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, Vol. 2, 239-250. Seoul: Hanshin Lambrecht, Knud, 1986. Topic, focus, and the grammar of spoken French. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

~3 The plural marking in most North American languages is also known to signal distribution, not simple plurality (Mithun, 1988; 1991). Interesting as it may be, a comparison between the EPM in Korean and the plural marking in North American languages falls outside the purview of the present paper.

224

J.J. Song / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 203-224

Lambrecht, Knud, 1987. Sentence focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorial distinction. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 366-382. Lambrecht, Knud, 1988. When subjects behave like objects: A markedness analysis of sentence focus constructions across languages. Unpublished ms., University of Texas. Lee, Han-Gyu, 1991. Plural marker copying in Korean. In: S. Kuno et al., ed., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, Vol. 4, 513-528. Seoul: Hanshin. Lukoff, Fred, 1982. An introductory course in Korean. Seoul: Yonsei University Press. Mithun, Marianne, 1988. Lexical categories and the evolution of number marking. In: M. Hammond and M. Noonan, eds., Theoretical morphology, 211-234. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Mithun, Marianne, 1991. The development of bound pronominal paradigms. In: W.P. Lehmann and H.J. Hewitt, eds., Language typology 1988: Typological models in reconstruction, 85-104. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Sohn, Ho-Min, 1994. Korean. London: Routledge. Song, Jae Jung, 1988. Clause linkage in Korean periphrastic causative and purposive constructions. Language Research 24: 583~06. Song, Jae Jung, 1991. Korean relative clause constructions: Conspiracy and pragmatics. Australian Journal of Linguistics 11 : 195-220. Song, Seok Choong, 1975. Rare plural marking and ubiquitous plural marker in Korean. Papers for the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 536-546. Youn, Cheong, 1990. A relational analysis of Korean multiple nominative constructions. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo. Van Valin, Robert D+, 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In: R.D. Van Valin, ed., Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1 164. Amsterdam: Benjamins.