<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="I05-2017">
  <Title>Deep Processing of Honorification Phenomena in a Typed Feature Structure Grammar</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="98" end_page="98" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
[HON !].
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="98" end_page="98" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.2 Object and Oblique Agreement
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> While subject honorification has a productive suffixal expression, there are some lexically suppletive forms like poyp-e 'see.HON-DECL' and mosi-e 'take.HON-DECL', which require their object to be in the honorific form:  'John honorably saw the teacher.' Our grammar lexically specifies that these suppletive verbs require the object to be [HON +] together with the pragmatic honoring relation. The following is the lexical information that a suppletive verb like this accumulates from the inheritance hierarchy:  Such lexical information can easily block examples like (8)a where the object is [HON !]. Lexically suppletive forms like tuli-e 'give.HON-DECL' and yeccup-e 'ask.HON-DECL' require their oblique argument to be in the HON form (nonhonorific forms are cwu-e and mwut-e, respectively):  Once again the grammar rules out examples like (10)b in which the dative argument haksayngeykey 'student-DAT' is nonhonorific. However, nothing blocks the grammar from generating examples like (12) where the dative argument sensayng-nim-eykey 'teacher-HON-DAT' is [HON +] even if the verb cwu- 'give' is in the nonhonorific (unspecified) form: (12) John-i sensayng-nim-eykey senmwul-ul cwu-ess-e.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="98" end_page="98" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.3 Multiple Honorification
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Given this system, we can easily predict that it is possible to have multiple honorific examples in which subject agreement cooccurs with object agreement: (13) ape-nim-i sensayng-nim-ul father-HON-NOM teacher-HON-ACC poyp-(usi)-ess-e.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> HON.see-HON-PST-DECL 'The father saw the teacher.' The honorific suffix -si on the verb here requires the subject to be [HON +] whereas the suppletive verb stem asks its object to be [HON +]. In such examples, the honorific marker in the verb can be optional or the verb can even be replaced by the nonsuppletive form po- 'seem'. However, the grammar does not generate cases like the fol- null quires the subject to be [HON +] whereas (14)b is ruled out since the suppletive form poyp- selects a [HON +] object.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> We also can see that oblique agreement can occur together with subject agreement: (15) a. eme-nim-i sensayng-nim-eykey mother-HON-NOM teacher-HON-DAT senmwul-ul tuli-si-ess-e.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> present-ACC give.HON-PST-DECL 'Mother gave the teacher a present.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> b.#eme-nim-i sensayng-nim-eykey senmwul-ul tuli-ess-e.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> c.#eme-nim-i sensayng-nim-eykey senmwul-ul cwu-(si)-ess-e.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> d. *John-i sensayng-nim-eykey senmwul-ul tuli-siess-e. null e. *eme-nim-i John-eykey senmwul-ul tuli-si-ess-e. Since the nonhonorific verb places no restriction on the subject, the grammar allows the disagreement in (15)b and c. However, (15)d and (15)e cannot be generated: the former violates subject agreement and the latter violates object agreement. null</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="3" start_page="98" end_page="98" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.4 Agreement in Auxiliary Constructions
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The present honorification system in the KPSG can offer us a streamlined way of explaining the agreement in auxiliary verb constructions we noted in section 1.1. Basically there are three types of auxiliaries with respect to agreement (see Sells 1998): Type I: In the construction with auxiliary verbs like anh- 'not', when the subject is in the honorific form, the honorific suffix -si can optionally appear either on the preceding main verb or on the auxiliary verb or on both: (16) a. sensayng-nim-i o-si-ci teacher-NOM come-HON-COMP anh-usi-ess-e.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> not.HON-PST-DECL 'The teacher did not come.' b. sensayng-nim-i o-si-ci anh-ess-e.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> c. sensayng-nim-i o-ci anh-usi-ess-e.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> d.#sensayng-nim-i o-ci anh-ess-e .</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Type II: When the head auxiliary verb is one like po- 'try', twu- 'hold', and ci- 'become', sub-ject honorification occurs only on the auxiliary verb. That is, the preceding main verb with the specific COMP suffix form -a/e cannot have the honorific suffix -si: (17) a. *sensayng-nim-i John-ul cap-usi-e teacher-NOM John-ACC catch-HON-COMP twu-si-ess-e.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> do.for.the.future 'The teacher hold John for future.'  b. sensayng-nim-i John-ul cap-a twu-si-ess-e. c. *sensayng-nim-i John-ul cap-usi-e twu-ass-e. d. sensayng-nim-i John-ul cap-a twu-ass-e. 100 Type III: Unlike Type II, auxiliary verbs like po- 'see' and kath- 'seem' cannot have the honorific suffix -si even if the subject is in the honorific form: (18) a. *sensayng-nim-i chayk-ul ilk-usi-na</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> 'The teacher seems to read a book.' b. sensayng-nim-i chayk-ul ilk-usi-na po-ta. c.#sensayng-nim-i chayk-ul ilk-na po-ta.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> d. *sensayng-nim-i chayk-ul ilk-usi-na po-si-ta. First, the agreement in Type I simply follows from the general assumption that this kind of auxiliary verbs acts like a raising verb whose subject is identical with that of the main verb:  The negative auxiliary verb with or without the -(u)si suffix selects as its arguments a subject and a lexical complement whose subject is identical with the auxiliary's subject. This means when either one of the verbs requires an HON subject, then the combination of the main verb as a complex predicate will also require an HON subject.5 The absence of the HON on the main verb for the Type II AUX is due to the language's morphological constraints. Such an auxiliary verb forms a verbal complex together with a main verb that bears the COMP suffix -a/e: this suffix morphologically requires its verb stem to have no honorific -(u)si (cf. Kim and Yang 2004).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> This morphological constraint can be attested by the fact that suppletive honorific form with no 5This treatment assumes that the auxiliary verb combines with the preceding (main or auxiliary) verb and forms a complex predicate. See Kim and Yang (2004) for this line of treatment.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> productively-formed -si marking can occur in the  'The teacher tried to read the book.' Within the grammar we developed where each specific verb stem has its own type constraint, the stem value of the COMP suffix -a/e must be a verb lexeme with no suffix -si.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> As for the Type III AUX, the grammar needs to rely on semantics: AUX verbs like po- 'seem' and kath- 'seem' select propositions as their se- null The honoring relation applies not to a proposition but to a human individual: it is such a semantic property that places a restriction on the HON value of the auxiliary verb.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="98" end_page="98" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 Testing the Feasibility of the Analysis
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In testing the performance and feasibility of the grammar, we implemented our grammar in the LKB (Linguistic Knowledge Building) system (cf. Copestake 2002). The test suites we used consist of the SERI Test Suites '97 (Sung and Jang 1997), the Sejong Corpus, and sentences from the literature on honorification. The SERI Test Suites (Sung and Jang 1997), designed to evaluate the performance of Korean syntactic parsers,  without inflectional suffixes. The suffixes cannot be attached arbitrarily to a stem or word, but need to observe a regular fixed order. Reflecting this, the verbal morphology has traditionally been assumed to be templatic:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"/>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="98" end_page="101" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
+ MOOD
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> consists of total 472 sentences (292 test sentences representing the core phenomena of the language and 180 sentences representing different types of predicate). Meanwhile, the Sejong Corpus has 179,082 sentences with about 2 million words.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> We randomly selected 200 simple sentences (the average number of words in each sentence is about 5) from the corpus. These sentences are classified according to their honorification types  In addition to these sentences, we selected 100 sentences (including the ones given in the paper) from the literature on Korean honorification: 51 sentences with -si marked verbs, 31 with auxiliary verb constructions, and 18 with suppletive verb forms. We obtained similar results: the grammar parsed a total of 96 sentences.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Among the total of 691 parsed sentences, we checked the meaning representations (minimal recursion semantics: MRS) and the pragmatic representations of 100 randomly selected sentences, and could see that the representations contain the correct information that the grammar is designed for. We believe that the enriched deep processing of grammatical honorific information that the grammar successfully composed in the parsing process can well function for the proper understanding of natural data.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>