Against the Complementarity of ‘-go iss-’ and ‘-eo iss’

Yang, Jeong Seok

doi:10.22557/hg.2004.12.266.105

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, H S Lee (1991) proposes that the notion of "dynamicity" is responsible for the distinction: while the former indicates "dynamic durative," the latter indicates "static durative." According to works such as K Lee (1978), Chung (1994) and Yang (2004), telicity plays an important role: only telic predicates can occur in the latter. Unlike these proposals assuming semantic constraints, EH Lee (2008) posits different argument structures for them (a syntactic constraint): while the predicates in the former have an "external argument," those in the latter have an "internal argument" (as their subject).…”

Section: Previous Analyses On the Resultative Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13) "Reflexivity" has also been proposed as a condition to account for the resultative [… V-ko iss-] (cf. K Lee 1993, Han 1999, Yang 2004). According to Song & Song (2005: 197-200), "the entity denoted by the subject NP obtains a new state as a result of an action taken by the same entity or a process the same entity undergoes."…”

Section: Previous Analyses On the Resultative Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Constraints on the Perfective [V-ko (iss-)] in Korean:With Reference to a Present State Reading

Chae¹

2020

Lang. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Korean [… V-ko iss-] is ambiguous between progressive and resultative meanings. We assume that it is ambiguous in three ways: P(rogressive)-reading, R(esultative)-reading and p(seudo)-R-reading constructions. These constructions allow different sets of predicates in the [… V] position. Most previous analyses agreed that telic predicates are responsible for the (traditional) resultative reading. However, this telicity condition does not adequately predict the occurrence of the reading: i) p-R predicates are not necessarily telic, and ii) not all telic predicates can trigger the R construction. The aim of this paper is to provide a set of constraints operating on the R construction under the understanding that p-R predicates should be excluded in advance. First, only those telic predicates that can indicate a present state in their past tense form can trigger the R construction. In addition, we show the need to posit two more constraints: a syntactic/semantic constraint and a pragmatic constraint. We further show that the present approach based on these new observations can properly characterize the R construction while excluding the P and p-R constructions. In dealing with the present state reading, we face the recalcitrant phenomenon of a theta role change in the subject of the predicate concerned.Keywords: [V-ko iss-] in Korean, resultative construction, telicity, past time interpretation, present state reading * I appreciate valuable comments from the three anonymous reviewers of this journal. I am also grateful to Ki-Sun Hong, Ilkyu Kim, Eunsuk Lim and Jae-mog Song for their constructive comments on various occasions.

show abstract

Section: Previous Analyses On the Resultative Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Previous Analyses On the Resultative Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%