File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/96/c96-2117_metho.xml
Size: 18,308 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:14:12
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="C96-2117"> <Title>Honorific Forms of Compound Verbals in Korean.&quot;</Title> <Section position="4" start_page="693" end_page="694" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3 Background and Framework </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Without considering the extra-sentential individuals such as speaker and addressee, it is not possible to compute relative social status of the persons involved in a sentence.</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="693" end_page="693" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.1 Previous Work </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> All earlier works (Kim, 1988; Kuno and Kim, 1985; Suh, 1978) were done about subject honorification in the frame of pure syntactic theory. Their claim is that there is a syntactic agreement between a subject NP and its corresponding verb. In other words, if an honorific morpheme attaches to a subject NP, the honorific infix si must appear in a verb as shown in (3).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> (3) Hart sensayng-nim-i o-si-ess-ta.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> teacher-hon-nom come-hon-past-dec 'Teacher Han came.' As far as subject honorification is concerned, their assertion is correct. Their approach, however, is incomplete and cannot be applied to the computation of social status for the following reasons.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> First, every sentence has a verb. Addressee honorification is indicated in a verb. Subject honorification is manifested in a subject NP and a verb. Thus even if a sentence itself is looked at, it is necessary to consider both addressee honorification and subject honorification. null Second, the consideration of a sentence itself is not enough because honorification phenomenon is related to the sociolinguistic factor such as social status. In their approach, it cannot be explained why the sentence in (4) instead of the sentence in (5) must be used when speaker has higher social status than the subject referent though the two sentences are equally grammatical.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> (4) Park kwacang-i naka-ss-c.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> chief section-nora go out-past-dec 'Chief section Park went out.' (5) Park kwacang-nim-i naka-si-ess-e.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> chiefsection-hon-nom go out-hon-past-dec 'Chief section Park went out.' Finally, it is not possible to compute social status at all just by the information that the subject referent who is mentioned in a sentence is respected. In the computation of social status it is necessary to know the binary relation such as the person A is respected by the person B. In the honorification system the person who respects others is always speaker. Thus in computing social status speaker should be available. Their approach, however, cannot gain access to speaker, who is a sentence-external individual because only a sentence itself is considered.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="693" end_page="694" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.2 A Sign-Based Approach </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In HPSG which adopts a sign-based approach, the information about sentence-external individuals such as speaker and addressee as well as the information about the persons mentioned in a sentence can be included in a lexical sign. The feattn-e structure of a lexical sign is as shown in (6).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> (6) FPHO N a list of phoneme strings &quot;\] / FCAT a. ob: .to:cat .o NI LOC pONT a. object oScontent II L LCONX a structure ofcontextJ.\] The contextual information about social status and sentence-external individuals can bc included in the attribute CONTEXT (CONX). Ill order to see values the attribute CONTEXT may have, let us consider the sentence in (7).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (7) J-kkeyse W-nim-ul nora (hon) hon-acc towatuli-si-ess-supnikka? help (hum)-hon-past-int (hon) 'Did J help W?' (Speaker: K, Addressee: L) Since the LOCAL (LOC)value of the constituents appearing in (7) is relevant to our discussion, it is considered.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> First, the LOCAL value of the constituent J-kkeyse is as shown in (8) because the honorific nominative case marker kkeyse attaches to the subje6t NP J. The diagrmn in (8) provides the contextual information that speaker shows honor to a subject referent and that the social status of the subject referent is higher than that of speaker and addressee. Second, the LOCAL value of the constituent W-nimul is as illustrated in (9) because the honorific suffix nim attaches to the object NP W.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"/> </Section> </Section> <Section position="5" start_page="694" end_page="695" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> CONT INDEX \[\] C-INDICES F SPEAKER </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> speaker shows honor to an object referent and that the social status of the ohject referent is higher than that of speaker and addressee.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Finally, the constituent towatuli-si-ess-supnikka contains the humble form of the verb towacwu, the honorific infix si, and the honorific verbal ending supnikka. So the LOCAL value of the constituent towatuli-si-ess-supnikka is as shown in diagram (10).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> The diagram in (10) provides the contextual information that speaker respects an object referent and a sub-ject referent, that the social status of the object referent and the subject referent is higher than that of speaker and addressee, and that the object referent has higher social status than the subject referent. In addition, it supplies the information that the social status of speaker is not equal to that of addressee.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> As shown in diagrams (8-10), there is no conflict in the information provided by the attribute CONTEXT.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> From the information supplied by the attribute S-STATUS we can infer that \[~>\[~\]>l'~l, \[~>\[~\]>l&quot;g'l, and \[~ (where '>' and 'e' stand for the relation 'higher than' and 'not equal to', respectively). Thus the sentence in (7) is felicitous in the context where the social status of the object referent is higher than that of any other individuals involved in the sentence, where the social status of the subject referent is higher than that of speaker and addressee, and where the social status of speaker is not equal to that of addressee.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> Within a sentence speaker and addressee do not change. This fact iS guaranteed by the Contextual Indices Inheritance Principle shown in (11).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> (ll) Contextual Indices Inheritance Principle: The CONX T C-INDICES value of a given phrase is token-identical to that of any of its daughters.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> The information about who honors whom and about relative social status of the individuals involved in a sentence is collected at sentence level by the Background and Social Status Consistency Principle stated in (12).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> Thus within a sign-based approach it is possible to compute relative social status on the basis of the collected relations of social status. The information about relative social status provides the context in which a sentence is felicitous.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="6" start_page="695" end_page="696" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 4 Inference of Relative Social Status </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Relative social status of the individuals involved in a dialogue can be inferred by collecting and computing the relations of social status collected at sentence level.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> 4.1 Template for a Relation of Social Status When a subject referent or an object referent is respected by speaker, the social status of the subject referent or the object referent is higher than that of both speaker and addressee as formalized in (13). (13) Inds/o > Indsp, Inds/o > Indad On the other hand, if a subject referent or an object referent is not respected by speaker, the social status of speaker is equal to or higher than that of the sub-ject referent or the object referent as shown in (14). (14) Indsp > Inds/o When a humble form of a verb is used in a sentence, the social status of an object referent is higher than that of any other individuals (that is, speaker, addressee, and a subjeCt referent) involved in a sentence as represented in (15).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (15) Ind o > Indsp, Ind o > Indad, Ind o > Inds If a humble form of a verb is available but is not used, the social status of speaker is equal to or higher than that of an object referent as illustrated in (16). (16) Indsp > Indo When the honorific infix si occurs in a verb, the social status of a subject referent is higher than that of speaker and addressee as represented in (17). (17) Inds > Indsp, Inds > Indad If the honorific infix si does not occur in a verb, the social status of speaker is equal to or higher than that of a subject referent as shown in (l 8).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> (18) Indsp > Inds Finally, when an honorific verbal ending is used, the social status of speaker is different from that of addressee as illustrated in (19).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> (19) Indsp ~ Indad If a plain verbal ending is used, the social status of speaker is equal to or higher than that of addressee as shown in (20).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> (20) Indsp > Indad 4.2 Inference in a Coherent Dialogue By a coherent dialogue we mean that there is no conflicting inference of social status from the sentences occurring in the dialogue. Let us look at the dialogue shown in (2 l).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> (21) a. K-kkeyse hoyuy-ey nom (hon) meeting-postp chamsekha-si-ess-eyo.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> attend-boa-past-dec (hon) 'K attended at the meeting.' The above dialogue occurs between the person S and the person L. In their utterance the person K and the person P are mentioned. Let us infer the relative social status of those four persons. From the sentence (21a) the order in (22) is drawn.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> (22) K>S, K>L, S~L Similarly, the orders shown in (23) and (24) are derived from the sentences (21b) and (21c), respectively. The relative orders illustrated in (22-24) are collapsed into the one illustrated in (25).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> (25) K>P>L>S So the relative order of social status shown in (25) is derived fi'om the dialogue in (21).</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="696" end_page="696" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 4.3 Detection of an Incoherent Dialogue </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> It is possible to recognize whether a sentence in a dialogue is consistent with the previous sentence(s) with respect to the honorification of a certain person.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Let us consider the dialogue shown in (26).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (26) a. R-kkeyse M-kkey nom (hon) dat (hon) sikyey-lul sensaha-sbess-e.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> clock-acc present-hon-past-dec 'R presemed a clock to M.' In the sentence (26a) four persons are involved: Youngsoo, Sungmin, the person R, and the person M. The order of their relative social status is as illustrated in (27).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> (27) R>Youngsoo, R>Sungmin, M>Youngsoo, M>Sungmin, R>M, Yotmgsoo>Sungmin Likewise, from (26b) we draw the relative order shown in (28).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> (28) Sungmin>Heesoo, Sungmin>M, Heesoo_>M, Sungmin_>Youngsoo It is derived from sentence (26a) that the social status of M is higher than that of Sungmin as shown in (27), whereas it is derived from (26b) that the social status of M is not higher than that of Sungmin as illustrated in (28). The latter derivation cannot be compatible with the former derivation. Thus the dialogue in (26) is not coherent with respect to the honorit'ication of the person M. This kind of incoherence can be detected only by considering relative social status of the individuals involved in a dialogue.</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="7" start_page="696" end_page="697" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 5 Implementation </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> To compute relative social status of the individuals involved in a dialogue, the dialogue should be parsed and contextual information about social status must be available at dialogue level.</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="696" end_page="696" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 5.1 Dialogue Parsing </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In ALE the primary predicate for parsing is 'rec'. For example, the query for parsing the sentence in (29) should have the format illustrated in (30).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> (29) Soonchul-i Minyoung-ul manna-ss-e.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> nom ace meet-past-dec 'Soonchul met Minyoung.' (Speaker: Mansoo, Addressee: Chulho) (30) \] ?- ree \[mansoo, chulho, soonchul_i, minyoung_ ul, maxma_ss e \] .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> As shown in the query, the first member of the input list is speaker of the input sentence, the second lnember of the input list is addressee, and the remaining members are the constituents of the input sentence. Although the indexes of speaker and addressee are variables in the entry of lexicons, these variables are instantiated to speaker and addressee specified in the input string when a sentence is parsed.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> A dialogue is composed of sentences. As a device of linking sentences, the conjunctive kuliko 'and' is used. The conjunctive, however, does not contribute anything to a dialogue. For instance, the query for parsing the dialogue in (21) is its illustrated in (31). (31) J ?- rec \[s,l,k kkeyse,hoyuy el.', chamsekha si ess eyo,kuliko, i, s, p_kkeyse, k nim_ul, towatuli si es~_e,kuliko, l,s,s nun,p nim ul,poy ess hi\] .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> As shown in (31), the conjunctive kuliko is not inserted after the last sentence in a dialogue because no further sentence follows. In query (3l) both speaker and addressee arc specified for each sentence. Since a series of sentences forms a dialogue, the feature structure of a dialoguc is its shown in (32). (32) VCOMPOSED-OF list of sentence-signsq \]BACKGR set of background l \[2S-STA'rUS set of social s'tatus _\] The value of the feature COMPOSEI)-OF is a list. Each member of the list is the result of parsing each sentence occurring in a dialogue. On the other hand, the value of the feature IIACKGP, iS a set. Each element of the set contains the inlormation about who honors whom, which is collected during a parsing of each sentence in a dialogue. The value of the feature S-STATIJS is also a set whose elements provide the information about relative social status of the persons involved in a dialogue.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="696" end_page="697" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 5.2 Computation of Relative Social Status </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> All pieces of information that are necessary for the computation of social status are stored in the value of the feature S-STATUS. l.et us consider how relative social status is computed using the dialogue in (21).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> When a dialogue is processed, the inlormation about relative social status is provided in the form of feature structure. Feature structures are converted into Prolog facts since the reasoning component comprised of inference rules accepts Prolog facts, not feature structures. In the case of dialogue (21), the Prolog facts shown in (33) are obtained.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (33) a. higher(k,s), higher (k, l) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> b. not_equal (I, s) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> c. higher (p, I) , higher (p, s) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> d. higher (k, p) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> e. equal_higher (I, s) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> When the inference rule in (34) is applied to (33b) and (33e), the result is (35).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> (34) higher(X,Y) if % X>Y not_equal (X,Y), % XC/Y equal_higher (X, Y) . % XkY (35) higher (I, s) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> When the inference rule in (36) is applied to (33c) and (33d), the results are (37) and (38).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> (36) higher inf three(X,Y,Z) if % X>Y>Z higher (X,Y), % X>Y higher (Y, Z) . % Y>Z (37) higher_inf_three (k,p, i) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> (38) higher_inf_three (k,p, s) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> Finally when the inference rule in (39) is applied to (37) and (35), the result is as shown in (40). (39) higher_inf four(X,Y,Z,W) if % X>Y>Z>W higher_inf_t1~ree (X, Y, Z) , % X>Y>Z higher (Z,W) . % Z>W (40) higher inf four(k,p,l,s).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> Thus the inference in (40) is the result of computing relative social status of the individuals involved in dialogue (21).</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="3" start_page="697" end_page="697" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 5.3 Conflicting Inference </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Let us consider why the dialogue in (26) is not coherent. After the dialogue is parsed, the feature structures in (41) are collected together with other feature structures.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The Prolog facts in (42a) and (42b) are obtained from the feature structures in (41a) and (41b), respectively. (42) a. higher (m, sra) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> b. equal_higher (sin, m) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> The two facts, however, are not compatible because higher (ra, sin) means 'not equal_higher (sm,m) '. Thus dialogue (26) is incoherent in that the relative order of social status between the person M whose index is m and the person Sungmin whose index is sm is not consistent.</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>