Advertisement

Journal of East Asian Linguistics

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 117–139 | Cite as

Argument structure and event structure: the case of Korean imperfective constructions

  • EunHee Lee
Article

Abstract

This paper uncovers a systematic correlation between semantics of aspect and syntactic argument structure as manifested in the difference between two imperfective aspect markers -ko iss and -a iss in Korean. Unlike the common assumption that the -ko iss form is a progressive marker, while the -a iss form is a resultative marker, this paper argues that the difference between the two derives from their different argument structure: -ko iss selects transitive and unergative verbs, which have an external argument, while -a iss selects unaccusative and passive verbs, which only have an internal theme argument. It is argued that the difference in argument structure is determined by semantic event structure depending on agentivity in Korean. The results of the paper have broader implications for the issues of syntax and semantics interface and unaccusativity.

Keywords

Korean imperfective aspect Argument structure Agentivity versus dynamicity Unaccusativity Syntax/semantics interface 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahn, Yoonja. 1995. The aspectual and temporal system of Korean: From the perspective of the two component theory of aspect. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  2. Bach Emmon (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 5–15Google Scholar
  3. Burzio Luigi (1986). Italian syntax: A government and binding approach. Dordrecht, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  4. Choe, Hyun Bae. 1971. Wurimalpon ‘Our Grammar’. Seoul: Cengumsa [first published in 1929].Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky Noam (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, ForisGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In The logical decision and action, ed. N. Rescher, 81–95. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dowty David (1979). Word meaning and montague grammar. Dordrecht, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  8. Dowty David (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holisky Dee Ann (1987). The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 71: 103–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hopper Paul, Sandra Thompson (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackendoff Ray (1976). Toward an explanatory semantic repretation. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 89–150Google Scholar
  12. Jackendoff Ray (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Kang, Young Seo. 1987. Korean syntax and universal grammar. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  14. Kim, Namkil. 1986. The progressive in Korean. In Studies in korean language and linguistics, ed. N. Kim, 98)117. East Asian Studies Center, USC.Google Scholar
  15. Kim, Young Joo. 1990. The syntax and semantics of Korean case: The interaction between lexical and syntactic level of representation. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  16. Kim Yookyung (1993). The resultative progressive in Korean. CLS 29, 251–252. Chicago, University of ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Kindaichi Haruhiko (1950). Kokugo doosi no itibunrui [A classification of Japanese verbs]. Gengo Kenkyu 15: 48–63Google Scholar
  18. Kinsui, Satoshi. 1995. Iwayuru ‘sinkoo-tai’ ni tuite [On the so-called progressive]. In Tukisima Hirosi hakase koki kinen kokugogaku ronsyuu, ed. Tukisima Hiroshi, 169–197. Tokyo: Kyuko Shobin.Google Scholar
  19. Kudo, Mayumi. 1995. Asupekuto/tensu taikee to tekusuto: Gendai nihongo no zikan no hyoogen [Aspect-tense system and text: Temporal expressions in Modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Hitsuji.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, Hyo Sang. 1991. Tense, aspect and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal suffixes in Korean from a typological perspective. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  21. Lee Keedong (1993). A Korean grammar on semantic-pragmatic principles. Seoul, Hankwuk MwunhwasaGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, Hyo Sang. 1999. Dynamicity as an archi-concept in Korean. Studies in Language (to appear).Google Scholar
  23. Lee EunHee (2004). Different states described by aspectual markers -ko iss and -a/e iss in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 10: 547–557Google Scholar
  24. Lee EunHee (2006). Stative progressives in Korean and English. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 695–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levin Beth, Malka Rappaport (1992). The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The perspective from unaccusativity. Roca 1992: 247–269Google Scholar
  26. Levin Beth, Malka Rappaport (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin Samuel (1992). A reference grammar of Korean. Tokyo, Charles E. tuttle CompanyGoogle Scholar
  28. Ogihara Toshiyuki (1998). The ambiguity of the -te iru form in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 87–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parsons Terence (1989). The progressive in English: Events, states and processes. Lingustics and Philosophy 12: 213–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perlmutter David (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4: 157–189Google Scholar
  31. Perlmutter, David, and Paul. Postal 1984. The I-advancement exclusiveness law. In Studies in relational grammar 2, ed. D. Perlmutter and C. Rosen, 81–125. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ritter, Elizabeth. and Sara. Rosen 2000. Event structure and ergativity. In Events as grammatical objects, ed. C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky, 187–238. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  33. Rosen, Carol. 1984. The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. In Studies in relational grammar 2, ed. D. Perlmutter and C. Rosen, 38–80. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ross, John. 1972. Act. In Semantics of natural language, ed. D. Davidson and G. Harmon, 70–126. Dordrecht: Riedel.Google Scholar
  35. Shirai Yasuhiro (1998). Where the progressive and the resultative meet: A typology of imperfective morphology in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and English. Studies in Language 22: 661–692Google Scholar
  36. Shirai Yasuhiro (2000). The semantics of the Japanese imperfective -teiru: An integrative approach. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 327–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, Carlota. 1970. Jespersen’s ‘move and change’ class and causative verbs in English. In Linguistic and literary studies in honor of Archibald A. Hill, vol. 2: Descriptive Linguistics, ed. M. Jazayery, E. Polome, and W. Winter, 101–109. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
  38. Smith Carlota (1991). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  39. Sohn Ho Min (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge, The University of Cambridge PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Valin Robert (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66: 221–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Valin, Robert. 1993. A synopsis of role and reference grammar. In Advanced in role and reference grammar, ed. R. Van Valin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  42. Van Valin, Robert. and Wilkins. David 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In Grammatical constructions, ed. M. Shibatani and S. Thomson, 289–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity at Buffalo, The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations