Abstract
This paper investigates the interpretations of caused change-of-state predicates in Korean, and in particular non-culmination readings in which the result state inherent to the meaning of the predicate fails to obtain either fully (zero result) or partially. We argue that zero result readings require that the subject intended the coming about of the result state, while readings in which some result obtains (partially or completely) lack this entailment. Yet zero result interpretations are not reducible to ‘try’-constructions since the former but not the latter require the direct causation. Furthermore, zero result readings arise only in active voice, a grammatical constraint not explicitly discussed for other languages. We argue that the full suite of possible readings arises from two factors: a sublexical modality over worlds conforming to the agent’s intentions for zero result readings that arises from a special active voice inflection in Korean and a scalar semantics for change-of-state verbs that derives partial result readings as a type of degree achievement interpretation. An interaction of these two factors produce the range of possible readings for Korean change-of-state predicates. Finally, we discuss our account in relation to the Agent Control Hypothesis of Demirdache and Martin (2015) that agentivity properties of the subject are necessary for certain non-culmination readings, and suggest that Korean exemplifies the ACH provided that what counts as “control” includes intentionality.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on J. Lee (2015[Ch.2]). We thank four anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts, and also David Beaver, Hans Boas, Jae-Woong Choe, Shinichiro Fukuda, Jong-Bok Kim, Jean-Pierre Koenig, Chumgmin Lee, Yae-Sheik Lee, Fabienne Martin, Richard Meier, Seungho Nam, William O’Grady, and Steve Wechsler for additional comments and discussion. We also thank the audience at the Joint Spring Conference of The Korean Society for Language and Information, The Korean Association of Language Studies, The English Linguistics Society of Korea, and The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea. The order of authors is alphabetical; both authors contributed equally to the paper and are co-first authors.
References
Anscombe, Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret. 2000. Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Arunachalam, Sudha & Anubha Kothari. 2011. An experimental study of Hindi and English perfective interpretation. Journal of South Asian Languages 4. 27–42.Search in Google Scholar
Bar-el, Leora, Henry Davis & Lisa Matthewson. 2005. On non-culminating accomplishments. In Leah Bateman & Cherlon Ussery (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS), 87–102.Search in Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 159–219.10.1007/BF00350139Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2011a. An aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English. Journal of Semantics 28. 1–54.10.1093/jos/ffq014Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2011b. On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 335–370.10.1007/s11049-011-9124-6Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2012. Lexical aspect and multiple incremental themes. In Violeta Demonte & Louise McNalley (eds.), Telicity, change, and state: A cross-categorial view of event structure, 23–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693498.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2013. Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics 54. 681–706.10.1515/ling-2013-0024Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John & Cala Zubair. 2010. The interaction of transitivity features in the Sinhala involitive. In Patrick Brandt & Marco Garcia (eds.), Transitivity: Form, meaning, acquisition, and processing, 69–92. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/la.166.03beaSearch in Google Scholar
Beavers, John & Cala Zubair. 2013. Anticausatives in Sinhala: Involitivity and causer suppression. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 1–46.10.1007/s11049-012-9182-4Search in Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael E. 1987. Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle, 22–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo & Sven Lauer. 2016. Anankastic conditionals are just conditionals. Semantics and Pragmatics 9. 1–61.10.3765/sp.9.8Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Possible verbs and the structure of meaning. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes, 48–73. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida & Fabienne Martin. 2015. Agent control over nonculminating events. In Elisa Barrajón López, José Luis Cifuentes Honrubia & Susana Rodríguez Rosique (eds.), Verb classes and aspect, 185–217. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021Search in Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1988. On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 27–58.10.1007/BF00635756Search in Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2011. Mental action and event structure in the semantics of try. In Neil Ashton, Anca Chereches & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 21), 426–553. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/archive.10.3765/salt.v21i0.2607Search in Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2016. A coercion-free semantics for intend. In Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS 51), 213–223. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cls/pcls/2015/00000051/00000001.Search in Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2017. The logic of intention reports. Journal of Semantics 34. 587–632.10.1093/jos/ffx010Search in Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 87–148. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gyarmathy, Zsofia. 2015. Achievements, durativity, and scales. Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin.Search in Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Härtl, Holden. 2003. Conceptual and grammatical characteristics of argument alternations: The case of decausative verbs. Linguistics 41(5). 883–916.10.1515/ling.2003.029Search in Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy & Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in degree achievements. In Tanya Matthews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 9), vol. 9, 127–144. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/archive.10.3765/salt.v9i0.2833Search in Google Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1985. ‘Activity’-‘accomplishment’-‘achievement’- a language that can’t say ‘I burned it but it didn’t burn’ and one that can. In Adam Makkai & Alan K. Melby (eds.), Linguistics and philosophy: Festshrift for Rulon s. Wells, 265–304. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.42.21ikeSearch in Google Scholar
Inman, Michael Vincent. 1993. Semantics and pragmatics of Colloquial Sinhala involitive verbs. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Peter Culicover. 2003. The semantic basis of control in English. Language 79(3). 517–556.10.1353/lan.2003.0166Search in Google Scholar
Jacobs, Peter William. 2011. Control in Skwxwú7mesh. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1999–2007. Intentions, plans, and their execution: Turning objects of thought into entities of the external world. Unpublished ms., The University of Stuttgart.Search in Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 2007. Telic senses of deadjectival verbs. Lingua 117(1). 26–66.10.1016/j.lingua.2005.09.002Search in Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Beth Levin. 2008. Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In Louise McNally & Chris Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse, 156–182. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Liancheng Chief. 2008. Scalarity and state-changes in Mandarin (and other languages). In Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, vol. 7, 241–262. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7/.Search in Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Liancheng Chief, Nuttanart Muansuwan & Poornima Shakti. 2016. A shopping guide to cross-linguistic variation in event realization. Unpublished ms, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.Search in Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Anthony R. Davis. 2001. Sublexical modality and the structure of lexical semantic representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 24. 71–124.10.1023/A:1005616002948Search in Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Nuttannart Muansuwan. 2000. How to end without ever finishing: Thai semi-perfectivity. Journal of Semantics 17. 147–182.10.1093/jos/17.2.147Search in Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27. 77–138.10.1007/s11049-008-9058-9Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Building resultatives. In Claudia Maienborn & Angelika Wöllstein-Leisten (eds.), Event arguments: Functions and applications, 177–212. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110913798.177Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Search in Google Scholar
Landman, Fred. 1992. The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1. 1–32.10.1007/BF02342615Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Juwon. 2012. Change of state verb and syntax of serial verb constructions in Korean: An HPSG account. Coyote Papers: Working papers in linguistics 20. 57–65.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Juwon. 2014. Multiple interpretations and constraints of causative serial verb constructions in Korean. In Kayla Carpenter, Oana David, Florian Lionnet, Christine Sheil, Tammy Stark & Vivian Wauters (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 38), 288–305. http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/BLS/issue/view/143.10.3765/bls.v38i0.3336Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Juwon. 2015. An intention-based account of accomplishments in Korean. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Juwon. 2016a. Intentionality and conative constructions in English. Studies in Linguistics 41. 327–356.10.17002/sil..41.201610.327Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Juwon. 2016b. Some activity predicates as accomplishments. Language and Information 20. 117–143.10.29403/LI.20.2.5Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Yae-Sheik. 2004. Event headedness in the lexicon-syntax interface. Studies in Modern Grammar 36. 135–193.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1973. Causation. The Journal of Philosophy 70. 556–567.10.2307/2025310Search in Google Scholar
Littlemore, Jeannette. 2015. Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107338814Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne. 2015. Explaining the link between agentivity and non-culminating causation. In Sarah D’Antonio, Mary Moroney & Carol Rose Little (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 25), 246–266. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/132.10.3765/salt.v25i0.3060Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne. 2016. Atypical agents and non-culminating events. Handout for talk given at Agentivity and Event Structure: Theoretical and Experimental Approaches, AG 3, DGfS 2016, Universität Konstanz, Februrary 24th.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne & Florian Schäfer. 2012. The modality of offer and other defeasible causative verbs. In Nathan Arnett & Ryan Bennett (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 30), 248–258. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne & Florian Schäfer. 2017. Sublexical modality in defeasible causative verbs. In Ana Arregui, Maria Luisa Rivero & Andres Salanova (eds.), Modality across syntactic categories, 87–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198718208.003.0006Search in Google Scholar
Park, Ki-Seong. 1993. Korean causatives in role and reference grammar. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, State University of New York MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Paul, Ileana, Baholisoa Simone Ralalaoherivony & Henriëtte de Swart. 2016. Malagasy maha at the crossroads of voice, causation and modality. In Emily Clem, Virginia Dawson, Alice Shen, Amalia Horan Skilton, Geoff Bacon, Andrew Cheng & Erik Hans Maier (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 353–368. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/bls/previous\_proceedings/bls42.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 2014. Reconsidering defeasible causative verbs. Paper presented at Chronos 11, Pisa, Italy, 16–18 June.Search in Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486319Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97–133. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure, 21–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2003. The theta system - an overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 229–290.10.1515/thli.28.3.229Search in Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470759127Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173452Search in Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 2003. Trying to be progressive: The extensionality of try. Journal of Semantics 20. 403–445.10.1093/jos/20.4.403Search in Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi & Prashant Pardeshi. 2001. The causative continuum. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, 85–126. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.48.07shiSearch in Google Scholar
Singh, Mona. 1998. On the semantics of the perfective aspect. Natural Language Semantics 6. 171–199.10.1023/A:1008208311200Search in Google Scholar
Sinhababu, Neil. 2009. The Humean theory of motivation reformulated and defended. Philosophical Review 118. 465–500.10.1215/00318108-2009-015Search in Google Scholar
Sinhababu, Neil. 2013. The desire-belief account of intention explains everything. Noûs 47. 680–696.10.1111/j.1468-0068.2012.00864.xSearch in Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 347–385.10.1023/A:1005916004600Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1996. The windowing of attention in language. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 235–288. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei & Mikhail Ivanov. 2009. Event struture of non-culminating accomplishments. In Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect. and modality, 83–130. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.148.05tatSearch in Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2008. Subevental structure and non-culmination. In Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, vol. 7, 393–422. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7/.Search in Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantic interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-1150-8Search in Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2003. Event cancellation and telicity. In Michael McClure (ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 12, 388–399. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & David P. Wilkins. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 289–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66. 143–160.10.7591/9781501743726-005Search in Google Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon. 2015. Passives. In Lucien Brown & Jaehoon Yeon (eds.), The handbook of Korean linguistics, 116–136. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781118371008.ch7Search in Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Jerold M. Sadock. 1975. Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In John P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 4, 1–36. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368828_002Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
