This paper examines Korean partitive constructions to investigate the typology of
the partitive structure. In Korean, a quantifier precedes the nominal in a
non-partitive, but it follows the nominal in a partitive. The relative order
between a quantifier and its associated nominal indicates that a quantifier in
Korean partitive does not function as a NP adjunct but takes a DP as its
argument. I argue that Korean postnominal (floating) quantifier constructions
can be interpreted as partitives or pseudo-partitives/quantitatives because a
postnominal (floating) quantifier denoting a
Most studies of partitives have focused on English or other European languages in
which partitives are marked by a preposition equivalent to
(1)
He ate
(2)
He drank
The preposition
This paper will examine Korean quantifier constructions in order to investigate the
typology of partitives. Korean is a classifier language in which a noun cannot
directly combine with a numeral without a classifier, i.e., an item specifying a
unit of measurement.
(3)
twu
two
kay-uy
sakwa
apple
‘two apples’
(4)
twu
two
pyeng-uy
wain
wine
‘two bottles of wine’
Partitive constructions have rarely been discussed in Korean linguistics, possibly
due to the belief that a partitive meaning is expressed by a “separation
construction” (
(5)
haksayng
student
ney
four
myeng
cwung-eyse
among-from
twu
two
myeng-i
tachy-ess-ta.
get hurt-
‘Among the four students, two got hurt.’
Separation constructions are distinguishable from typical partitives in which a
quantifier is used to pick out a part of a set or substance. Korean separation
constructions do not require the presence of a quantifier to denote a part of a set.
As in (6), a common or proper noun can occur with the partitive adjunct introduced
by
(6)
a.
ku
that
haksayng-tul
student-
cwung-eyse
among-from
[hankuk
[Korea
haksayng]-i
student]-
tachy-ess-ta.
get hurt-
‘Among those students, a Korean student got hurt.’
b.
ku
that
haksayng-tul
student-
cwung-eyse
among-from
[Cheli-wa
[Cheli-
Juni]-ka
Juni]-
tachy-ess-ta.
get hurt-
‘Among those students, Cheli and Juni got hurt.’
(7)
ku
that
haksayng-tul
student-
cwung-eyse
among-from
[nam-haksayng
[male-student
twu
two
myeng]-i
tachy-ess-ta.
get hurt-
‘Among those students, two male students got hurt.’
Moreover, the Korean separation construction cannot be used to describe a part of the
substance denoted by a mass noun, as in (8). The expression
(8)
??Cheli-nun
Cheli-
i
this
wain
wine
cwung-eyse
among-from
twu
two
can-ul
massy-ess-ta.
drink-
‘Cheli drank two glasses of this wine.’
Now the question arises whether Korean has a partitive construction. Several scholars
have claimed that Korean floating quantifier construction may be such a construction
(
(9)
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[thakca wi-ey
[table above-
iss-te-n
exit-
sakwa]-lul
apple]-
(cayppali)
(quickly)
twu
two
kay
mek-ess-ta.
eat-
‘Cheli quickly ate two of the apples on the table.’
Sentence (9) is a floating quantifier construction in which the quantifier does not form a constituent with its preceding host nominal, as seen by the fact that the adverbial ‘quickly’ can occur between the numeral quantifier and the host.
Unlike separation constructions, proper names or common nouns cannot be used instead
of floating quantifiers to signal a partitive interpretation, as in (10).
(10)
a.
*ku
that
haksayng-tul-i
student-
[Cheli-wa
[Cheli-
Juni]
Juni]
tachy-ess-ta.
get hurt-
‘Among those students, Cheli and Juni got hurt.’
b.
*ku
that
haksayng-tul-i
student-
[nam-haksayng
[male-student
(twu
(two
myeng)]
tachy-ess-ta.
get hurt-
‘Among those students, (two) male students got hurt.’
c.
ku
that
haksayng-tul-i
student-
twu
two
myeng
tachy-ess-ta.
get hurt-
‘Four of those students got hurt.’
(11)
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
i
this
wain-ul
wine-
[twu
[two
can]
massy-ess-ta.
drink-
‘Cheli drank two glasses of this wine.’
Korean floating quantifier constructions therefore correspond more closely to
partitives in English and other European languages, in which a quantifier is used
without a noun to refer to a part of a set of substance. Unlike English partitives,
however, Korean floating quantifier constructions do not contain any overt marker
expressing a
(12)
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
wain-ul
wine-
twu
two
can
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
‘Cheli drank two glasses of wine/two glasses of the wine.’
Close examination reveals that the distinction between partitives and non-partitives
is signaled by the relative order between a quantifier and its associated nominal in
Korean. As exemplified in (13), a numeral quantifier can either precede or follow
its associated nominal. (13a) and (13b) will be referred to henceforth as prenominal
quantifier construction and postnominal quantifier construction, respectively.
Notice that floating quantifiers also follow their associated nominals.
(13)
a.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[twu
[two
kay-uy
sakwa]-lul
apple]-
mek-ess-ta.
eat-
‘Cheli ate two apples.’
b.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[sakwa
[apple
twu
two
kay]-lul
mek-ess-ta.
eat-
Focusing on numeral quantifiers, this paper attempts to examine Korean partitive constructions and shed some light on the cross-linguistic variations in the partitive structure.
The organization of the paper is as follows: Section 2 will show that postnominal and
floating quantifier constructions are partitive constructions and discuss their
important characteristics, which cannot be accounted for under the assumption that a
postnominal quantifier undergoes some syntactic movement in the floating quantifier
construction. Section 3 will propose formal analyses for postnominal and floating
quantifier construction. Based on my previous work (
It is often claimed in the syntactic literature that postnominal and/or floating
quantifier constructions are derived from prenominal quantifier constructions by
syntactic movement (
In Korean, a head-final language, nouns follow their modifiers such as adjectives
and genitives, and the word order among modifiers is flexible, as shown in (14).
If modifiers are nouns, the genitive case -
(14)
a.
Emma-ka
mom-
[[ai-uy]
[[kid-
[chakawun]
[cold]
son]-ul
hand]-
cap-ass-ta.
grab-
‘The mom grabbed the kid’s cold hand’
b.
Emma-ka
mom-
[[chakawun]
[[cold]
[ai-uy]
[kid-
son]-ul
hand]-
cap-ass-ta.
grab-
Prenominal quantifiers pattern with other NP modifiers (
(15)
a.
?Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[[chakawun]
[[cold]
[twu
[two
pyeng-uy]
wain]-ul
wine ]-
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
‘Cheli drank two bottles of cold wine.’
b.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[[twu
[[two
pyeng-uy]
[chakawun]
[cold]
wain]-ul
wine]-
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
(16)
[
twu
two
-uy
[
However, postnominal and floating quantifiers are different from prenominal
quantifiers. They follow rather than precede their associated nominals, and
genitive case is not attached to them. Of course, this word order difference and
lack of genitive marking can be explained under syntactic derivational analyses
assuming that prenominal and postnominal/floating quantifier constructions have
the same underlying structures (
(17)
a.
??Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[twu pyeng-uy
[two
wain]-ul
wine]-
kkayttuly-ess-ta.
break-
‘Cheli broke two bottles of wine.’
b.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[wain
[wine
twu
two
pyeng]-ul
kkayttuly-ess-ta.
break-
c.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[wain]-ul
[wine]-
[twu
[two
pyeng]
kkayttuly-ess-ta.
break-
Postnominal/floating quantifier constructions also differ from prenominal
quantifier constructions in terms of the monotonicity constraint (
(18)
a.
three liters of (the) water, three pounds of (the) grapes, three bottles of (the) water
b.
*fifty degrees-Celsius of (the) water, *one liter of (the) bottle, *six-carats of (the) gold
(19)
a.
fifty degree-Celsius water, one-liter bottle, six-carat gold
b.
*three-liter water, *three-pound grape, *three-bottle water
A measure property is said to be monotonic if it tracks a part-whole relation in
the domain given by the associated nominal (
Unlike prenominal quantifier constructions, Korean postnominal and floating
quantifier constructions are subject to the monotonicity constraint. For
example,
(20)
a.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[il
[one
lithe-uy
liter-
mwul]-ul
water]-
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
‘Cheli drank one liter of water.’
b.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[mwul
[water
il
one
lithe]-lul
liter]-
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
c.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[mwul]-ul
[water]-
[il
[one
lithe]
liter]
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
(21)
a.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[osip
[fifty
tossi-uy
degree-
mwul]-ul
water]-
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
‘Cheli drank fifty-degree water.’
b.
*Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[mwul
[water
osip
fifty
tossi]-lul
degree]-
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
c.
*Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[mwul]-ul
[water]-
[osip tossi]
[fifty degree]
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
To sum up, postnominal and floating quantifier constructions structurally distinguish them from prenominal quantifier constructions. Unlike prenominal quantifiers, postnominal and floating quantifiers do not behave as NP modifiers. They can be interpreted as nominal heads on which a verb can exercise its selectional restrictions. Furthermore, both postnominal and floating quantifier constructions are partitive constructions that abide by the monotonicity constraint, distinct from prenominal quantifier constructions that are not constrained by it.
Though postnominal and floating quantifier constructions are similar with respect
to the monotonicity constraint, they also differ in important ways. One
difference is that a floating quantifier forces a non-specific or indefinite
reading in Korean, while this is not the case in postnominal quantifier
constructions (
(22)
a.
Cheli-nun
Cheli-
[cacenke
[bicycle
twu
two
tay]-lul
ssakey
cheap
sa-lyeko
buy-intending
ha-n-ta.
do-
‘Cheli intends to buy two bicycles/the two bicycles cheap.’
b.
Cheli-nun
Cheli-
[cacenke]-lul
[bicycle]-
ssakey
cheap
twu
two
tay
sa-lyeko
buy-intending
ha-n-ta.
do-
‘Cheli intends buy two bicycles/#the two bicycles cheap.’
Note that the nominal associated with the floating quantifier is case-marked (cf.
22b), while case-marking is attached to the entire constituent including the
quantifier in the postnominal construction (cf. 22a). Assuming that case-marked
nominals are used as full-fledged DPs of argumental type, this implies that
floating quantifiers combine with DPs, while postnominal quantifiers combine
with NPs (
However, this claim faces empirical problems. As mentioned earlier, a floating
quantifier can occur with a specific or definite nominal. In fact, the object in
(22b) can also be interpreted as ‘two of the bicycles’ in an
appropriate context, referring to two bicycles out of the bicycles already
mentioned or presupposed in the discourse. Furthermore, not only floating
quantifiers but also postnominal quantifiers can occur with full DPs such as
(23)
(Situation: Only three apples had been left in a refrigerator)
a.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[ku-ke
[that-thing
twu
two
kay/sey kay]-lul
mek-ess-ta.
eat-
‘Cheli ate two of those/ those three (lit. the three of those).’
b.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[ku-ke]-lul
[that-thing]-
twu
two
kay/#sey
kay
mek-ess-ta.
eat-
‘Cheli ate two of those /#those three.’
Note that (23b), the object must be interpreted as indefinite despite the fact
that the floating quantifier is associated with the definite DP
Sentences (24) and (25) also show that a proper partitive reading is obligatory
for floating quantifier constructions (
(24)
a.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
kapcaki
suddenly
[sonkalak
[finger
yel
ten
kay]-lul
phyelchyepoi-ess-ta.
spread out-
‘Cheli spread out his ten fingers.’
b.
??Cheli-ka
Cheli-
sonkalak-ul
finger-
kapcaki
suddenly
yel
ten
kay
phyelchyepoi-ess-ta.
spread out-
(25)
a.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[pwumonim
[parent-
twu
two
pwun]-ul
han-tongan
a while-during
mosi-ko
take care-
sal-ass-ta.
live-
‘Cheli lived with his two parents and took care of them for a while.’
b.
??Cheli-ka
Cheli-
pwumonim-ul
parent-
han-tongan
a while-during
twu
two
pwun
mosi-ko
take care-
sal-ass-ta.
live-
Christina Kim (
(26)
a.
Who did you see a picture of?
b.
*Who did you see that picture of?
Under the assumption that the floating quantifier construction is derived from
the postnominal quantifier construction by moving the numeral quantifier outside
a DP and right-adjoining it to the DP, as in (27), Christina Kim (
(27)
[DP [DP [ku-kes
The quantifier movement approach therefore captures the fact that a floating quantifier triggers a non-specific or proper partitive reading even when it is associated with the definite. Given that floating quantifiers are right-adjoined to the DP, this quantifier movement approach can also explain why floating quantifiers cannot precede the host DPs, as in (28).
(28)
a.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[sakwa]-lul
[apple]-
twu
two
kay
mek-ess-ta.
eat-
‘Cheli ate two apples.’
b.
??Cheli-ka
Cheli-
twu
two
kay
[sakwa]-lul
[apple]-
mek-ess-ta.
eat-
Considering that Korean is a head final language in which adjunction is to the
left, however, the rightward adjunction of the floating quantifier in (27) seems
to be very stipulative. It is also difficult to explain why floating quantifiers
are only associated with arguments, not with adjuncts, as exemplified in (29).
In (29), the numeral quantifier
(29)
a.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
thakca-lul
table-
[swuken
[towel
twu
two
cang]-ulo
takk-ass-ta.
clean-
‘Cheli cleaned the tables with two towels (quickly).’
b.
??Cheli-ka
Cheli-
thakca-lul
table-
swuken-ulo
towel-
twu
two
cang
takk-ass-ta.
clean-
Christina Kim (
(30)
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
sakwa-lul
apple-
cayppali
quickly
twu
two
kay
mek-ess-ta.
eat-
‘Cheli ate two apples quickly.’
Heejeong Ko (
(31)
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[VP sakwa-luli
apple-
[VP cayppali
quickly
[VP
twu kay]
two
mek-ess-ta]]].
eat-
This DP movement analysis can solve some problems with the above quantifier
movement approach, but some problems continue to persist. Heejeong Ko (
(32)
a.
*Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[sakwa-lul
[apple-
twu
two
kay]-wa
[bay-lul
[pear-
sey kay]
three
mek-ess-ta.
eat-
‘Cheli ate two apples and three pears.’
b.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[sakwa
[apple
twu
two
kay]-wa
[bay
[pear
sey kay]-lul
three
mek-ess-ta.
eat-
(33)
a.
*Cheli-ka
Cheli-
mek-un
eat-
kes-un
thing-
[sakwa-lul
[apple-
twu
two
kay]-(i)-ta.
‘What Cheli ate is two apples.’
b.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
mek-un
eat-
kes-un
thing-
[sakwa
[apple
twu
two
kay]-(i)-ta.
In addition, the adnominal approach cannot explain why the floating quantifier
fails to be related to the subject ‘guest’ even though they are
immediately adjacent to each other in (34a). A floating quantifier must precede
both the transitive verb and the object in order to be associated with the
subject, as the contrast between (34b) and (34c) shows (
(34)
a.
??wain-ul
wine-
sonnim-i
guest-
twu
two
pwun
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
‘Two guests drank wine.’
b.
*sonnim-i
guest-
wain-ul
wine-
twu
two
pwun
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
c.
sonnim-i
guest-
twu
two
pwun
wain-ul
wine-
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
Another difference between postnominal and floating quantifier constructions is
that floating quantifiers are not compatible with individual-level predicates
that do not have episodic readings (See
(35)
a.
??namhaksayng-i
male student-
twu
two
myeng
yengliha-ta.
be smart-
‘Two male students are smart.’
b.
[namhaksayng
[male student
twu
two
myeng]-i
yengliha-ta.
be smart-
(36)
a.
namhaksayng-i
male student-
twu
two
myeng
aphu-ta.
be sick-
‘Two male students are sick.’
b.
[namhaksayng
[male student
twu
two
myeng]-i
aphu-ta.
be sick-
To summarize the discussion so far, unlike prenominal quantifier constructions, postnominal and floating quantifier constructions are partitive constructions that are subject to the monotonicity constraint. However, floating quantifier constructions also display several idiosyncratic properties that cannot be easily explained under the assumption that a floating quantifier adjoins to its host DP: (i) a floating quantifier does not form a syntactic constituent with the host DP; (ii) it obligatorily has an indefinite or proper partitive reading; (iii) it is only associated with the argument of a verbal predicate; (iv) it cannot be related to the subject in front of a transitive verb; (v) it imposes restrictions on verbal predicates.
In this section, I will discuss how a partitive interpretation arises in the
postnominal quantifier construction and explain how this construction can be also
interpreted as a pseudo-partitive or a quantitative.
Given that a numeral quantifier behaves as an NP modifier in the prenominal
quantifier construction, it can be treated as a modifier of type
≪
(37)
⟦twu kay⟧= λPλ
The prenominal quantifier in (37) corresponds to the English numeral quantifier
Postnominal quantifiers differ from prenominal quantifiers in that they occur
with DPs and track part-whole relations, as we have seen in (20), (21) and (23).
In my previous work (
(38)
⟦twu kay⟧=
λ
The postnominal quantifier in (38) is different from the prenominal quantifier in
(37) in two respects. First, the numeral quantifier in (38) turns an individual
argument of
It may be worth mentioning that Korean postnominal quantifier corresponds to the
combination of a numeral quantifier of type ≪
In the postnominal quantifier construction, a numeral quantifier denoting a
(39)
When the postnominal quantifier combines with the kind-denoting
(40)
⟦sakwa twu kay⟧= λ
The CLP of type <
There is no or little meaning difference between the prenominal quantifier in
(37) and the postnominal quantifier in (38) when the postnominal quantifier is
associated with a kind-denoting DP and has a quantitative interpretation.
(41)
⟦sakwa twu kay⟧= λ
When a postnominal quantifier is associated with a mass noun, they can be
interpreted as either English pseudo-partitive or partitive. For example, in
(42), the object can be interpreted as ‘(the) two bottles of wine’
or ‘(the) two bottles of the wine.’ The object obtains a
pseudo-partitive meaning if
(42)
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[wain
[wine
twu
two
pyeng]-ul
mas-ess-ta.
drink-
‘Cheli broke (the) two bottles of (the) wine.’
In derivational analyses, the nominal is the head in both prenominal and postnominal structures, but in my analysis that assumes no movement, what is on the right edge is the head, and so prenominal and postnominal structures differ in headness. This approach can also capture the semantic difference between the prenominal and postnominal quantifier constructions below.
(43)
a.
??Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[twu
[two
pyeng-uy
wain]-ul
wine]-
kkayttuly-ess-ta.
break-
‘Cheli broke two bottles of wine.’
b.
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
[wain
[wine
twu
two
pyeng]-ul
kkayttuly-ess-ta.
break-
Under the assumption that a prenominal quantifier is an NP modifier, it is
correctly predicted that a verb always imposes its selectional restrictions on
the associated nominal, and the verb ‘break’ is not acceptable in
(43a). In the postnominal quantifier construction, the numeral quantifier serves
a syntactic head taking the DP ‘wine’ as its complement. Thus, it
can be argued that (43b) is acceptable when
Not only postnominal quantifier constructions but also floating quantifier
constructions are partitive constructions in Korean in which a numeral
quantifier is associated with a DP and expresses a
It is noted that a floating quantifier forms a constituent with a verb rather
than its associated DP (
(44)
yehaksayng-i
female student-
twu
two
myeng
kyelsek-hay-ss-ko,
absence-do-
namhaksayng-to
male student-also
kuleh-ta.
do so-
‘Two female students were absent, and two male students were absent too.’
By adopting Dowty & Brodie’s (
(45)
a.
TV modifier: ⟦twu kay⟧=
λ
b.
VP modifier: ⟦twu kay⟧=
λPλ
Therefore, the floating quantifiers is not different from the postnominal
quantifier in that it denotes a
A floating quantifier can be related to either a subject or an object, depending on whether it combines with a TV or a VP. For example, sentences (46) and (47) are translated as in (48) and (49) respectively.
(46)
(ku)
(that)
sakwa-ka
apple-
twu
two
kay
ssekk-ess-ta.
be rotten-
‘Two of the apples were rotten.’
(47)
Cheli-ka
Cheli-
(ku)
(that)
sakwa-lul
apple-
twu
two
kay
mek-ess-ta.
eat-
‘Cheli ate two of the apples.’
(48)
a.
⟦ssekkta ⟧= λ
b.
⟦twu kay ssekkta ⟧= =
λ
c.
⟦sakwaka twu kay ssekkta ⟧=
∃
(49)
a.
⟦mekta⟧=
λ
b.
⟦twu kay mekta⟧=
λ
c.
⟦sakwalul twu kay mekta⟧=
λ
d.
⟦Chelika sakwalul twu kay mekta ⟧=
∃
In (48) and (49), the floating quantifier combines with a verb, forming a complex
predicate taking the host DP as its argument. It can be understood that the
postnominal quantifier
(50)
⟦twu kay⟧=
λ
The meaning of the floating quantifier construction in (49) can therefore be conveyed by the corresponding postnominal quantifier construction.
One key difference between floating and postnominal quantifier constructions is that only a proper partitive reading is possible in floating quantifier constructions. According to the definitions in (45), when the floating quantifier combines with a verbal predicate, the argument of the verb, associated with the quantifier, is bound by the existential quantifier representing an indefinite interpretation. In other words, the floating quantifier requires that a partitive – the semantic combination of the DP and the quantifier – be interpreted as indefinite. There is a meaning difference between definite and indefinite partitives. Compare (51a) and (51b).
(51)
a.
Bill’s daughters lived together. The three of them got married on the same day.
b.
Bill’s daughters lived together. Three of them got married on the same day.
In (51a), the definite partitive
Given that a floating quantifier relates a quantifier denoting a
(52)
??ku-ka
he-
thakca-lul
table-
swuken-ulo
towel-
twu cang
two
takk-ass-ta.
clean-
‘He cleaned the tables with two towels.’
(53)
⟦twu cang takk-ta⟧=
λ
Recall that a floating quantifier can be associated with the subject in a
transitive sentence only when it precedes both the verb and the object (
(54)
a.
sonnim-i
guest-
twu pwun
two
ku
that
wain-ul
wine-
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
‘Two guests drank the wine.’
b.
*sonnim-i
guest-
ku
that
wain-ul
wine-
twu
two
pwun
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
This word order restriction can be explained under the assumption that a floating
quantifier can combine with both TV and VP.
(55)
a.
⟦masita⟧=
λ
b.
⟦wainul masita⟧=
λ
c.
⟦twu pwun wainul masita⟧=
λ
d.
⟦sonnimi twu pwun wainul masita⟧=
∃
The predicate-modifier approach can also capture the fact that a floating quantifier always follows its associated DP in a sentence, as in (56). The key to explaining the ungrammaticality of (56) is that a floating quantifier is connected to the unsaturated argument of a verb.
(56)
??sonnim-i
guest-
twu
two
pyeng
ku
that
wain-ul
wine-
masy-ess-ta.
drink-
‘Guests drank two bottles of that wine.’
A floating quantifier can be construed with the object when it combines with a
transitive verb whose internal argument is not saturated. This means that the
floating quantifier
(57)
∃
The predicate-modifier analysis has a potential to explain restrictions on verbal predicates in floating quantifier constructions. Floating quantifier constructions sound odd when they contain an individual-level predicate that describes a permanent property of the subject.
(58)
??namhaksayng-i
male student-
twu
two
myeng
yengliha-ta.
be smart-
‘Two male students are smart.’
Since a floating quantifier is a predicate-modifier, it seems plausible that a
floating quantifier can have effects on the choice of the predicate. Kratzer
(
In Korean, the distinction between partitives and non-partitives are made by the
relative order between a quantifier and its associated nominal. Unlike prenominal
quantifier constructions, postnominal constructions are partitives in which numeral
quantifiers track part-whole relations. Given that Korean is a head-final language,
the word order between a quantifier and the nominal within a DP indicates that a
postnominal quantifier does not function as an NP modifier but as a head denoting a
Korean floating quantifier constructions are also partitive constructions but display
several idiosyncratic properties which cannot be easily captured under the
assumption that a postnominal quantifier moves away from the associated nominal in
the floating quantifier construction. By adopting Dowty & Brodie’s (
Nouns referring to humans and body-parts can combine directly with numerals without classifiers.
A mass noun can occur with
(i) ku-nun he- wain wine tases five can cwung-eyse among-from twu can-ul two massy-ess-ta. drink- ‘He drank two out of the five glasses of
wine.’
(10a) and (10b) may become acceptable when they are interpreted as appositive constructions in which ‘those students’ refers to ‘Cheli and Juni’ in (10a) and ‘two male students’ in (10b).
Note that partitivity can express improper partitivity when partitives contain
universal quantifiers such as
(i) *ku that haksayng-tul student- cwung-eyse among-from [motwu/cenpwu]-ka [all/all]- tachy-ess-ta. get hurt- ‘(Lit.) Among those students, all got
hurt.’ (ii) ku that haksayng-tul-i student- [motwu/cenpwu](-ka) [all/all](- tachy-ess-ta. get hurt- ‘All of those students got hurt.’
For convenience the term “postnominal quantifiers” will be reserved for postnominal non-floating quantifiers only.
Japanese has quantifier constructions corresponding to Korean prenominal, postnominal, and floating quantifier constructions. Previous studies cited in this paper include some important analyses of Japanese quantifier constructions.
The term “specific” is different from the one that Enç (
Cf. Jong-Bok Kim (
(i) A: Cheli-ka Cheli- mwues-ul what- sey three kay mek-ess-ni? eat- ‘Cheli ate three of what?’ B: Cheli-ka Cheli- sakwa-lul apple- sey three kay mek-ess-ta. eat- ‘Cheli ate three of the apples.’
Watanabe (
(i) [DP
cacenke-lul
A nonspecific reading is obligatory in a floating quantifier construction because a host nominal must move overtly to Spec of D [-specific] in order to move outside a DP. In this analysis, we can get both specific and non-specific readings in postnominal quantifier constructions because associated nominals are not overtly raised to Spec of D in those constructions.
To be precise, Heejeong Ko (
When a floating quantifier is associated with the subject, the object cannot intervene between the quantifier and the host nominal, as in (34b). In contrast, when a floating quantifier is associated with the object, the subject can occur between the quantifier and the host, as in (i).
(i) wain-ul wine- sonnim-i guest- twu two pyeng masy-ess-ta. drink- ‘Guests drank two bottles of wine.’
This word order restriction is known as the subject/object asymmetry in the
Japanese/Korean linguistics literature (
My analysis of the postnominal quantifier presented in Section 3.1 is based on my
previous work (
It is claimed that all nouns are mass nouns in a classifier language and this is
why classifiers are required to combine numerals with nouns (
It should be also noted that different classifiers are used for different types
of nouns. The classifier
The kind-denoting ‘apple’ of type
Prenominal quantifier constructions tend to be used in formal contexts or in
writings; they are hardly used in colloquial speech. For example, when the
speaker tries to buy 10 apples from a fruit store, she/he will use the
postnominal quantifier construction as below (
(i) a. ( ??acwumma, missus, yel kay-uy ten sakwa apple cwu-sey-yo. give- b. acwumma, missus, sakwa apple yel kay 10 cwu-sey-yo. give- ‘Missus, please give me 10 apples.’
Dowty & Brodie (
It should be noted that sentence (54b) becomes acceptable when the floating
quantifier is focused (
I would like to thank Karlos Arregi, Abbas Bemamoun, Youngju Choi, and Peter Laserson
for comments on an earlier version of this article. Special thanks to James Yoon for
his valuable suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. I am also deeply
grateful for the editors of this special issue and the anonymous reviewers for
The author has no competing interests to declare.