Focus Particles, Scope, and Reconstruction in Korean Youngjoo Lee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Synopsis This paper presents an account of the distribution and interpretation of Korean focus particle man ‘only’. I argue that the focus particle is an agreement morpheme that indicates the presence of a (null) Focus head, and that this null head carries quantificational/exhaustive meaning that we usually associate with English only. In order to detect the position of the Focus head, I extend the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985) to nominal affixes, and claim that the relative order of the focus particle and the case marker/postposition reflects the hierarchy of functional heads that agree with the focus particle and the case marker respectively. I show that the proposed analysis accounts for some puzzling facts about the particle’s scope along with long-standing

bservations regarding its distribution. o Two Asymmetries: distribution and scope There is a well-known distributional asymmetry between grammatical case markers and postpositions (semantic case markers) regarding the position of man. The focus

article man precedes grammatical case markers, but follows postpositions, as shown in (1a-b). (cf. Cho 2000). p (1) a. Mary-ka John-man-ul saranghanta. b. Mary-ka Boston-eyse-man salassta. Mary-N John-only-Acc love Mary-N Boston-in-only lived ‘Mary loves only John.’ ‘Mary has lived only in Boston.’ This asymmetry is correlated with another asymmetry, namely scope asymmetry. An overt Acc. marker triggers obligatory reconstruction when the man-phrase is scrambled, whereas postpositions do not have such an effect. For example, in (2a) an every-only sequence only allows a surface scope reading. Scrambling of the overtly case-marked man-phrase in (2b) does not change this scope relation, which is puzzling given the assumptions that DP-man is a QP of type <et, t> (Choi 1998) and that scrambled QPs can be interpreted in their surface position and allow ambiguity (Hoji 1985, Anh 1990). In order for the wide scope reading of only to be available, the case marker must be absent, as shown in (2c). This pattern is in contrast with that of PPs in (3). When a PP is in its base position, as in (3a), only the surface scope reading is available. When the PP is in the S-initial position as in (3b), on the other hand, the sentence becomes ambiguous, which means that the PP can be interpreted in its surface position. These asymmetries (the contrast between (1a) and (1b), and the ontrast between (2b) and (3b)) require an explanation. c

(2) a. motun-saram-i John-man-ul saranghanta. every-person-Nom John-only-Acc love (i) Everyone loves John and no one else. (every > only) (ii) *John is the only one whom everyone loves. (*only > every) b. John-man-uli [motun-saram-i ti saranghanta]. John-only-Acc every-person-Nom love (i) Everyone loves John and no one else. (every > only) (ii) *John is the only one whom everyone loves. (*only > every) c. John-mani [motun-saram-i ti saranghanta]. John-only every-person-Nom love (i) Everyone loves John and no one else. (every > only) (ii) John is the only one whom everyone loves. (only > every) (3) a. motun-saram-i John-hako-man akswuhayssta. every-person-Nom John-with-only shook_hands (i) Everyone shook hands only with John. (every > only) (ii) *John is the only one with whom everyone shook hands. (*only > every) b. John-hako-mani [motun-saram-i ti akswuhayssta]. John-with-only every-person-Nom shook_hands (i) Everyone shook hands only with John. (every > only) (ii) John is the only one with whom everyone shook hands. (only > every) Proposal and Analysis I propose that the focus particle man is an agreement morpheme that indicates the presence of a Focus head, which has the lexical entry given in (4). The Focus head takes two arguments, and asserts that the second argument (an individual of type e) is the only element that satisfies the first argument (a

predicate of type <e, t>). The focused phrase (man-phrase) either undergoes focus movement to the specifier of FocP, or is base-generated in the [Spec, FocP], where interpretation takes place. In order to detect the position of the null FocP, I claim that Baker’s Mirror Principle applies to nominal affixes: the linear order of nominal affixes reflects the hierarchy of the corresponding functional heads. Since postpositions precede man, and man is followed by case markers, the FocP is above VP (where PP is licensed), and below vP/TP (where Acc/Nom cases are checked/assigned). This accounts for the distributional asymmetry between case markers and postpositions. The higher FocP does not involve a movement structure, as will be argued below, and this rules

ut the unattested form *DP-Case-man. o 4) λp<e,t>.λxe.p(x) =1 & ∀ze∈ALT(x): p(z) = 1 → z = x (

The scope asymmetry also follows from the null FocP analysis. In (5a), which represents (2a), everyone is in [Spec, TP] and John in [Spec, FocP], which is lower than vP, as evidenced by the order of the particle and Acc. marker. Since the FocP is lower than TP (Cf. Belletti 2002; Jayaseelan 2001 for low FocP), the scope relation (every > only) follows from this configuration. In (5b), the man-phrase underwent scrambling to S-initial position (cf. (2b)). Yet, scrambling does not change the position of the FocP. FocP is still below TP. Therefore, scrambling does not affect scope relation, and the same interpretation as that of (5a) is compositionally derived. The ambiguous sentence in (2c) has two derivations. One reading (every > only) has the same structure as (2b), i.e. the structure in (5b). The other reading (only > every) has the high FocP (above TP), and the man-phrase is base-generated in the spec of the higher FocP, and co-indexed with a pro within TP, as shown in (5c). This structure is parallel to that of topic construction (Saito 1985), and is justified by several tests. One test is the availability of a resumptive pronoun, which is not allowed in case of scrambling. The trace in (5b) cannot be replaced by an overt pronoun, as shown in (6a), whereas the pro in (5c) can, as shown in (6b). Once the pro is replaced by a pronoun, only the wide scope reading (only > every) is available.

his shows that the empty category in the wide scope reading is a pro, not a trace. T ( FOC VP x 5) a. [TP everyone λx [ P John [λy [ loves y ] FOC]] T] (Low FocP)

Focu s Mvt.

b. [TP John λv [TP everyone λx [FOCP v [λy [VP x loves y] FOC]] T]]

Scrambling Focus Mvt. c. [FOCP Johni [TP everyone λx [VP x loves proi ] T] FOC] (High FocP)

(6) a. *John-man-uli [motun-saram-i ku-luli saranghanta]. John-only-Acc every-person-Nom love b. John-mani [motun-saram-i ku-luli saranghanta]. John-only every-person-Nom love (i) *Everyone loves John and no one else. (*every > only) (ii) John is the only one who s. (only > every) m everyone love On the other hand, the overt presence of postpositions does not fix the position of the FocP. Under the assumption that postpositions are assigned/checked within VP, the order of hako-man ‘with-only’ only shows that the FocP is higher than VP. Since the order of suffixes is compatible with both positions of FocP (High FocP above TP and Low FocP below TP), the ambiguity is expected. The ambiguous sentence in (3b) has the ollowing two structures. Unlike DP-man case, PP-man does not allow a resumptive pronoun in any case. f

(7) a. [TP John [λz [TP everyone [λx [FOCP z [λy [VP x y shake_hands]] FOC] T]]]] (Low FocP)

Scrambling Focus Mvt. b. [FOCP John [λy [TP everyone λx [VP x y shake_hands] T ]] FOC] (High FocP)

Focus Movement

To sum up, I show that the null FocP analysis is superior to the alternative approach that identifies the particle man as a quantificational element. The proposed analysis accounts for the long-standing distributional properties of the particle along with the hitherto unnoticed scope facts and the peculiar role of overt case marking.