Why quantifiers float: A response to Kim (2013)

Chongwon Park; Jaehoon Yeon

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103403

Why quantifiers float: A response to Kim (2013)

Chongwon Park, Jaehoon Yeon

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

The aim of this discussion article is twofold. First, we critically review Jong-Bok Kim's (2013) proposal [Floated numeral classifiers in Korean: A non-derivational, functional account. Lingua 133, 189–212], articulating the strengths and weaknesses of his approach. Second, after identifying some crucial weaknesses of Kim's proposal, we offer an alternative analysis of floated quantifiers (FQs), while maintaining the same goal set by Kim (2013). In doing so, we point out several challenges Kim's analysis faces, primarily the adoption of the theme-rheme partition. We demonstrate that the theme-rheme division is orthogonal to the focus property FQs exhibit. Ultimately, we show that our criticism strengthens Kim's analysis, as opposed to contradicting it.

Original language	English (US)
Article number	103403
Journal	Lingua
Volume	277
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103403
State	Published - Oct 2022
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022

Keywords

Activation cost
Floated quantifiers (FQs)
Focus of attention
Theme-rheme partition
Unaccusative/unergative asymmetry

Access

10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103403

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

@article{67b0ea24658a486c8ba5d41ec9893249,

title = "Why quantifiers float: A response to Kim (2013)",

abstract = "The aim of this discussion article is twofold. First, we critically review Jong-Bok Kim's (2013) proposal [Floated numeral classifiers in Korean: A non-derivational, functional account. Lingua 133, 189–212], articulating the strengths and weaknesses of his approach. Second, after identifying some crucial weaknesses of Kim's proposal, we offer an alternative analysis of floated quantifiers (FQs), while maintaining the same goal set by Kim (2013). In doing so, we point out several challenges Kim's analysis faces, primarily the adoption of the theme-rheme partition. We demonstrate that the theme-rheme division is orthogonal to the focus property FQs exhibit. Ultimately, we show that our criticism strengthens Kim's analysis, as opposed to contradicting it.",

keywords = "Activation cost, Floated quantifiers (FQs), Focus of attention, Theme-rheme partition, Unaccusative/unergative asymmetry",

author = "Chongwon Park and Jaehoon Yeon",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022",

year = "2022",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103403",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "277",

journal = "Lingua",

issn = "0024-3841",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why quantifiers float

T2 - A response to Kim (2013)

AU - Park, Chongwon

AU - Yeon, Jaehoon

PY - 2022/10

Y1 - 2022/10

N2 - The aim of this discussion article is twofold. First, we critically review Jong-Bok Kim's (2013) proposal [Floated numeral classifiers in Korean: A non-derivational, functional account. Lingua 133, 189–212], articulating the strengths and weaknesses of his approach. Second, after identifying some crucial weaknesses of Kim's proposal, we offer an alternative analysis of floated quantifiers (FQs), while maintaining the same goal set by Kim (2013). In doing so, we point out several challenges Kim's analysis faces, primarily the adoption of the theme-rheme partition. We demonstrate that the theme-rheme division is orthogonal to the focus property FQs exhibit. Ultimately, we show that our criticism strengthens Kim's analysis, as opposed to contradicting it.

AB - The aim of this discussion article is twofold. First, we critically review Jong-Bok Kim's (2013) proposal [Floated numeral classifiers in Korean: A non-derivational, functional account. Lingua 133, 189–212], articulating the strengths and weaknesses of his approach. Second, after identifying some crucial weaknesses of Kim's proposal, we offer an alternative analysis of floated quantifiers (FQs), while maintaining the same goal set by Kim (2013). In doing so, we point out several challenges Kim's analysis faces, primarily the adoption of the theme-rheme partition. We demonstrate that the theme-rheme division is orthogonal to the focus property FQs exhibit. Ultimately, we show that our criticism strengthens Kim's analysis, as opposed to contradicting it.

KW - Activation cost

KW - Floated quantifiers (FQs)

KW - Focus of attention

KW - Theme-rheme partition

KW - Unaccusative/unergative asymmetry

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136101946&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85136101946&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103403

DO - 10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103403

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85136101946

SN - 0024-3841

VL - 277

JO - Lingua

JF - Lingua

M1 - 103403

ER -

Why quantifiers float: A response to Kim (2013)

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access

OpenUrl availability

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this