Journal of East Asian Linguistics

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 77–107 | Cite as

The temporal interpretation of tenseless relative clauses in Korean

Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the temporal interpretation of Korean relative clauses that are not morphologically marked with overt tense morphemes (plain KRCs). Previous researchers (e.g. Lee in Tense, aspect, and modality: a discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a typological perspective. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA, 1991, Stud Lang 17: 75–110, 1993; Yoon in Temporal adverbials and Aktionsarten in Korean. Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University, 1996) have postulated phonologically null temporal markers in plain KRCs, and have accounted for their temporal interpretation in terms of the meaning of the postulated temporal markers. In this paper, I show that these analyses are empirically problematic, and argue that the temporal interpretation can be captured without assuming null tense or aspect, in line with Lee and Tonhauser’s (J Semant 27:307–341, 2010) tenseless analysis of the temporal interpretation of Korean and Japanese coordination constructions. I show that the temporal interpretation of plain KRCs is determined by interactions among various factors such as Aktionsarten, discourse relations, discourse context, and world knowledge, and propose a compositional analysis of the observed facts.

Keywords

Relative clauses Temporal interpretation Tenseless Aktionsarten Discourse context World knowledge Korean 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A5A8020398).

References

  1. Bach, E. 1981. On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In Radical pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 63–81. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bae, J.Y. 2001. Kwuke kwanhyengcel-uy sicey (tense in Korean adnominal clauses). Icwung-enehak (Bilingual Linguistics) 18: 141–164.Google Scholar
  3. Bohnemeyer, J. 2002. The grammar of time reference in Yukatek Maya. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, B. 1997. Type-logical semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Choi, H.B. 1983. Wuli Malbon (Our Grammar). Seoul: Chungumsa. (First printed in 1929).Google Scholar
  6. Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Condoravdi, C. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In The construction of meaning, ed. D. Beaver, L.C. Martínez, B. Clark, and S. Kaufmann, 59–87. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  8. De Swart, H. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 347–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dowty, D. 1986. The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse: Semantics or pragmatics? Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 37–61.Google Scholar
  10. Gennari, S.P. 1999. “Tense meanings and temporal interpretation”. Ph.D. thesis, Brown University.Google Scholar
  11. Hinrichs, E. 1986. Temporal anaphora in discourses of English. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 63–82.Google Scholar
  12. Kamp, H., and U. Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Kim, C.K. 1980. Kwanhyengcel-uy sicey-wa sangwuimwun sok-eyse-uy yensan (tense in adnominal clauses and computation in structurally higher clauses). Hankul (Korean) 207: 61–98.Google Scholar
  14. Krifka, M. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kusumoto. K. 1999. “Tense in embedded contexts”. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  16. Kusumoto, K. 2005. On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13: 317–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lakoff, G. 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. In Papers from the 22th annual meeting of the CLS: Part II: Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, ed. A.M. Farley, P.T. Farley, and K.E. McCullough, 152–167. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, H.S. 1991. “Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a typological perspective”. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, H.S. 1993. The temporal system of noun-modifying (attributive) clauses in Korean from a typological perspective. Studies in Languages 17: 75–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee, J. 2014. A stativizing operator in Korean relative clauses. Eoneohag (Linguistics) 70: 255–274.Google Scholar
  21. Lee, J., and J. Tonhauser. 2010. Temporal interpretation without tense: Korean and Japanese coordination constructions. Journal of Semantics 27: 307–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moens, M., and M. Steedman. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14: 15–28.Google Scholar
  23. Nahm, K.S. 1972. Hyenday kwuke sicey-ey kwanhan yenkwu (Studies on tense in contemporary Korean). Kwuke Yenkwu (Korean Research): 55–57.Google Scholar
  24. Ogihara, T. 1996. Tense, attitude, and scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Park, M.K., and H. Han. 1993. Some aspects of temporal interpretation: a preliminary study. In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 5, ed. S. Kuno, 523–533.Google Scholar
  26. Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Partee, B.H. 1984. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 243–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Portner, P. 2003. The (temporal) semantics and (modal) pragmatics of the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 459–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  30. Roberts, C. 1996. Information Structure in Discourse: Toward an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics. In Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, ed. J.H. Yoon, and A. Kathol. The Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  31. Sohn, S.O. 1999. Tense and aspect in Korean. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
  32. Stump, G. 1985. The semantic variability of absolute constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tonhauser, J. 2006. The Temporal Semantics of Noun Phrases: Evidence from Guaraní. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  34. Vlach, F. 1981. The semantics of the progressive. In Syntax and semantics, vol 14: Tense and aspect, ed. P. Tedeschi, and A. Zaenen, 271–292. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Yoon, J.H. 1996. “Temporal adverbials and Aktionsarten in Korean”. Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Language and LiteratureSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations