University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The notion of topic-comment constructions and the meaning of the Korean topic marker '-(n)un'

(USC Thesis Other)

The notion of topic-comment constructions and the meaning of the Korean topic marker '-(n)un'

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE NOTION OF TOPIC-COMMENT CONSTRUCTIONS AND
THE MEANING OF THE KOREAN TOPIC MARKER ‘-(N)UN’

by

Won Kyung Na

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(EAST ASIAN LANGUAGES AND CULTURES)

Copyright 2013 Won Kyung Na
i
Table of Contents
Abstract ii

1. The origin of Topic-Comment structures 1
1.1 Summary 6
2. The properties of Topic-Comment structures in different languages 7
2.1 The notion of topic and subject 7
2.2 General properties of topic 9
2.3 Earlier studies in Japanese 11
2.3.1 Kuno 11
2.3.2 McGloin 14
2.3.3. Kuroda 16
2.3.4 Shibatani 17
2.4 Summary 19

3. Korean Topic-Comment structures: Thematic vs. Contrastive -(n)un 20
3.1 The distinctive characteristics of -(n)un 22
3.2 Definiteness of -(n)un-marked phrases 23
3.3 The position and the types of -(n)un-marked phrases 29
3.4 Summary 37

4. Conclusion 38

References 39

ii
Abstract
The structuring of a sentence into a topic and a comment part is a universal and distinctive
phenomenon well known to linguists for centuries. Topic-Comment constructions essentially
produce an asymmetry of constituents in a sentence. Karifka (2006) notes that “The Topic refers
to something established already, while the Comment adds information to the denotation of the
topic” (p.1). Topic-Comment constructions appear through particular syntactic structures in many
languages such as the as for constructions in English and Japanese and Korean postpositions
known as wa and -(n)un, respectively. Typically, the topic is given, presupposed, or anchored in
speech situation. It is something that is referred to by the predicate and located in the sentence-
initial position with -(n)un marking in Korean. The particle -(n)un can be attached to all noun
phrases (NPs), and it plays an important role in determining the meaning of a given sentence. In
some cases, -(n)un marked NPs may receive a topic reading, and in other cases they may receive
a contrastive focus reading. When a -(n)un marked NP is placed in the sentence-initial subject
position, it generally receives a topic reading. The topic phrase marked by -(n)un receives no
prominent intonation and is generally set off from the rest of the sentence by a pause. A
contrastive -(n)un phrase, on the other hand, focuses on an element or a proposition in contrast
with another element or proposition and it is marked with higher pitch and stress.
This paper will examine the semantic and syntactic environment that determine different
meanings of -(n)un. In chapter 1, the origin of Topic-Comment structures is to be investigated. In
chapter 2, the properties of the Topic-Comment structure will be illustrated. In chapter 3, I
demonstrate the conditions of which two different meanings of -(n)un marked NPs, a topic
reading and a contrastive focus reading, are realized.

1
1. The Origin of Topic- Comment Structures
In the 18
th
century, linguists started to reconsider the traditional and purely descriptive subject-
predicate structure of a sentence in terms of syntax. As the syntactic description of the sentence
became more refined, it was soon obvious that not all the aspects of sentence meaning could be
explained through syntactic description. Particularly, the presentation of the content of a sentence
did not always coincide with the syntactic categories. Accordingly, an additional subject-predicate
structure of the sentence was suggested.
The origin of Topic-Comment structures can be traced back to a modern European linguist von
der Gabelentz (1869) who had suggested the psychological models of sentence structure using the
contrast between psychological subject and psychological predicate. He divides the sentence into
two parts that the hearer should think about: the psychological subject and the psychological
predicate. He points out that the sequence of psychological concepts does not always correspond
to the sequence of linguistic expressions in a sentence: the psychological subject does not
necessarily coincide with the purely syntactic concept of the grammatical subject referring to the
noun phrase that governs the verb.
Marty (1884) questions whether all sentences are constructed this way (later Kuroda 1972) and
proposes the distinction between categorical sentences and thetic sentences, claiming that thetic
sentences have a constituent identifying a psychological subject. As Karifka (2008) notes, “But
even thetic sentences may have psychological subject that is just not realized as part of the
utterance because it is given in the situation of utterance” (p.308). For example, there is no
psychological subject in the sentence like there’ s fire. However, it is wrong to believe that there is
none. Two ideas are combined in this case: On the one hand, there is the realization of a concrete
phenomenon, and on the other hand, the notion of burning and fire has already existed in mind,
which can include the phenomenon. In this sense, Karifka (2008) says that “Marty’s remark also
suggests a wider notion of potential topics including situations and events” (p.308).
At the beginning of the 20
th
century, as Gundel (1974) notes, Mathesius (1928) suggests the
2
theme-enunciation partition of the sentence in order to describe the word order phenomena in
Czech and other Slavic languages. He divides the sentence into two parts: what the sentence is
about – theme and what is talked about it –enunciation. According to Mathesius, the theme is
given and obvious within the discourse. It also precedes the enunciation, and thereby opens the
conversation. According to Im (2007), Mathesius notes that the theme is not expressed in a
sentence like Byl jednou jeden kral (There was once one king) because the sentence only carries
new information; the theme should consist of already known or given information.
A classic definition of the Topic-Comment structure is established by an American linguist
Hockett (1958). He argues that the most general characteristic of predicate constructions is
suggested by topic and comment, saying that “The speaker announces a topic and then says
something about it….In English and the familiar languages of Europe, topics are usually also
subjects, and comments are predicates: so in John ran away” (p.201). But he admits that this
topic-comment partition is unsuccessful at times in colloquial English, quite regularly in certain
situations in formal English, and more generally in some non-European languages. Hockett
influenced on the tradition of the Prague School (Firbas 1966, Daneš 1970, Sgall e.a.1986), which
has identified the notion of topic with “old” information and the notion of comment with “new”
information.
In the early tradition of the Prague School, Firbas (1966) claims that a sentence is constructed
according to communicative dynamism (CD). The degree of CD carried by a linguistic element in
a sentence is meant, as Firbas (1971) notes, “the extent to which the element contributes to the
development of communication” (p.131). New information carries a higher degree of CD than
that of old information. Each element within a sentence is arranged starting with the element
carrying the lowest degree of CD and gradually proceeding to the element carrying the highest
degree of CD. As it is natural for a speaker to convey a message from known to unknown
information, the theme is constituted by an element carrying the lowest degree of CD and the
rheme is constituted by a relatively higher degree of CD.
3
While the Prague School integrates the notion of given-new information into Topic-Comment
constructions, Halliday (1967) suggests the notion of topic in terms of information model and
communication. His main argument is that an English sentence is organized with information
units and information structure is realized by intonation. The utterance is divided into different
tone groups, which roughly coincide with intermediate phrases. As von Heusinger notes (1999),
Halliday also proposes two aspects of information structure: the information partition of the
sentence, what he calls the thematic structure (theme-rheme) and the internal organization of each
informational unit, which is treated under the notion of givenness.
As Park notes (1998), when it comes to the information partition of the sentence, the ordering of
informational structure is organized according to the principle of givenness. The theme is the
informational unit that refers to the entity the utterance is about, while the rheme refers to what is
being said about it. He also assumes that the theme, the entity that is being discussed, functions as
the starting point for the clause as a message and is always followed by the rheme. The second
aspect of information structure is related to the internal structure of an information unit. Halliday
refers to the center of an informational unit as information focus. He claims that “Information
focus reflects the speaker’s decision as to where the main burden of the message lies” and that
“Information focus is one kind of emphasis, that whereby the speaker marks out a part (which
maybe the whole) of a message block as that which he wishes to be interpreted as informative”
(p.204).
Halliday also links the placement of focus with the occurrence of new information: “What is focal
is new information, not in the sense that it cannot not been previously mentioned, although it is
often the case that it has not been” (p.204), but in the sense that the speaker presents it as
irrecoverable from the preceding discourse or the context. The rest of the informational unit
contains given information that is already available in the discourse or in the shared knowledge of
the discourse participants. Halliday (1970) illustrates the correlation between the thematic
structure and the internal structure of an information unit in the following example.
4
(1) Mary always goes to town on Sundays.
[Mary] [always goes to town on Sundays] theme-rheme
[Mary] [………………town……………] informational focus
[Mary] [………………town……………] new
[……..] [always goes to……..on Sundays] given (V on Heusinger, 1999, p.119)
In sentence (1), ‘Mary’ is a theme, what the sentence is about while the remaining part of the
sentence ‘always goes to town on Sundays’ is a rheme, which is talking about the theme. ‘Mary’
and ‘town’ lie in the informational focus because these information units contain new information
while the rest part of the sentence ‘always goes to…..on Sundays’ carries given information.
However, even though this interaction between Topic-Comment structures and the notion of
givenness holds in many cases, it is not always the case. A recoverable, old informational unit can
also be in focus as we can see in (2).
(2) Who drinks beer, John or Mary?
John drinks beer.
Moreover, his definition of given – new is still not clear. In (1), Halliday considers the theme
‘Mary’ to be in focus. It contains new information because ‘Mary’ cannot be recovered by the
listener. His definition of given-new information is somewhat restricted to what is recoverable in
the preceding discourse.
Chafe (1976) extends Halliday’s concept of information structure, introducing the notion of
information packaging. What Chafe (1976) has in his mind in the notion of packaging is
primarily concerned with the presentation of the message, “how the message is sent” (p.28) and
the content of the message is a secondary concern.
Our starting point, then, is the packaging phenomena relevant to nouns include the following: (a) the
noun may be either given or new. (b) it may be a focus of contrast; (c) it may be definite or indefinite;
(d) it may be the subject of its sentence; (e) it may be the topic of its sentence; and (f) it may represent
the individual whose point of view the speaker is taking, or with whom the speaker empathizes. (Chafe,
1976, p.28)

Chafe’s definition about givenness refers to the speaker’s judgment of the hearer’s state of mind
and it is closely associated with the notion of Topic-Comment constructions. According to Chafe
5
(1976), givenness is what the speaker assumes that the hearer has in mind at the time of utterance,
based on the context, shared assumption, and preceding discourse.
While given information refers to the knowledge which the speaker assumes to be in the
consciousness of the hearer at the time of utterance, new information here means what is not
currently in hearer’s consciousness and it is marked by a higher pitch and stress. In this sense, the
topic is given, presupposed, and discourse-old in the relation to its comment part. As Gundel
(2004) notes, the comment, on the other hand, is new in relation to the topic in the sense that it is
new information that is predicated, asserted, and questioned about the topic. Chafe gives an
example from Japanese, where the topic marker -wa is taken to mark something given and -ga is
used to mark something new.
Chafe also points out that the focus of contrast can be marked by higher pitch and stronger stress,
but what is more important is that it is independent of givenness. As von Heusinger (1999) notes,
Chafe defines the concept of contrast by identifying three factors: background knowledge
(something the predicate possesses), a set of possible candidates (a set of possible referents that
the predicate can possess), and an assertion of which candidate is the correct one as illustrated in
(3).
(3) John

made the salad.
a. Background: someone made the salad.
b. A set of possible candidates: {Bill, David, Sam, John …}
c. Assertion: John is the one who made the salad.
In (3), the speaker assumes that the hearer knows that someone made the salad (background
knowledge) and that the hearer has a set of possible candidates in mind as that someone. The
speaker is telling the hearer that someone is John, rather than one of those others. In this sense, as
Chafe (1976) notes, John is the focus of contrast, the right selection for this role of salad-marker,
“as opposed to other possible candidates that the addresses might have had in mind” (p.33).
Furthermore, it is possible to have more than one focus of contrast as in (4). Chafe also points out
6
that in case of Japanese the particle -wa may appear to have a focus of contrast meaning as in (5).
The particle -ga, on the other hand, may convey contrast where the focus of the contrast is an
exhaustive listing as in (6).
(4) John made the salad, but Mary made the hamburger.
(5) Ame wa hutte-imasu-ga, yuki-wa hutte-imasen.
Rain-TOP falling-NOM snow-TOP falling-NEG
‘Rain is falling, but snow is not falling.’
(6) John-ga baka desu.
John-NOM stupid is
‘(Among the people under discussion), John and only John is stupid. It is John
who is stupid.’

1.1 Summary
In this chapter, we have examined the development of the notion of Topic-Comment
constructions in chronological way. To summarize, the notion of the topic has been used in
various ways including the entity about which a comment is made (aboutness), a reference to
presupposed information, and contextually given information. The Topic-Comment structuring of
a sentence has contributed to explain the notion of topic in terms of aboutness and given-new
information. In the next section, we will investigate the properties of Topic-Comment
constructions and examine earlier studies in Japanese.

7
2. The properties of Topic-Comment structures in different languages
Topic-Comment structures are realized in different forms across languages such as English as-for
constructions or Japanese and Korean topic markers -wa and -(n)un, respectively. In this chapter,
we will observe the properties of topic and how topic is realized in different languages.

2.1 The notion of topic and subject
According to Li and Thompson (1976), languages can be classified according to the notion of
subject and topic in a language. They say that both subject and topic are present in all languages,
but some languages may favor the use of either subject or topic. If a language prefers to use
subject-predicate structures over topic-comment structures, it is called a subject-prominent
language. For instance, the subject NP ‘John’ in (7a) occurs at the beginning of the sentence,
functioning as an agent which controls the action of the verb. The subject also triggers person-
number agreement on the verb: the verb agrees with its subject as 3
rd
person singular. As Keenan
(1976) notes, in many languages subjects have a certain fixed position (i.e., in case of English the
NP which occurs immediately before the verb is a subject) and they are marked with the same
morphological case, nominative. In addition to that, since the subject must be involved in the
action/experience represented by the verb in some way, it must have a direct relation to the verb.
Thus, the verb places restrictions on what kind of element can be its subject. Thus the sentence
(8) sounds bad because the verb ‘run’ places a restriction on its subject that it must have legs.
(7) John likes Mary.
SUBJECT PREDIDATE

(8) ?The snake ran away.
If a language favors the use of topic-comment structures over subject-predicate structures, on the
other hand, it is called a topic-prominent language. Topics announce what is going to be talked
about in the discourse. Topics are followed by comments, which make a statement about them. In
English, topics are often introduced with some kind of prepositional phrase such as ‘as for…’,
8
‘in…’ as in (9). The sentence-initial NP in (9a) indicates that the speaker is going to tell us some
information about ‘John’. It gives the hearer an instruction to interpret the information of the
comment relative to the topic. In this way, the topic limits the relevance of the comment to a
particular domain; this domain may be related to a person or a particular thing, or related to a
place as in (9b) or a time as in (9c).
(9) a. As for John, he likes Mary.
TOPC Comment
b. As for Korea, it has four seasons.
c. In summer, I always go to Korea.
The fundamental difference between topic and subject is that while subjects must have a direct
relation to the verb (as its agent, experiencer etc), topics just provide the general setting for the
comment; they do not necessarily need to have any direct relation to the verb. In this way, topics
can be considered as being outside of the main grammatical core of the sentence, and therefore
are not subject to grammatical and semantic restrictions directly associated with the verb. Thus,
an important property of topic is that they are not selected directly by the verb and so they do not
need to have a direct relation with the verb as in (10) through (11). The sentence-initial NP ‘fish’
in (10) does not have a direct relation with the predicate ‘delicious’, and ‘that person’ in (11) does
not relate directly to the predicate ‘big’. As Li and Thompson (1976) notes, the selection of the
topic is not determined by the verb, but discourse may play an important role in the selection of
the topic.
(10) Sakana-wa tai-ga oishii.
fish-TOP red snapper-NOM delicious
‘As for fish, red snapper are delicious.’

(11) Ano hito-wa hana-ga okii.
that-person-TOP nose-NOM big
‘That person, his nose is big.’

9
2.2 General properties of topic
Topics are realized by particular syntactic structures in many languages such as English as for or
speaking of construction in (12a) and Japanese and Korean topic markers known as -wa in (12b)
and -(n)un in (12c), respectively.
(12) a. As for fish, red snapper is good.

b. Sakana-wa tai-ga ii.
fish-TOP red snapper-NOM good
‘As for fish, red snapper is good.’

c. Sayngsen-un tomi-ka cohta.
fish-TOP red snapper-NOM good
‘As for fish, red snapper is good.’
In addition, a topic occurs in the sentence-initial position such as left-dislocated phrases in
English topic construction as illustrated in (13). Left-dislocated phrases, generally non-subject
phrases at the leftmost position, are interpreted as topics and have no focal accent.
(13) a. My wife, somebody stole her handbag last night.
b. The next day, we went out for dinner.
c. In the kitchen, John washed the dishes there.
Topic-Comment constructions are closely associated with the relation between given and new
information in a sentence and one of the primary characteristics of topics is that they must be
definite. A definite NP is something that is familiar to both the speaker and the listener, and the
listener can identify the particular referent the speaker has in mind. Thus, a topic is given,
presupposed, or anchored in a speech situation and it refers to something that has already been
introduced into the discourse, or that is familiar to both the speaker and the listener. For example,
each preceding NP in (14), ‘my sister’ and ‘the book you borrowed’, has unique or particular
reference that is identifiable in a given context. Both NPs are definite, and thus can become the
topics of the sentences.
(14) a. My sister, she’s a High School teacher.
b. That book you borrowed, are you finished reading it yet? (Gundel, 2004, p.179)
10
As noted in Kuno (1973), generic NPs, referring to classes, can also become a topic of the
sentence because its referent is the class of items named by the NP, which the hearer can be
assumed to know about if he knows the meaning of that NP as in (15).
(15) a. Speaking of the Japanese, they are hardworking people (the Japanese in general).
b. Speaking of man, he is mortal (man in general). (Kuno, 1973, p.41)
Indefinite NPs, on the other hand, are not generally used to refer to particular entities that are
identifiable in given contexts; indefinites are generally excluded from topic position unless they
can be interpreted generically as in (16) and (17).
(16) a. The window, it is still open.
b. *A window, it is still open.
(17) a. Speaking of the man that she met, he was a hardworking accountant.
b. *Speaking of a man that she met, he was a hardworking accountant.
(Kuno, 1973, p.39)
Topics have been defined in the frame of topic-comment relation and aboutness can be viewed as
an explanation regarding the intuitive notion of topic; what is being talked about. Thus, a topic is
an address which marks the point where the information carried by the comment has to be stored.
However, as Jacobs (2001) says, “aboutness does not seem to be a feature of all typical cases of
Topic-Comment constructions” and he takes examples like (18) and (19). In (18), the sentence is
not talking about the initial constituent ‘physically’. This sentence-initial constituent rather
“restricts the application of the proposition expressed by the rest of the sentence to a certain
domain”. Similarly, the initial constituent of (19) also “restricts the application of the proposition
to certain possible situations, namely those in which the team wins”. Hence, the initial
constituents of these two sentences are setting frames within which the sentences hold. Even
though some researchers have treated sentences like (18) and (19) as examples of Topic-
Comment constructions, the sentence-initial adverbs or subordinate clauses will not be taken as
topic in this paper.
11
(18) Physically, Peter is well.
(19) If the team wins, they will receive a commendation from the president.’
(Jacobs, 2001, p.655)
From what I mentioned above, the properties of topic can be as summarized as follows: (i) topic
is defined in the construction of topic-comment relation in the discourse. (ii) topic is closely
related to ‘given’ information. (iii) topic has to do with definiteness. (iv) topic is treated as setting
a domain or framework for the following discourse. In the next section, we will investigate how
Topic-Comment constructions are realized in Japanese. Since Japanese and Korean share many
syntactic and semantic features, Japanese studies would help better understand the meanings and
functions of the topic marker in Korean.

2.3 Earlier studies in Japanese
Unlike English, the case-marking system in Japanese identifies the subject and the topic of the
sentence overtly. Many linguists attempt to examine the various uses of the topic and the subject
markers by pinpointing their meanings and defining restriction of their distributions. It is
generally said that the subject in Japanese is marked by -ga and the topic with -wa. Examining
earlier studies in Japanese will help analyze Topic-Comment constructions in Korean.

2.3.1 Kuno
Kuno (1973) suggests two different interpretations associated with -wa and -ga as followings.
(20) Thematic -wa: ‘Speaking of…, as for…’
John-wa gakusei desu.
John-TOP student is
‘As for John, he is a student.’
(21) Contrastive -wa: ‘X…, but…’
Ame-wa hutte imasu ga, taisita koto-wa ariamasen.
Rain-TOP falling but much thing-TOP is-not
‘It is raining, but it is not much.’

(22) Descriptive -ga: Neutral description of actions or temporary states
Ame-ga hutte imasu
12
Rain-NOM falling
‘It is raining’
(23) Exhaustive listing -ga: ‘X (and only X)…/ It is X that…’
John-ga gakusei desu.
John-NOM student is
‘(Of all the people under discussion), John (and only John) is a student.’
‘It is John who is a student.’
According to Kuno (1973), NPs followed by the marker -wa is either thematic or contrastive. NPs
followed by thematic -wa represents the topic of the sentence. They must be placed in the
sentence-initial position and either anaphoric (i.e., NPs that have been mentioned and recorded in
the registry of the present discourse) or generic (i.e., NPs that refer to an entire class). For
instance, the -wa marked NP is either anaphoric which refers back to a person/thing already
mentioned in the discourse or to someone/something that can be assumed to be commonly known
to both the speaker and the listener in (24a), or generic, referring to a whole class as in (24b).
Indefinite NPs cannot be identified by both the speaker and the hearer, so they cannot be marked
with thematic -wa as in (25).
(24) a. John-wa gakusei desu.
John-TOP student is
‘John is a student.’

b. Ningen-wa sinu.
Human-TOP die
‘All humans are mortal.’
(25) a. *Oozeino-hito-wa paatii-ni kimaista
Many person-TOP party-to come-PST-DEC
‘*As for many people, they came to the party.’

b. *Omosiroi-hito-wa paatii -ni kimasita.
Interesting person-TOP party-to come-PST-DEC
‘*As for interesting people, they came to the party.’

c. *Dare-wa kita no?
Who-TOP come-PST Q
‘*As for whom, did he/she/they come?’
Contrastive -wa, on the other hand, focuses on an element or a proposition in contrast with
another explicit or implicit element or proposition. It needs not to be anaphoric or generic, and it
13
carries emphatic stress. Suppose that (26) is uttered in a conversation in which John and Mary
have been the topic. The two wa-marked NPs, John and Mary, are referential, exhaustively
referring to the members of the set, and they are being contrasted with one another. Unlike
thematic -wa, NPs marked by contrastive -wa can be indefinite. For instance, the two wa-marked
NPs in (27a) and the WH phrase in (27b), which cannot refer to a definite set of individuals
shared by the speaker and the hearer in the context, must always have a contrastive reading with
emphatic stress.
(26) John-wa kit-te, Mary-wa ko-na-katta.
John-CF come-and Mary-CF come-NEG-PST
‘JOHN came, and MARY didn’t come.’

(27) a. Oozeino-hito-wa paatii-ni kimashita ga omoshiroi-hito-wa
Many people-TOP party-to come-PST but interesting-person-TOP

ki-masen-deshita.
come-NEG-PST
‘MANY PEOPLE came to the party, but INTERESTING PEOPLE didn’t
come.’

b. Dare-wa kitte, dare-wa konakatta no?
Who-TOP come who-TOP come-NEG-PST Q
‘WHO came, and WHO didn’t?’
Kuno also notes that it is possible to have multiple occurrences of -wa in the same clause: only
the first -wa marked NP is generally interpreted as a topic and the rest of wa-marked NPs have
contrastive readings. For example, the first wa-marked NP John in (28) functions as a topic of the
sentence, and the other wa-marked NPs are contrasted with some other mentioned/unmentioned
NPs. While the second wa-marked NP hon ‘book’ in (28a) can be contrasted with some other
unmentioned NPs such as newspapers, magazines, or comics, the same NP hon ‘book’ in (28b)
sets up a contrast with the following proposition. Note that even a temporal postpositional phrase
such as shuumatsu-ni ‘on the weekend’ in (28c) can be marked with contrastive -wa, which
results in being contrast with some other unstated NP.
(28) a. John-wa hon-wa yomimasu.
John-TOP book-TOP read
‘As for John, he does read BOOKS.’
14
b. John-wa hon-wa yomimasu ga terebi-wa mimasen.
John-TOP book-TOP read but television-TOP watch-NEG
‘As for John, he does read BOOKS, but he doesn’t watch TV .’
c. John-wa shuumatsu-ni-wa hon-wa yonda.
John-TOP weekend -on-TOP book-TOP read
‘As for John, he does read BOOKS on the WEEKEND.’
Concerning the two different interpretations available with -ga, a neutral descriptive and an
exhaustive listing reading, Kuno claims that the formal is a simple description of an action or a
state without any special emphasis on any particular part of the description. As illustrated in (22),
the sentence ame-ga hutte imasu ‘It is raining’ simply describes a certain state of falling rain
without carrying an emphasis on the any particular part of the sentence. In case of the exhaustive
listing reading, on the other hand, the ga-marked subject provides an exhaustive list of the
persons/things which are described by the predicate part of the sentence. The sentence John-ga
gakusei desu ‘John is a student’ in (23) implies that among all the possible candidates the
predicate can possess, it is John (and only John) who is a student. Because of this exhaustive
listing reading, questions asking for a piece of information are appropriately answered with ga-
marked subjects as in (29b).
(29) a. Dare-ga paatii-ni kita no?
Who-NOM party-to came Q
‘Who came?’

b. John-ga kita.
John-NOM came
‘It was JOHN who came.’
c. ?? John-wa kita.
John-TOP came
‘As for John, he came.’

2.3.2 McGloin
McGloin (1987) examines the role of -wa in negative sentences. Like Kuno, McGloin assumes
that there are two different uses of -wa: thematic and contrastive. The following is a list of
properties which distinguishes the two uses of -wa.
15
1. Thematic wa occurs only with anaphoric or generic NPs. There is no such restriction for
contrastive wa.
2. Contrastive wa can carry emphatic stress, while thematic wa does not.
3. Thematic wa is attached only to NPs while contrastive wa is attached both to NPs and non-
nominal constituents such as verbs, adverbs, and quantifiers.
4. Thematic wa does not occur in embedded sentences, while contrastive wa is generally
permitted in embedded sentences.

McGloin also points out that thematic -wa represents given information and is therefore outside
the domain of negation whereas contrastive -wa signals the target of negation. In the following
sentences, -wa has a contrastive reading since it is attached to a predicate besides NPs (verbs,
adjectives, and copular), and adverbs, and it marks the target of negation: (30a) denies the act of
eating. (30b) denies that the book is new but implies some other conditions the book may have.
(30c) denies the manner one can write and (30d) implies that one can do some but not all.
(30) a. tabe-wa shi-na-katta.
eat-TOP do-NEG-PST
‘I didn’t eat.’

b. kono kyookasho-wa atarashiku-wa nai.
this textbook-TOP new-TOP NEG
‘This textbook is not new, but…’
c. joozu-ni-wa kak-e-nai
well-TOP write-can-NEG
‘I cannot write well.’
d. zenbu-wa deki-na-katta.
all-TOP can-NEG-PST
‘I couldn’t do it all.’ (McGloin, 1987, p.173-174)
This phenomenon has already been illustrated in Kono’s two distinct interpretations of -wa as in
(31). In its thematic reading, (31a) is talking about John and his act of not coming to the party.
Under a contrastive reading, however, the same wa-marked NP John becomes a target of negation
as in (31b), which denies his act of coming to the party and implies that someone else besides him
did come to the party.
(31) a. John-wa paatii-ni ko-na-katta.
John-TOP party-to come-NEG-PST
‘As for John, he didn’t come to the party.’

b. John-wa paatii-ni ko-na-katta.
16
John-TOP party-to come-NEG-PST
‘JOHN didn’t come to the party (but the others did).’

2.3.3 Kuroda
Kuroda (1972) examines the functional difference between the topicalized and non-topicalized
sentence in Japanese. He claims that the particle -wa marks the ‘Subject’ in the logical sense. The
capitalized Subject does not refer to a subject in syntactic concept, an NP which governs the verb.
Rather, it refers to a topic of the sentence and the rest of the sentence represents the Predicate to
be attributed to it. The term Subject comes from the theory of judgment and in this case judgment
is a cognitive act that is externalized by a speech act of stating.
In the theory of judgment, judgments are divided into a categorical and thetic judgment. A
categorical judgment conforms to the traditional conception of the Subject-Predicate structure,
while a thetic judgment is taken as subjectless, in this sense, the judgment without a topic.
Kuroda relates the distinction between wa-marked topicalized sentences and ga-marked non-
topicalized sentences in Japanese to the distinction of the categorical and thetic judgment.
For example, the judgment expressed by the ga-marked, non-topicalized sentence (32), fits the
characteristic of the thetic judgment, which is a simple form of judgment, a unitary cognitive act.
At the moment of utterance, it refers to an actual situation to which the speaker is cognitively
related, most likely by visual perception. This perception is directly put in the form of judgment,
registering a proposition taken as true with the respect to the given situation. Hence, the sentence
(32) concerns a particular event, taking place at the particular moment. Such judgment expresses
recognition of the existence of an entity or a situation: there is a cat sleeping there. Since the
definiteness of neko ‘cat’ does not matter, the referent of neko in (32) can be either definite or
indefinite.
(32) Neko-ga asoko-de nemutte-iru.
Cat-NOM there-at sleeping
‘A/the cat is sleeping there.’
17
While the thetic judgment is a unitary cognitive act, the categorical judgment expressed by the
wa-marked topicalized sentence (33) is a double judgment. It involves two distinct cognitive acts:
one is the recognition of the Subject, and another act of acknowledging or disavowing a Predicate
that explains the temporary state or the property of a Subject. Thus, the wa-marked NP in the
perceived situation is apprehended as an entity that is fulfilling a particular role in the situation. In
this sense, wa-marked NP neko in (33) functions as the Subject (also known as topic) in the
sentence and the referent of neko must be definite.
(33) Neko-wa asoko-de nemutte-iru.
Cat-TOP there-at sleeping
‘The cat is sleeping there.’

2.3.4 Shibatani
Shibatani (1990) points out the problem of two distinct uses of -wa or two distinct meanings
associated with -wa, labeled as thematic and contrast. He claims that the particle -wa separates an
entity from the rest of the sentence and it marks an emphasis inherent in every proposition. Thus,
Kuno’s contrastive -wa is due to the inherent nature of -wa as an emphatic particle, whose
emphatic force becomes more pronounced when a contrasting proposition exist explicitly. When
there is no such contrasting proposition, there is little emphasis one can detect in the topic
construction. In other words, there are no two distinct meanings associated with -wa. Rather, one
and the same -wa has the effect of emphasizing the contrast when the discourse environment
provides background for contrast. For instance, when (34) is uttered, the speaker is singling out
this proposition from other possible ones (i.e., the moon, the star…) but it only becomes apparent
when a parallel or contrasting proposition exists explicitly such as ‘the moon goes down’ or ‘the
weather is cold’.
(34) Hi-wa noboru.
Sun-TOP rise
‘The sun rises.’
He also claims that -wa separates the topic from the rest of the sentence. When -wa occurs, the
18
wa-marked NP often seeks its predicate far away from it, even skipping over an immediately
following verbal element. When -wa does not occur, all the nominals in the sentence are
immediately related to the nearest verbal element. As illustrated in (35a), the ga-marked NP tori
‘bird’ immediately connects with the verb todu ‘fly’. In case of wa-marked tori in (35b), the
immediately following verb tobu is not its real predicate because it skips over immediately
following verb tobu and connects with the verb at the end of the sentence naku ‘cry’.
(35) a. [Tori ga tobu] toki naku.
Bird-NOM fly when cry
‘When a bird flies, it cries.’

b. Tori-wa [tobu toki] naku.
Bird-NOM fly when cry
‘The bird, when it flies, cry.’
Shibatani also examines the connection of the topic construction to the notion of given and new
information. What is given or old information is something already determined, less important,
and not freely choosable. What is new information, the center of thought, is something
undetermined, freely choosable, and can receive prominent intonation. He notes that the
correlation of -wa and the notion of givenness is due to the fact that the existence of the particular
referent is always presupposed with an entity which is marked by -wa. For example, (36) is used
when someone is telling the hearer who the speaker is or what the speaker does as a job. Since the
existence of the speaker, because of his presence, is presupposed, the wa-marked topic watashi is
given information and the predicate part is new. The sentence (37), however, is used when the
hearer does not know the identity of the trustee and thus the predicate part given/old and the
subject part is new.
(36) [Watashi-wa
OLD
] [honkai-no-rigi desu.
NEW
]
I-TOP organization-GEN-trustee is
‘I’m trustee of this organization.’

(37) [Watashi-ga
NEW
] [honkai-no-rigi desu.
OLD
]
I-NOM organization-GEN-trustee is
‘I’m trustee of this organization.’
When it comes to the interpretations available with ga-marked subjects, Shibatani proposes a
19
different view. Considering (38), two appropriate contexts are suggested. In one interpretation,
the state of affairs represented in the sentence is just witnessed, hence most naturally connected to
the here and now. Since in this use the sentence is not connected to the preceding conversation in
any way, the whole sentence is new information. This use corresponds to Kuno’s neutral
description. Another interpretation is a reply to a question ‘What is white?’. The noun yuki ‘snow’
functions as a focus of new information in this sense, which corresponds to Kuno’s exhaustive
listing. In both cases, yuki marked by -ga represents an entity crucially relevant in supplying new
information.
(38) Yuki-ga shiroi.
Snow-NOM white
‘The snow is white.’

2.4 Summary
To summarize, topic has its distinctive properties. Unlike subjects, topics do not necessarily have
any direct relation to the verb and they are separated from other elements in a sentence. They are
also closely related to the notion of ‘givenness’ and ‘definiteness’ in the discourse; either
previously mentioned or shared information both by the speaker and the listener.
In Japanese studies, topics are marked with the so-called topic marker -wa. This thematic -wa
occurs in the sentence-initial position without an emphatic stress and it can only occur with
definite NPs. The same -wa, however, can have a contrastive reading when the discourse
environment provides background for contrast. Unlike thematic -wa, contrastive -wa shows no
restrictions on the position and the types of the element it can occur. In the next chapter, Korean
Topic-Comment structures will be analyzed based on the findings in earlier Japanese studies.

20
3. Korean Topic-Comment structures: Thematic vs. Contrastive -(n)un
The Korean topic marker -(n)un has been studied under the notion of Topic-Comment
constructions and it has been claimed that the particle -(n)un conveys pragmatic information. In
particular, it is said to have two functions, marking a topic or putting an element in contrast (Yang
1974, Chae 1977, Lee 2004): a sentence-initial -(n)un marked constituent is treated as a topic and
it is restricted to given information whose referent is identifiable both by the speaker and the
listener. A -(n)un- marked element can also convey a contrastive reading when a parallel or
contrasting proposition exists overtly or covertly. A thematic -(n)un phrase receives no prominent
intonation and is generally set off from the rest of the sentence by a pause. A contrastive -(n)un
phrase, on the other hand, is marked with higher pitch and stress, and considered as the focused
element. Observe the following sentences as an example.
Sentence (39a) is a typical self-introduction in Korean. Here the unstressed thematic
-(n)un-marked NP ce ‘I’ refers to the speaker, who is clearly identifiable both by the speaker
himself or herself and the listener in the context of self-introduction, while the rest of the
predicate part, the speaker’s name, is the new information and it thus receives emphatic stress. In
contrast, the utterance (39b) is an appropriate response to the question “Who is John?” but it
cannot be used to introduce oneself since the nominative -ka-marked NP indicates new
information and the speaker’s name is presupposed old information. (39b) may convey contrast
where the focus of contrast is an exhaustive listing: ‘(Among the people under discussion), ‘I’m
the only one whose name is John’ or ‘It is I whose name is John.’
(39) a. Ce-nun John-ipnita.
I-TOP John-is
‘As for myself, I’m John.’

b. Cey-ka John-ipnita.
I-NOM John-is
‘I’m the one whose name is John.’
The -(n)un marked NP can also receive contrastive focus reading. As Chafe (1976) mentioned in
the previous section, the focus of contrast arises when there is a set of possible candidates and the
21
speaker tells the hearer which candidate is the correct one among the others. It can be marked by
higher pitch and emphatic stress. Thus, while (40a) simply states that John likes Mary, (40b)
presupposes that there are other people besides Mary in the domain and implies that John likes
Mary but not others, or John likes Mary and he is at least uncertain about other girls.
(40) a. John-i Mary-lul cohahanta.
John-NOM Mary-ACC like
‘John likes Mary.’
b. John-i Mary-nun cohahanta.
John-NOM Mary-CF like
‘John likes Mary.’

This contrastive focus reading of -(n)un is clearly realized when there is a contrasting proposition.
The sentence-medial -(n)un-marked NPs Mary and Jenny in (41a) receive a contrastive focus
reading with higher pitch and stress, which means ‘John likes Mary, but not Jenny’. Despite of
their sentence-initial position, the -(n)un marked NPs in (41b) can also be treated as the focus of
contrast since the context provides background for contrast. Moreover, if multiple -(n)un-marked
phrases are found in a sentence as in (41c), the sentence initial -(n)un-marked NP would be
unaccented and interpreted as a topic of the sentence. The other -(n)un marked phrases may
receive contrastive focus readings, which means that there is a set of contrasting sister members
for each -(n)un-marked elements. Hence, (41c) implies that John gave nothing but a present only
to Mary, but he gave nothing to others.
(41) a. John-i Mary-nun coha-ciman Jenny-nun an cohahanta.
John-NOM Mary-CF like-but Jenny-CF not like
‘John likes Mary, but he doesn’t like Jenny.’

b. John-un Mary-lul cohaha-ciman Jenny-nun Mary-lul an cohahanta.
John-CF Mary-ACC like-but Jenny-CF Mary-ACC not like
‘John likes Mary, but Jenny doesn’t like her.’
c. John-un Mary-hanthey-nun senmwul-un cwu-ess-ta.
John-TOP Mary-DAT-CF gift-CF gave
‘As for John, he gave a gift to Mary.’
In the next section, I will examine distinctive characteristics of -(n)un, which are different from
other markers and demonstrate the conditions and restrictions on the two different interpretations
22
of -(n)un marked phrases: (i) Thematic -(n)un occurs with a definite or generic NP, but there is no
such restriction for contrastive -(n)un. (ii) Thematic -(n)un is mainly attached to NPs while
contrastive -(n)un is attached both to NPs and non-nominal constituents.

3.1 The distinctive characteristics of -(n)un
First, when -(n)un occurs, it replaces nominative i/ka or accusative (l)ul and co-occurs with other
markers such as dative -eykey ‘to’, temporal postposition -ey ‘at, on, in’, or spatial postpositions -
ey/eyse ‘at, in’. If -(n)un-marked phrases occur multiple times within the same sentence, the
sentence-initial one functions as a topic of the sentence and the rest of them receive contrastive
readings. With the multiple occurrences of -(n)un in (42b), the sentence-initial element John
represents the topic of the sentence, and the following -(n)un-marked phrases have contrastive
readings with emphatic stress. Thus, (42b) has a presupposition that there are other people besides
Mary and there are other things besides the book that might have been given to Mary and the
sentence implies John gave only the book to Mary and nothing to other people in the context.
(42) a. John-i Mary-eykey-nun chayk-ul cwuessta.
John-NOM Mary-DAT-CF book-ACC gave
‘John gave Mary a book.’

b. John-un Mary-eykey-nun chayk-un cwuessta.
John-TOP Mary-DAT-CF book-CF gave
‘As for John, he gave Mary (but not others) a book (but not other things).’
While -(n)un represents topicality and contrast, nominative -i/ga is used to mark the subject of the
sentence, either describing actions or temporary states or to mark the focus of new information as
mentioned in Kuno (1973) and Shibatani (1990). Thus, sentence (43) may have two different
interpretations: descriptive or exhaustive listing. When the speaker just saw John coming towards
him, sentence (43) can be a description of John’s action. The same sentence can also be uttered as
a reply to the question nwuka oni ‘Who is coming?’ which is asking for a new piece of
information. In this case, (43) implies that among all the possible candidates, it is John who is
coming. Since descriptive -i/ga is used to describe the speaker’s direct perception of the event or
23
state, it mainly occurs with an existential verb issta ‘to exist’ as in (44a) or adjectival predicates
such as manhta ‘many, much’ as in (44b) describing a certain state or property of the noun.
(43) John-i onta.
John-NOM come
‘John is coming.’
‘It is John who is coming.’
(44) a. Ceki-ey Salam-tul-i issta.
There-at person-PL-NOM exist
‘People are there.’

b. Salam-tul-i manhta.
Person-PL-NOM many
‘People are many.’
As mentioned above, the distinctive characteristics of -(n)un are observed: First, -(n)un either
replaces or co-occurs with other markers. Next, -(n)un is different from nominative -i/ka, which is
used to either describe a certain action or state or to mark new information in the discourse. In the
next section, I will examine the conditions and restrictions on the two different interpretations of
-(n)un marked phrases based on the following conditions: Definiteness and the position and the
types of -(n)un-marked phrases.

3.2 Definiteness of -(n)un-marked phrases
As mentioned in the previous section, a topic is restricted to given/old information, whose
referent is shared by both the speaker and the hearer or already mentioned in the previous
discourse. Thus, thematic -(n)un must occur with a definite or generic NP. According to Kuno
(1973), a definite NP is something that is familiar to both the speaker and the listener, and the
listener can identify the particular referent the speaker has in mind. Thus, the topic always refers
to something that has already been introduced into the conversation, or that is familiar to both the
speaker and the listener. A generic NP, referring to a whole class, can also occur with thematic
-(n)un because its referent is the class of items named by the NP, which the hearer can be
assumed to know about if he knows the meaning of that NP.
24
The same logic holds for Korean. The -(n)un marked NPs ku haksayng ‘the student’ and John in
(45a) are definite since the demonstrative ku ‘that’ indicates a particular entity that the speaker is
referring to and the proper name has an unique reference in the registry of the present discourse.
The generic NP kilum ‘oil’ in (45b) can also become a topic because the speaker assumes that the
hearer has heard about the class of objects.
(45) a. Ku haksayng-un / John-un motun salam-i cohahanta.
That student-TOP/ John-TOP everybody-NOM like
‘As for that student/John, everybody likes (him).’

b. Kilum-un mwul-wiey ttunta.
oil-TOP water-on float
‘Oil floats on water.’ (Jung, 2001, p.306)
Since thematic -(n)un is restricted to old/given information, the introduction of a referent in a
narrative typically occurs with the nominative marker -i/ka which can be used to mark new
information in the discourse. If the referent is chosen to be the topic of the narrative and is
repeated on subsequent mentions, thematic -(n)un can be attached. As illustrated in (46), the topic
of the narrative namwukkwun ‘the woodcutter’ is first introduced into the discourse with the
nominative marker -i/ka and then marked with thematic -(n)un in the second mention.
(46) Yeysnal yeyscek-ey han namwukkwun-i salassta. Namwukkwun-un
A long time ago one woodcutter-NOM lived woodcutter-TOP

acwu kananhayssta.
very poor
‘Once upon a time, there lived a wood cutter. The woodcutter was very poor.’
Since thematic -(n)un is restricted to old/given information, it has a lower degree of CD and
thematic -(n)un-marked NPs can easily be dropped in actual conversations. When the question
(47a) is uttered, for example, there are three possible answers: the nominative -i/ka-marked NP
namwukkwun ‘the woodcutter’, which is introduced into the discourse for the first time, can be
repeated with thematic -(n)un as in (47b) because ‘the woodcutter’ has become old information
shared by both the speaker and the listener. It can also be replaced with the demonstrative ku
‘that’ plus the noun salam ‘person’ as in (47c) or dropped as in (47d) considering the fact that
25
thematic -(n)un carries information with the lower degree of CD.
(47) a. Namwukkwun-i ettayss-ni?
Woodcutter-NOM how was-Q?
‘How was the woodcutter?’

b. Namwukkwun-un kananhayssta.
Woodcutter-TOP poor
‘The woodcutter was poor.’

c. ku salam-un kananhayssta.
that-person-TOP poor
‘That person was poor.’

d. kananhayssta.
poor
‘(The woodcutter) was poor.’
Interestingly, thematic -(n)un is used to mark given/old information, it is not appropriate to occur
with the sentential ending -ney which expresses the speaker’s attitude towards newly discovered,
unexpected events or states. The sentential ending -ney expresses the speaker’s opinion towards
what he has newly discovered or perceived, which is contradictory to his thought or anticipation
and it accompanies the exclamatory tone of realization or perception. For instance, when the
speaker utters (48a), the event of raining is not what he anticipated; that is, he thought it was not
raining, or it was snowing, but he suddenly discovered that it was raining outside. Similarly, (48b)
is uttered when the speaker found out that the weather was unexpectedly cold. Thus, thematic
-(n)un is not compatible with -ney, but the nominative marker -i/ka is appropriate marker in the
previous two contexts. Contrastive -(n)un, on the other hand, can be used with -ney when the
contextual environment provides background for contrast. Thus, the sentence (49a) is
grammatical only if there is presupposed contextual information which is in contrast with the
existing proposition, ‘it’s raining’. Similarly when (49b) is uttered, the speaker expresses his
thoughts about the weather which is contradictory to his anticipation; when springs comes, it is
supposed to be getting warmer, but it is still cold.
(48) a. Pi-ka/*nun o-ney!
Rain-NOM/TOP come
‘It is raining!’
26
b. Nalssi-ka/*nun chwup-ney!
Weather-NOM/*TOP cold
‘The weather is cold!’
(49) a. (Nwun-un an o-ciman) pi-nun o-ney!
(snow-CF not come-but) rain-CF come
‘(It’s not snowing but) it’s raining!’

b. (Pom-un wass-ciman) nalssi- nun chwup-ney!
(spring-CF come-but) weather-CF cold
‘(The spring has returned but) the weather is cold!’
Similarly, the same NP can have two different interpretations depending on the marker it occurs
with. When the NP elkwul ‘face’ is marked with the nominative marker -i/ka in (50a), the speaker
expresses his attitude towards what he has newly discovered which is contrary to his anticipation;
he did not think the woman in the given context would be pretty, but it turns out she is. On the
other hand, the speaker utters (50b), the -(n)un-marked NP has a contrastive reading, which
implies that the woman may have other physical conditions in contrast with her pretty look; she is
short but still pretty.
(50) a. Elkwul-i yeyppu-ney!
Face-NOM pretty
‘(Her) face is pretty.’
a. Elkwul-un yeyppu-ney!
Face-TOP pretty
‘(She is short but) her face is pretty.’
Moreover, when Wh-words are used to ask for a piece of unknown information in the discourse,
they cannot be marked by the thematic -(n)un because they are not given/old information familiar
to both the speaker and the hearer. Due to their inherent nature, Wh-question words nwukwu
‘who’, encey ‘when’, eti ‘where’, and mwues ‘what’ in (51) must be marked by the nominative
marker -i/ka rather than thematic -(n)un.
(51) a. Nwu-ka/*nwukwu-nun wass-ni?
Who-NOM/TOP came-Q
‘Who came?’

b. Encey-ka/*nun sayngil-i-ni?
When-NOM/TOP birthday is-Q
‘When is your birthday?’
27
c. Eti-ka/*nun kyosil-i-ni?
Where-NOM/TOP classroom is-Q
‘Where is the classroom?’

d. Mwues-i/*un himtu-ni?
What-NOM/TOP difficult-Q
‘What is difficult?’
The answers for Wh-questions asking for a piece of new information must be marked with the
nominative marker i/ga. Since new information carries a higher degree of CD, the nominative
marked NPs cannot be dropped. Thus, only (52b) and (52c) can be the appropriate answers for the
Wh-question ‘who came?’.
(52) a. Nwu-ka wass-ni?
Who-NOM came-Q
‘Who came?’

b. Mary-ka wassta.
Mary-NOM came
‘Mary came.’

c. Mary.
‘Mary (came).’

d.*Mary-nun wassta.
Mary-TOP came
‘*As for Mary, she came.’

e.* wassta.
came
‘*(Mary) came.’
Note that Wh-words can also have an indefinite interpretation in a yes-no question or a
declarative sentence. As shown in (53a) and (54a), the same ka-marked Wh-word nwuka ‘who’
can be ambiguous between a Wh-question reading “Who came?” and a Wh-indefinite reading
“Did anyone come?”. When these two sentences are uttered, the meaning of Wh-expressions is
determined by the presence or absence of focus on Wh-expressions. In (53a), since the Wh-phrase
is used as a question word asking for a piece of new information, it becomes a focused element
carrying emphatic stress. At the sentence level, there is a rise-and-fall intonation contour. On the
other hand, when the wh-phrase is interpreted as an indefinite pronoun ‘anyone’, carrying no
28
emphatic stress as in (54a), the question becomes a yes-no question simply asking whether
someone came or not. Moreover, in the case of the existential indefinite reading of the Wh-phrase,
the rising intonation is observed at the end of the sentence, which is in contrast with a rise-and-
fall intonation of the interrogative wh-question reading. In the declarative sentence (55), the same
Wh-word nwuka is interpreted as an indefinite pronoun ‘someone’.
(53) a. Nwu-ka wass-ni?
Who-NOM came-Q
‘Who came?’

b. John-i wass-ta.
John-NOM came
John came.’

(54) a. Nwu-ka wass-ni?
Who-NOM came-Q
‘Did anyone come?’

b. Ung, John-i wass-ta.
Yes, John-NOM came
‘Yes, John came.’

(55) Nwu-ka wassta.
Who-NOM came
‘Someone came.’
As Chafe (1976) mentioned in the previous section, the focus of contrast arises when there is a set
of possible candidates and the speaker tells the hearer which candidate is the correct one among
the other choices. It can be marked by higher pitch and stronger stress, and what is more
important is that it is independent of givenness. Thus, while thematic -(n)un cannot be used to
indefinite pronouns, contrastive -(n)un can be used to mark indefinite pronouns. For example,
while the two -(n)un-marked indefinite pronouns nwukwu ‘someone’ and mwues ‘something’ in
(56) cannot function as a topic in each sentence, the same -(n)un-marked indefinite pronouns in
(57) can have contrastive readings if there is an explicit or implicit contrasting proposition in the
context.
(56) a. *Nwukwu-nun wassta.
Who-TOP came
‘*As for someone, he/she came.’
29
b. *Mwues-un John-i sassta
What-TOP John-NOM bought
‘*As for something, John bought it.’

(57) a. Nwukwu-nun o-ko nwukwu-nun an wassta.
Who-CF come-and who-CF not came
‘(Among the group of people) someone came and others didn’t come.’

b. John-i mwues-un sassta.
What-NOM what-CF bought
‘(John didn’t have money but) John bought something’
Contrastive -(n)un can also occur with indefinite pronouns in order to convey ironic meanings.
When contrastive -(n)un is added after indefinite pronouns such as eti ‘somewhere’, mwues
‘something’, and nwukwu ‘someone’ in (58), it expresses the meaning of ‘anywhere’, ‘anything’,
and ‘everyone’.
(58) a. Eti-nun mos ka-keyss-ni?
somewhere-CF cannot go-will-Q
‘Lit: ‘Can’t I go somewhere?’
‘I can go anywhere.’

b. Mwues-un ceytaylo ha-keyss-ni?
something-CF well do-will-Q
‘Lit: ‘Will you do something well?’
‘You can’t do anything well.’

c. Nwukwu-nun kwaynchanh-keyss-ni?
someone-CF okay-will-Q
‘Lit: Will someone feel okay?’
‘Everyone is not okay.’
As illustrated above, while thematic -(n)un is restricted to definite NPs, contrastive -(n)un shows
no restrictions on the definiteness of the NP that it occurs with. In the next section, I will examine
how two different interpretations of -(n)un can be realized depending on its position and the types
of elements it occurs with.

3.3 The position and the types of -(n)un-marked phrases
When a -(n)un marked NP is placed in the sentence-initial subject position, it generally receives a
topic reading. The topic phrase marked by -(n)un receives no prominent intonation and is
30
generally set off from the rest of the sentence by a pause. For instance, the -(n)un marked NP
John in (59a) is in the sentence-initial position and represents a topic in the sentence. This topic
part goes unaccented whereas the rest of the predicate part carries an accent and makes up the
comment part of the sentence. Then, what is the difference between thematic -nun marked NP in
(59a) and the nominative-ka marked NP in (59b)? Since the thematic -(n)un phrase is restricted to
given, presupposed, or discourse-old information, the comment part of the sentence, which
contains new information, carries emphatic stress. In (59b), however, the nominative -i/ka-
marked NP indicates new information and it may convey contrast where the focus of contrast is
an exhaustive listing: ‘(Among the people under discussion), John and only John is a president’,
or ‘It is John who is a class president’.
(59) a. John -un wuli pan pancang ita.
John-TOP our class president is
‘As for John, he is a president in my class.’

b. John -i wuli pan pancang ita.
John-NOM our class president is
‘John is a president in my class.’ (Lee, et al., 1999, p.206)
Unlike English, which has no overt marker indicating topicality, the topic marker -(n)un in
Korean apparently indicates the source of the topic. Thus, when a nominal constituent is marked
by -(n)un, it can be derived as a topic by the transformational movement, called topicalization. As
shown in (60), the object yenge ‘English’ and the dative phrase Mary-yeykey ‘to Mary’ can be
derived as a topic by being placed in the sentence-initial position.
(60) a. John-i Mary-yeykey yenge-lul kaluchinta.
John-NOM Mary-DAT English-ACC teach
‘John teaches English to Mary.’

b. Mary-yeykey-nun John-i yenge-lul kaluchinta.
Mary-DAT-TOP John-NOM English-ACC teach
‘To Mary, John teaches English.’
c. Yenge-nun John-i Mary-yeykey kaluchinta.
English-TOP John-NOM Mary-DAT teach
‘As for English, John teaches it to Mary.’
In addition to that, a postpositional phrase as a whole can be placed in the topic position as in (61)
31
and (62), indicating that the thematic -(n)un can occur with spatial and temporal framework
within which the main predicate holds as well as the instrumental expression, -(u)lo ‘by means of’
and the conjunction -(k)wa ‘and; with’.
(61) a. John-i cinancwu-ey pesu-lo hakkyo-ey kassta.
John-NOM last week-on bus-by school-to went
‘John went to school by bus last week.’

b. Cinancwu-ey-nun John-i pesu-lo hakkyo-ey kassta.
last week-on-TOP John-NOM buy-by school-to went
‘Last weekend, John went to school by bus.’

c. Hakkyo-ey-nun John-i cinancwu-ey pesu-lo kassta.
school-to-TOP John-NOM last week-on bus-by went
‘To school, John went by bus last week.’

d. Pesu-lo-nun John-i cinancwu-ey hakkyo-ey kassta.
Bus-by-TOP John-NOM last week-on school-to went
‘By bus, John went to school last week.’
(62) a. John-i cinancwu-ey hakkyo-eyse chinkwu-wa kongpwuhayssta.
John-NOM last week-on school-at friend-with studied
‘John studied at school with his friend last week.’

b. Hakkyo-eyse-nun John-i cinancwu-ey chinkwu-wa kongpwuhayssta.
school-at-TOP John-NOM last week-on friend-with studied
‘At school, John studied with his friend last week.’

c. Chinkwu-wa-nun John-i cinancwu-ey hakkyo-eyse kongpwuhayssta.
friend-with-TOP John-NOM last week-on school-at studied
‘With friend, John studied at school last week.’
Moreover, thematic -(n)un does not occur in the modifying clause of a relative clause.
Observe the following relative clauses in Korean. There are three major differences between
English and Korean relative clauses. First, while the modifying clause follows the modified
noun in English, the modifying clause precedes the modified noun in Korean. Second,
English has relative pronouns such as who and where, but Korean lacks them. Third, the verb
forms in the modifying clause, which are different from the verb forms in the main clause,
determine the modifying element of the verb form depending on the tense. Three different
tense adnominal suffixes, -nun (present), -un/n (past), -ul/l (future), are added to the stem of
the verb. Thus, in the relative clause (63a), the modifying clause precedes the modified noun
32
salam ‘person’ and the present tense adnominal suffix -nun is added after the stem of the verb
cohahata ‘to like’. Note that thematic -(n)un cannot occur in the modifying clause as in (63b)
because the topic of the relative clause is the modified noun salam ‘person’, not the subject of
the embedded clause John.
(63) a. [John-i cohaha-nun] salam-un Mary-ita.
John-NOM like-SUFFIX person-TOP Mary-is
‘As for the person that John likes, it is Mary.’

b. *[John-un cohaha-nun] salam-un Mary-ita.
John-TOP like-SUFFIX person-TOP Mary-is
‘As for John, as for the person that John likes, it is Mary.’
Moreover, while thematic -(n)un cannot occur in embedded sentences, contrastive -(n)un has no
restrictions in the position it occurs. For example, in (64a), the subject of the embedded sentence
John is related to the nearest verbal element. On the other hand, the sentence-initial thematic
-(n)un-marked NP ne ‘you’ seeks its predicate alta ‘to know’ at the end of the sentence.
Contrastive -(n)un, however, can occur in the embedded clause as in (64c) which implies that
John, unlike other people, likes Mary.
(64) a. Ne-nun [John-i Mary-lul cohahanun] kes-ul a-ni?
You-TOP John-NOM Mary-ACC like thing-ACC know-Q?
‘Do you know the fact [that John likes Mary]?’

b.*Ne-nun [John-un Mary-lul cohahanun] kes-ul a-ni?
You-TOP John-TOP Mary-ACC like thing-ACC know-Q?
‘Do you know the fact [that John likes Mary]?’

c. Ne-nun [John-un Mary-lul cohahanun] kes-ul a-ni?
You-TOP John-CF Mary-ACC like thing-ACC know-Q?
‘Do you know the fact [that John (not others) likes Mary]?’
Unlike thematic -(n)un, which usually occurs with a sentence-initial nominal constituent,
contrastive -(n)un can be attached both to NPs and non-nominal constituents such as a predicate
(verb/adjective), adverbs and conjunctives. As shown in (65), contrastive -(n)un can occur with
various types of verb patterns such as the pattern expressing desire ko siphta ‘want to’, the
progressive pattern ko issta ‘V~ing’, the pattern expressing attempt or experience e pota ‘try
V~ing’, and the causative pattern -key hata ‘to cause someone to do something’ and it carries
33
emphatic stress. When contrastive -(n)un is inserted in those verb patterns, it has the effect of
emphasizing the contrast and adding additional pragmatic meanings even though there is no
explicit contrasting propositions. For example, while (65a) simply expresses the speaker’s desire
to have a meal, (65b) implies that the speaker is not able to eat anything for some unavoidable
reasons even though he or she does want to. Similarly, when contrastive -(n)un is added to the
progressive pattern as in (66b), the sentence implies that despite all the circumstances that might
make it difficult for the speaker to eat, the speaker is having a meal now. Likewise, contrastive
-(n)un in (67b) and (68b) carries additional pragmatic meanings: (67b) implies that the speaker
tried a meal something but there might be a chance that he or she did not like it. (68b) means that
although the speaker caused John to have a meal, he might not listen to the speaker and refused to
eat, or he barely ate.
(65) a. Pap-ul mek-ko siphta.
Meal-ACC eat-want to
‘(I) want to have a meal.’

b. Pap-ul mek-ko-nun siphta.
Meal-ACC eat-want to-CF
‘(There is nothing to eat but) (I) want to have a meal.’

(66) a. Pap-ul mek-ko issta.
Meal-ACC eat-PRG is
‘(I’m) having a meal.’

b. Pap-ul mek-ko-nun issta.
Meal-ACC eat-PRG-CF is
‘(I don’t have an appetite but) (I’m) having a meal.’

(67) a. Pap-ul mek-e poassta.
Meal-ACC eat-try saw
‘(I) tried a meal.’

b. Pap-ul mek-e-nun poassta.
Meal-ACC eat-try-CF saw
‘(The food didn’t look good but) (I) tried a meal.’

(68) a. John-eykey pap-ul mek-key hayssta.
John-DAT meal-ACC eat-CAU did
‘(I) caused John to have a meal.’

34
b. John-eykey pap-ul mek-key-nun hayssta.
John-DAT meal-ACC eat-CAU-CF did
‘(John barely ate but) (I) caused John to have a meal.’
Contrastive -(n)un is also often attached to a predicate in negative sentences, carrying contrast
meaning. Thus, (69b) denies that John had a meal but implies that John has done something other
than eating (e.g., he made the food). Sentence (70b) also implies that Mary has some conditions
other than being pretty (e.g., she is charming).
(69) a. John-un pap-ul mek-ci anhassta.
John-TOP meal-ACC eat NEG
‘As for John, he didn’t have a meal.’

b. John-un pap-ul mek-ci-nun anhassta.
John-TOP meal-ACC eat-CF NEG
‘As for John, he didn’t have a meal (but he did cook).’

(70) a. Mary-nun yeyppu-ci anhta.
Mary-TOP pretty- NEG
‘As for Mary, she is not pretty.’

b. Mary-nun yeyppu-ci-nun anhta.
Mary-TOP pretty-CF NEG
‘As for Mary, she is not pretty (but she’s charming).’
Likewise, when contrastive -(n)un occurs with adverbs, the -(n)un-marked adverbs become the
focus of contrast. Thus, in sentences (71a) through (71c), contrastive -(n)un is added after the
manner adverb cal ‘well’, the quantifier ta ‘all’ and the frequency adverb kakkum ‘sometimes’
and these adverbs are in contrast with some other adverbs implied in the context. When (71a) is
uttered, the speaker is emphasizing that he or she does not know about the fact well and only
knows it vaguely. (71b) implies that not all but some amount of money will be given to the
addressee. (71c) emphasizes that the frequency of visiting grandfather’s place is not that often.
(71) a. Ku sasil-ey tayhayse cal-un molunta.
That fact-about well-CF to not know
‘I don’t know about the fact well (but only vaguely).’

b. I ton-ul ta-nun cwul swu epsta.
this money-ACC all-CF give-cannot
‘I can’t give you all the money (but I can give you some of it).’

c. Halapeci tayk-ey kakkum-un kanta.
35
grandpa house-to sometimes-CF go
‘I sometimes go to my grandfather’s house (but not that often).’
(Hong, 2002, p.189)
When -(n)un occurs with adverbs in negative sentences, it also carries contrastive readings. Thus,
when (72b) is uttered, the adverb cal ‘well’ is in contrast with some other adverbs implied in the
context: the speaker studies hard. Similarly, (73b) implies that the speaker is able to do something
other than eating fast (e.g. eating a lot). (74b) also implies that the speaker can do something else
other than writing neatly (e.g. writing fast).
(72) a. Kongpwu-lul cal mos hanta.
Study-ACC well can’t do
‘(I) can’t do well in my studies.’

b. Kongpwu-lul cal-un mos hanta.
Study-ACC well-CF can’t do
‘(I study hard but) (I) can’t do well in my studies.’

(73) a. Pap-ul ppalli mos meknunta
Meal-ACC fast can’t eat
‘(I) can’t eat fast’

b. Pap-ul ppalli-nun mos meknunta
Meal-ACC fast-CF can’t eat
‘(I can eat a lot but) (I) can’t eat fast’

(74) a. Kulssi-lul yeyppukey mos ssunta.
Handwriting-ACC prettily can’t write
‘(I) can’t write neatly.’

b. Kulssi-lul yeyppukey-nun mos ssunta.
Handwriting-ACC prettily-CF can’t write
‘(I can write fast but) (I) can’t write neatly.’
Moreover, -(n)un can occur with a conjunctive like -ciman ‘but’, which is used to show contrast
between the two sentences joined together. In (75a), the physical appearances of John and Mary
are in contrast. Interestingly, if the nominative marker -i/ka is added after the two NPs, John and
Mary, the sentence becomes ungrammatical. -(n)un can even added after the conjunctive -ciman
‘but’, emphasizing contrast between the two sentences.
(75) a. John-un ttwungttwungha-ciman Mary-nun nalssinhata.
John-CF fat-but Mary-CF thin
‘John is fat but Mary is thin.’
36
b.*John-i ttwungttwungha-ciman Mary-ka nalssinhata.
John-NOM fat-but Mary-NOM thin
‘John is fat but Mary is thin.’

c. John-un ttwungttwungha-ciman-un Mary-nun nalssinhata.
John-CF fat-but-CF Mary-CF thin
‘John is fat but Mary is thin.’
-(n)un can also added after the sequential conjunctive -ko ‘and then’, which is used to connect
two sentences according to their temporal ordering. That is, the event of the first sentence is
sequentially followed by the event of the second sentence. Interestingly, when -(n)un is added
after this sequential conjunctive, it does not necessarily convey a pragmatic meaning of contrast:
it just seems to emphasize that the event represented in the first sentence has been fully completed.
For example, sentence (76b) simply expresses that John went home after having a meal but still
there might be a chance that it was a quite unusual event for John to have a meal or that John did
not do anything but having a meal before going home.
(76) a. John-un pap-ul mek-ko cip-ey kassta.
John-TOP meal-ACC eat-and then home-to went
‘As for John, he had a meal and then he went home.’

b. John-un pap-ul mek-ko-nun cip-ey kassta.
John-TOP meal-ACC eat-and then-CF home-to went
‘As for John, he had a meal and then he went home.’

Similarly when -(n)un is added after another type of sequential conjunctive - ese/ase ‘and then’,
which usually occurs with the motion verbs like kata ‘to go’ or ota ‘to come’, contrastive
readings are not always available. If the context can provide background for contrast, however,
contrastive interpretations can arise. Thus, sentence (77b) may imply that John rarely goes home
but he did go home this time or that John went to his place to sleep, but not any other places.
(77) a. John-un cip-ey ka-se cassta.
John-TOP house-to go-and then slept
‘As for John, he went home and then slept.’
b. John-un cip-ey ka-se-nun cassta.
John-TOP house-to go-and then-CF slept
‘As for John, he went home and then slept.’

37
3.4 Summary
To recapitulate, while thematic -(n)un must occur with definite NPs, contrastive -(n)un shows no
restrictions on the definiteness of the NP that it marks. Moreover, thematic -(n)un is added after
the NP in the sentence-initial position and it does not occur in embedded sentences. Contrastive
-(n)un, however, has no restrictions on the position it occurs and it can occur with both with NPs
and non-nominal constituents such as verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and conjunctives. When
contrastive -(n)un is added after these non-nominal constituents, it carries contrast readings. In
case of sequential conjunctives, however, contrastive meanings are not necessarily expected
unless there is some contextual background for contrast.

38
4. Conclusion
I have observed how Topic-Comment structures are realized in Korean and the followings are the
findings. Since topic is restricted to given/old information, whose referent is shared by both the
speaker and the listener or already mentioned in the previous discourse, thematic -(n)un must
occur with definite NPs. Thus, thematic -(n)un cannot occur with Wh-question words, which is
used to ask for a piece of information, and indefinite pronouns whose referents are not
identifiable in given contexts. Moreover, a certain sentential ending -ney, which expresses the
speaker’s attitude towards newly discovered, unexpected events or states, is not compatible with
thematic -(n)un. Contrastive -(n)un, however, shows no restrictions on the definiteness of the NP
that it occurs with.
Next, when a -(n)un marked NP is placed in the sentence-initial subject position, it generally
receives a topic reading. The topic phrase marked by -(n)un receives no prominent intonation and
is generally set off from the rest of the sentence by a pause. Contrastive -(n)un, on the other hand,
has no restrictions in the position it can occur and it can also occur with non-nominal constituents
such as predicates, adverbs, and conjunctives. Combined with various types of verb patterns,
negative sentences, adverbs, and conjunctives, contrastive -(n)un has an effect of emphasizing
contrast and adding additional pragmatics meanings. In case of some sequential conjunctives like
-ko or -ese/ase ‘and then’, however, such contrastive reading is not always available.
Hopefully, my research can be used to develop more effective and attuned teaching strategies for
English-speaking L2 learners of Korean, because understanding this so-called topic marker is one
of the most difficult problems they face. Since English lacks this type of marker, they tend to
have difficulty grasping its nature and use. Moreover, the Korean topic marker -(n)un has more
than one function, the topic marking function alone does not explain every role it plays in natural
discourse. Thus, it is important work to describe its main functions in the simplest possible
language and to apply my research in a classroom setting.

39
References

Chafe, W . (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In
Li (Ed.), New York: Academic Press, p. 27-55.
Danes, F. (1970). One instance of the Prague School methodology: Functional analysis of
utterance and Text. Method and theory in linguistics.
Firbas, J. (1966). On defining the theme in Functional Sentence Analysis. Travaux Linguistique de
Prague V ol 1, 267-280. Cf. Chae (1979).
Firbas, J. (1971). On the concept of Communicative Dynamism in the theory of Functional
Sentence Perspective, SbFFFBU, A 19, 135-144.
Gundel, J.K. (1974). The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin. Distributed in 1977 by the IULC, Bloomington, Indiana.
Published by Garland, (1989).
Gundel, J.K. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In M.Hammond, E. Moravczik and J.
Wirth (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, p. 209-239.
Gundel, J.K. (1999 ). Topic, focus, and the grammar pragmatics interface. In J. Alexander, N.
Han and M.Minnick (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23
rd
Annul Penn Linguistics Colloquium.
Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, V ol 6.1, p.185-200
Gundel J.K. and Fretheim. T. (2004). T opic and focus. In the Handbook of Pragmatic Theory.
L.Horn and G .Ward (Eds.), Blackwell, p.174-196.
Halliday, M. A.K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 3,
p.199-244.
Halliday, M. A.K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In. L. John (Ed.), New
Horizons in Linguistics. Penguin Books Ltd.
Hockett, C. (1958). Two models of grammatical description. Readings in Linguistics. University
of Chicago Press.
Hong, S.-M. (2002). kwuke thukswu cosa sinyenkwu. Yeklak Press.
Im, H.-P. (2007). Discourse-pragmatic notion of topic and syntactic analysis in Korean. Seoul
National University Press.
Jacobs, J. (2001). The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39 (4), p.641-681.
Jung, Y.J. (2001). Thematization and topic interpretation. Linguistic Society of Korea in
Kyungju
Karifka, M. (2006). The origin of Topic/Comment structure of predication and of focusation in
asymmetric bimanual coordination. Nascent Language Conference Rockefeller
Foundation, Bellagio, Italy, October 4 -8.
Karifka, M. (2008). Functional similarities between bimanual coordination and topic/comment
structure. In Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (Eds.), Variation,
selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change, p.307-336.
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. The MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). The categorical and thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9, p.153-
185.
Lee, C.-M. (1999). T opic, contrastive topic and focus: what's on our minds. Plenary paper
presented at the Second International Conference on Cognitive Science.
http://www.jcss.gr.jp/iccs99OLP/pt1/pt1.htm
Lee, C.-M. (2003). Contrastive topic and/or contrastive focus, in Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12.
CSLI, Stanford.
Li, C. N. (1976). Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.
Marty, A. (1884). Über subjektsolse Sätze und das Verhältnis der Grammatik zu Logik und
Psychologie. Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie. Cf. Karifka, M.
(2006)
Methesius, V. (1928). On linguistic characterology with illustrations from English. Actes du
40
Premier Congreś International des Linguistes á la Haye. p.56-63. Reprinted in J.Vachek
(Ed.), (1964). A Prague School reader in linguistics. Bloomington, p.57-67. Cf. Gundel
(1974).
Reinhart, T. (1981): Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics.
Philosophica 27,53-94.
Sgall, P., E. Hajičová, and J. Panevová. (1986). The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and
pragmatic aspects. J.L.Mey (Ed.), Reidel Publishing Company.
Shibatani, M. (1991). Grammaticization of topic into subject. Approaches to Grammaticalization.
Vol.2, p.93-134.
Tsao, F. (1990). Sentence and clause structure in Chinese: A functional perspective.
Taipei:Student Book Co.WILLIAMSE,D WIN1. 980.
von der Gabelentz. H.G . (1869). Ideen zu einer vergleichenden Syntax. Zeitschrift fur
V olkerpsychologie and Sparchwissenschaft 6, p.376-384. Cf. von Heusinger, K. (1999).
von Heusinger, K. (1999). Information structure and the partition of the sentence. Habilitationssc
hrift Universität Konstanz. p.101-124.
V on Heusinger, K. (2004). Focus particles, sentence meaning, and discourse structure.
Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4. V ol 255,
p.167-194.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The structuring of a sentence into a topic and a comment part is a universal and distinctive phenomenon well known to linguists for centuries. Topic-Comment constructions essentially produce an asymmetry of constituents in a sentence. Karifka (2006) notes that ""The Topic refers to something established already, while the Comment adds information to the denotation of the topic"" (p. 1). Topic-Comment constructions appear through particular syntactic structures in many languages such as the as for constructions in English and Japanese and Korean postpositions known as wa and -(n)un, respectively. Typically, the topic is given, presupposed, or anchored in speech situation. It is something that is referred to by the predicate and located in the sentence-initial position with -(n)un marking in Korean. The particle -(n)un can be attached to all noun phrases (NPs), and it plays an important role in determining the meaning of a given sentence. In some cases, -(n)un marked NPs may receive a topic reading, and in other cases they may receive a contrastive focus reading. When a -(n)un marked NP is placed in the sentence-initial subject position, it generally receives a topic reading. The topic phrase marked by -(n)un receives no prominent intonation and is generally set off from the rest of the sentence by a pause. A contrastive -(n)un, on the other hand, focuses on an element or a proposition in contrast with another element or proposition and it is marked with higher pitch and stress. ❧ This paper will examine the semantic and syntactic environment that determine different meanings of -(n)un. In chapter 1, the origin of Topic-Comment structures is to be investigated. In chapter 2, the properties of the Topic-Comment structure will be illustrated. In chapter 3, I demonstrate the conditions of which two different meanings of -(n)un marked NPs, a topic reading and a contrastive focus reading, are realized.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The speaker's choice of using object-marking in informal spoken Korean

PDF

The theory of empty noun in Chinese: with special reference to the right node raising construction

PDF

Building phrase structure from items and contexts

PDF

Exploring the effects of Korean subject marking and action verbs’ repetition frequency: how they influence the discourse and the memory representations of entities and events

PDF

A unified syntactic account of Mandarin subject nominals

PDF

Towards a correlational law of language: three factors constraining judgement variation

PDF

A corpus-based discourse analysis of Korean grammatical constructions: Focus on the multifold functions and meanings of the pragmatic construction e kaciko

PDF

Silence in answers: a study of ellipsis in Hindi

PDF

Magic and media: the critical concept of telepathy (1918-1939)

PDF

Rationality and the primacy of the occurrent

PDF

Let us fake out a frontier: dissent and the settler colonial imaginary in U.S. literature after 1945

Asset Metadata

Creator Na, Won Kyung (author)

Core Title The notion of topic-comment constructions and the meaning of the Korean topic marker '-(n)un'

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program East Asian Languages and Cultures

Publication Date 07/31/2013

Defense Date 06/20/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag contrastive reading,OAI-PMH Harvest,thematic reading,topic marker -(n)un,topic-comment

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Advisor Kim, Michael N. (committee chair), Iskarous, Khalil (committee member), Simpson, Andrew (committee member)

Creator Email wonkyoungna@gmail.com,wonkyunn@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-308853

Unique identifier UC11293856

Identifier etd-NaWonKyung-1907.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-308853 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NaWonKyung-1907.pdf

Dmrecord 308853

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Na, Won Kyung

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA