The Syntactic Status of Resultatives and the Direct Object Restriction
2
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Wechsler (1997, 2005) argues that the DOR is not real by citing some counter-examples to it. In contrary to Wechsler (1997, 2005), this paper argues that the DOR stands as a viable standard condition on the resultative construction. Wechsler’s first case of the counter- examples, which concern the manner of motion verbs, can be successfully explained under the DOR through the conflation analysis of McIntyre (2004) and Mateu (2005). Wechsler’s second case of the counter-examples, which are on the subject-oriented resultatives in transitive constructions, is not the target of the DOR because the putative subject-oriented resultatives are in fact directional adjuncts. While the DOR is a fine regulative constraint for English, it does not hold in Korean. This paper argues that this difference between the two languages attributes to the syntactic status of resultatives. To be more specific, resultatives serve as an argument of the verb in English while those in Korean function as an adjunct. This view is also supported by the Japanese data. The DOR does not hold in Japanese because Japanese resultatives are adjuncts.
Abstract
Wechsler (1997, 2005) argues that the DOR is not real by citing some counter-examples to it. In contrary to Wechsler (1997, 2005), this paper argues that the DOR stands as a viable standard condition on the resultative construction. Wechsler’s first case of the counter- examples, which concern the manner of motion verbs, can be successfully explained under the DOR through the conflation analysis of McIntyre (2004) and Mateu (2005). Wechsler’s second case of the counter-examples, which are on the subject-oriented resultatives in transitive constructions, is not the target of the DOR because the putative subject-oriented resultatives are in fact directional adjuncts. While the DOR is a fine regulative constraint for English, it does not hold in Korean. This paper argues that this difference between the two languages attributes to the syntactic status of resultatives. To be more specific, resultatives serve as an argument of the verb in English while those in Korean function as an adjunct. This view is also supported by the Japanese data. The DOR does not hold in Japanese because Japanese resultatives are adjuncts.
참고문헌 (32)
- Bowers, John, "The syntax of predication", Linguistic Inquiry, 24, pp.591~656 (1993)
- Bowers, John, "Transitivity", Linguistic Inquiry, 33, pp.183~224 (2002)
- "Resultatives: Exceptions to the Direct Object Restriction" (2010)[URL]
- Burzio, Luigi, "Italian syntax: A Government-Binding approach" (1986), Reidel
- Carrier, Jill, "The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives", Linguistic Inquiry, 23, pp.173~234 (1992)
- Embick, David, "On the structure of resultative participles in English", Linguistic Inquiry, 35, pp.355~392 (2004)
- Folli, Raffaella, "Waltzing Matilda around and around: On the licensing of directed-motion resultatives", 석사, University of Arizona, 2003
- Hong, Soo-Min, "Exceptional case-marking and resultative constructions", 박사, pp.2005
- Jackendoff, Ray, "Semantic structure" (1990), MIT Press
- Kim, Sujeong, "L1 influence on L2 learning of English resultative constructions: The syntactic and semantic structure of Korean students’ interlanguage", 박사, pp.2016
- Kim, Jong-Bok, "A comparative study between English and Korean resultative", Language Research, 35, pp.57~90 (1999)
- Kim, Soowon, "Texas Linguistic Forum 38: The syntax and semantics of predication", pp.189~204 (1997), University of Texas
- Ko, Heejeong, "Predication and edge effects", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, pp.725~778 (2011)
- 이창수, "Against Semantic Derivation of DOR Effects", 영어영문학연구, 48(4), pp.325~349 (2006), 한국중앙영어영문학회
- 이창수, "The Plug-in Approach to the Variable Behavior and the Causal Relation Constraint", 영어영문학연구, 53(3), pp.289~309 (2011), 한국중앙영어영문학회[DOI]
- 이창수, "Small Clause Predication and the Event Argument", 영어영문학연구, 54(4), pp.391~410 (2012), 한국중앙영어영문학회
- Lee, Junkyu, "Korean resultative constructions", The proceedings of the 9th international conference on HPSG, pp.169~186 (2003), Stanford University
- Levin, Beth, "Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface" (1995), MIT Press
- Masashi, Yamaguchi, "Syntax of the resultatives in Japanese: From the viewpoint of Reverse Agree", Osaka Literary Review, 53, pp.19~31 (2015)
- Mateu, Jaume, "ZAS papers in linguistics 26: Syntax of predication" (2001), ZAS
- Mateu, Jaume, "The compositionality of meaning and content: Foundational issues", pp.213~229 (2005), Ontos
- McIntyre, Andrew, "Event paths, conflation, argument structure and VP shells", Linguistics, 42, pp.523~571 (2004)
- Nakazawa, Tsuneko, "The distribution of resultatives in Japanese", The 21st international conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (2014)
- Rappaport Hovav, Malka, "An event structure account of English resultatives", Languages, 77, pp.766~797 (2001)
- Rothstein, Susan, "Resultative predication in structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect" (2004), Blackwell Publishing Ltd
- Shim, Ji Young, "The tense of resultatives: the case of Korean", 석사, pp.2007
- Simpson, Jane, "Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar", pp.143~157 (1983), Indiana University Linguistics Club
- Tortora, Christina M., "Verbs of inherently directed motion are compatible with resultative phrases", Linguistic Inquiry, 29, pp.338~345 (1998)
- Verspoor, Cornelia Maria, "Contextually-dependent lexical semantics", 박사, pp.1997
- Wechsler, Stephen, "Resultative predicates and control", Texas Linguistics Forum, 38, pp.307~321 (1997)
- Wechsler, Stephen, "The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation", pp.255~273 (2005), Oxford University Press
- Wechsler, Stephen, "On resultative predicates and clauses: Parallels between Korean and English", Language Sciences, 23, pp.391~423 (2001)