a resultative adverbial approach to korean resultative … · 2020-02-28 · a resultative...

인문논총‧제51집‧2020.02. ISSN 2005-6222 / eISSN 2713-7511pp.39~62

A Resultative Adverbial Approach to Korean Resultative

Constructions

JONGIL KWON

Professor, Department of English, Kyungnam University; [email protected]

Abstract: This paper presents a resultative adverbial approach to Korean resultative constructions (i.e., the [AP-key] constructions) against the null subject analysis in which secondary resultative predicate is a small clause containing PRO. On the basis of the observation that they are morpho-syntactically and semantically distinguished from English resultatives, I propose that some of resultative constructions in Korean can be analyzed as a resultative adverb. The most remarkable semantic feature of a resultative adverb is its capability to employ a local semantic subject. That is, a resultative adverb can have an in-dividual subject separated from the main verb. I argue in this paper that Korean resultative con-structions as resultative adverbs must not include any aspectual markers (e.g., –eci). Also, I argue that Korean resultative adverbs can be treated as a Pseudo resultative. After all, Korean resultative con-structions cannot be analyzed as a uniform semantic phenomenon.

Keywords: resultative construction, secondary predicate, resultative adverb, small clause, null subject,

implicit argument

I. Introduction

It has been commonly assumed that a resultative sentence has at least two predicates:

the first and secondary predicates (Simpson, 1983; Kim, 1999; Wechsler & Noh, 2001;

Shibagaki, 2013, and many others). In a resultative construction (henceforth, RC), secon-

dary predicate indicates a certain state of result caused by the first predicate (i.e., a main

verb). From a cross-linguistic perspective, secondary predicate of an RC is typically ex-

pressed as a bare adjective phrase, as shown in (1) (hereafter, secondary predicate in bold):

(1) Transitive Resultative Construction (English)

a. John hammered the metal flat.

b. John wiped the desk clean.

mailto:[email protected]

https://doi.org/10.33638/JHS.51.2

40 Jongil Kwon

(2) Transitive Resultative Construction (Korean)1

a. Chelswu-ka kumsok-ul napccakha-key twutulki-ess-ta.

C-NOM metal-ACC flat-KEY pound-PST-DEC

‘Chelswu hammered the metal so that it became flat.’

b. Chelswu-ka chayksang-ul kkaykkusha-key takk-ass-ta.

C-NOM desk-ACC clean-KEY wipe-PST-DEC

‘Chelswu wiped the desk so that it became clean.’

The RCs in (1) and (2) are generally classified as a transitive RC since they have a tran-

sitive main verb. Note that compared with English ones, Korean RCs in (2) typically in-

clude the suffix –key.2

The syntactic status of secondary predicate (i.e., the [AP-key]) appearing in Korean

RCs has been a vicious conundrum in the literature. Wechsler & Noh (2001) and Ko

(2015), for instance, claim that Korean secondary predicate is on a par with English coun-

terpart, and thus can be treated as a small clause. In this approach, forming a syntactic

unit together with the direct object of a main verb, secondary predicate is regarded as un-

saturated (or object-controlled). That is to say, it does not carry any independent argu-

ment within its syntactic domain. Instead, the direct object selected by a main verb plays

1. In addition to the [AP-key] construction, Korean shows a different type of RC; namely, the postpositional phrase [DP-lo], as shown in (i):

(i) Chelswu-ka okswuswu-lul kalu-lo ppah-ass-ta. Chelswu-NOM corn-ACC powder-LO pound-PST-DEC ‘Chelswu pounded the corns into power.’ In (i), the resultative phrase kalu-lo ‘into powder’ predicates of a changed state resulted from the action of the

main verb. However, this paper does not take this type of RC into consideration. 2. The exact morpho-syntactic nature of the marker –key is still controversial in the literature. Kim (1999), in

particular, treated it as a (secondary) predicator whereas Wechsler & Noh (2001) analyzed it as just a complementizer. Recently, Ko (2015) notated it as a relator by adopting den Dikken (2006)'s view that small clause is uniformly expressed as a bare adjective phrase containing a null subject (i.e., PRO). In general, along with the suffix -(h)i, the suffix –key is regarded as an adverbial marker, which is morphologically attached into an adjectival stem (e.g., alumdap-key 'beautifully,' noph-key 'highly,' pwutulep-key 'smoothly,' etc.). In this paper, I will notate it as –KEY.

41A Resultative Adverbial Approach to Korean Resultative Constructions

a logical subject for it (Li, 1999; Wechsler & Noh, 2001; Song, 2005; Yeo, 2006, inter

alia).

On the other hand, Shim & den Dikken (2007) and Lee (2016) claim that the Korean

RCs in (2) can be treated as an adjunct. In pursuing a unified theory of Korean RCs, they

claim that unlike English ones, Korean RCs are fully saturated, and hence all the secon-

dary predicates in (2) include an implicit local subject (i.e., pro) in their clausal domain

(i.e., TP). To put it differently, Korean does not adopt a small clause-based structure for

the RC; rather, it is an adjunct clause carrying pro in its local argument position.

In this paper, I assume that the RCs in (3) are radically distinct from the ones in (2) in

certain respects:

(3) a. Chelswu-ka kumsok-ul/-i napccakha-eci-key

C-NOM metal-ACC/-NOM flat-ASP-KEY

twutulki-ess-ta.

pound-PST-DEC


b. Chelswu-ka chayksang-ul/-i kkaykkusha-eci-key

C-NOM desk-ACC/-NOM clean-ASP-KEY

takk-ass-ta.

wipe-PST-DEC


Unlike the latter, the former includes the aspectual marker –eci and is very sensitive to

certain semantic restrictions that are commonly observed in English RCs. Based on the

difference between (2) and (3), I propose that only the RC in (3) is a true type of RC. The

presence of an aspectual marker –eci seems to be crucial to determine whether the RC is a

true type or not. In contrast, I will treat the RC in (2) as a pseudo type of RC. Especially,

I will argue that the secondary predicate in (2) can be classified as a resultative adverb in

42 Jongil Kwon

the sense that it includes an independent local subject.3

Against the major view that Korean RC is a small clause containing a null subject, in

this paper, I will provide a resultative adverbial analysis on the RC type given in (2).

Meanwhile, I focus on three grammatical issues: (i) how Korean RCs are distinct from

English ones, (ii) how they take their semantic subject, and (iii) whether or not they are al-

ways analyzed as a resultative adverb.

This paper is organized as follows. Chapter 2 deals with a variety of differences be-

tween English and Korean RCs. It will be shown that the existing analyses are not proper

to capture the diverse syntactic or semantic properties of Korean RCs. Chapter 3 is my

proposal. It will be argued that some of Korean RCs (but not all) can be analyzed as a re-

sultative adverb, and that a resultative adverbial analysis stands on the basis of empirical

evidence. Chapter 4 is conclusion.

II. English vs. Korean Resultative Constructions

An RC usually includes a secondary predicate which describes a changed state resulted

from the action triggered by the first predicate (i.e., a main verb). In the literature, de-

pending on the syntactic relation between secondary predicate and its logical subject, RCs

has been classified into three subtypes: transitive, unaccusative, and unergative RCs

(Simpson, 1983; Kim & Maling, 1997; Kim, 1999, and many others). In general, English

RCs are subject to the Direct Object Restriction (DOR) effect, whereby the logical subject

of an RC must be identical with the direct object selected by a main verb. Among the

three types of RCs, a transitive RC always occurs in the sentence including the direct ob-

ject subcategorized by a transitive main verb. The transitive RC is often called an

‘unsaturated’ or ‘object-controlled’ resultative since the direct object is associated with the

null subject (i.e., PRO) of small clause, as already mentioned in the previous chapter.

3. A resultative adverb refers to an unusual type of adverb which can take an implicit argument individually cre-ated by the event of a main verb (Geuder, 2000; Levinson, 2010).


On the other hand, the other two types of RCs are all connected with intransitive main

verbs: unaccusative and unergative verbs. The unaccusative RC, which is often called a

‘subject-controlled’ RC, is derived by the unaccusative intransitive verb, as shown in (4):

(4) Unaccusative Resultative Construction (English)

a. The pond froze solid.

b. The bread burned black.

(5) Unaccusative Resultative Construction (Korean)

a. Yenmos-i tantanha-key el-ess-ta.

pond-NOM solid-KEY freeze-PST-DEC

‘The pond froze so that it became solid.’

b. PPang-i kkamah-key ta-ss-ta.

bread-NOM black-KEY burn-PST-DEC

‘The bread burned so that it became black.’

In the unaccusative RC (4a), something (not appear in the actual sentence) causes the

pond to be solid by the result of freezing. The secondary predicate solid reflects a change

of state that results from the event denoted by the main verb freeze. At first glance, this

type of RC is not subject to the DOR that is critical to define English RCs. According to

Chomsky (1995), however, the subject of an unaccusative verbal construction is a final

syntactic outcome derived from its theta role (i.e. a direct object) position to accomplish

its morphological requirement (i.e. nominative case). In other words, the subject of the

unaccusative RC (4a) is syntactically derived from its direct object position, and thus the

matrix subject and the null subject of secondary predicate together form a semantic unit

in their base-generative positions. This argumentation strongly indicates that the un-

accusative RC as well as the transitive RC is sensitive to the DOR in the way that they

share the same structure in the earlier linearization of narrow syntax.

44 Jongil Kwon

The semantic relationship between direct object and secondary predicate in the tran-

sitive and unaccusative RCs has been an important tool to support the ‘small clause’ anal-

ysis, in which secondary predicate of RC is a bare AP carrying a null subject (Simpson,

1983; Carrier & Randall, 1992; Levin & Rappaport Hovav, 1995, inter alia). Following

Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995), a majority of studies have incessantly suggested that

the syntactic structure of Korean RCs is substantially parallel to the English counterpart

(Kim & Maling, 1997; Kim, 1999; Wechsler & Noh, 2001; Song, 2005; Yeo, 2006; Lee,

2009; Ko, 2015, and many others). Under this null subject approach, an RC is a mini-

mum clause in the sense that it consists of a null subject and a predicate, but cannot carry

any verbal inflections, modifiers, or internal arguments that are usually found in the fully

projected clause (i.e., TP or CP). The ‘unsaturated’ relationship between secondary predi-

cate and its logical subject is syntactically realized as PRO, as roughly illustrated in (6) (cf.

Ko, 2015, p.357):4

(6) A Small Clause Analysis of (2a)

... VP

DP V’

chayksangi-ul ‘desk-ACC’ PredP (=SC) V

PROi Pred’

AP Pred

kkaykkusha ‘clean’ -key

4. Since the categorial nature of –key, which introduces a resultative predicate, is still controversial among Korean linguists, I will gloss it just as ‘Pred’ in the sense of Kim (1999).


In (6), the PredP (i.e., [AP-key]) is a small clause including PRO and kkaykkusha

‘clean.’

Another noticeable feature with regard to the structure (6) is about the syntactic rela-

tionship between the main verb and the secondary predicate. In (6), the PredP is a com-

plement of the main verb, not an adjunct. The dispute on whether it is a complement or

an adjunct, in fact, has been another issue among Korean linguists. Kim & Maling (1997),

Kim (1999), and Lee (2016) claim that Korean resultatives can be uniformly treated as

complementation. Song (2005), Yeo (2006), and Ko (2015) are stick to a hybrid analysis

in which some of Korean RCs can be alternatively analyzed as an adjunct. Interestingly,

Shim & den Dikken (2007) attempts to argue that Korean RCs can be uniformly charac-

terized as an adjunct. The controversy over complementation vs. adjunction is heavily re-

lied on whether or not to accept the basic assumption that Korean RCs are on a par with

English ones syntactically and semantically.

The unergative RC has fueled an argument over the small clause analysis. It is note-

worthy that the English RC in (7) introduces the ‘fake’ direct object, which is not sub-

categorized by the main verb. In other words, despite the fact that there is no direct the-

matic connection between the unergative main verb and its direct object, the unergative

RC requires the ‘fake object’ (e.g. himself or his shoes) in order to satisfy the DOR. It is

clear that a fake object plays a controller role of the following resultative predicate

(Simpson, 1983; Levin & Rappaport Hovav, 1995). This is exactly why the unergative RC

is often called an ‘unselected’ resultative in the literature (Wechsler & Noh, 2001; Son,

2008; Lee 2009, and many others.).

It is noticeable that there is a significant discrepancy between English and Korean un-

ergative RCs. While English one requires a fake object to satisfy a legitimate structure

(i.e., the DOR), Korean unergative RC is totally free from such morpho-syntactic

constraint. In Korean, secondary predicate of the unergative RC is regarded as a fully

‘saturated’ clause in that it carries a non-null subject in its external argument position, as

exemplified in (8):

46 Jongil Kwon

(7) Unergative Resultative Construction (English)

a. John cried *(himself) hoarse.

b. John ran *(his shoes) threadbare.

(8) Unergative Resultative Construction (Korean)

a. Chelswu-ka mok-i/*-ul swi-key solichi-ess-ta.

C-NOM throat-NOM/-ACC hoarse-KEY shout-PST-DEC

‘Chelswu shouted so (loud) that his throat became hoarse.’

b. Chelswu-ka sinpal-i/*-ul talh-key talii-ess-ta.

C-NOM shoes-NOM/-ACC threadbare-KEY run-PST-DEC

‘Chelswu ran away so that his shoes became threadbare.’

The availability of the nominative case-marked subject in (8) strongly indicates that

some of Korean resultatives can be radically different from English resultatives. Wechsler

& Noh (2001), in particular, argues that unlike English one, Korean unergative RC does

not hire the ECM mechanism since the logical subject of secondary predicate is directly

assigned both case and a thematic role by the secondary predicate. In this regard, adopt-

ing a split analysis of RCs, Lee (2009) suggests that in Korean, the unergative RC needs to

be separately treated from the other types of RCs (i.e., the transitive and unaccusative

RCs).

On the other hand, Shim & den Dikken (2007) claims that Korean RC always takes a

‘fully saturated’ secondary predicate. Against the major view that Korean RC is a small

clause-based complement, they argue that in Korean, every RC has an adjunct structure

projected to a TP in a uniform way. Under their adjunction-based analysis, secondary

predicate is an adjunct clause, which is adjoined to vP (or VP) in the matrix clause. For ex-

ample, the secondary predicate in (8a) includes pro co-indexed with the matrix subject.

Note that the pro forms a constituent (i.e., DP) together with the subject DP mok ‘throat’

in the so-called ‘inalienable (possessor-possessee)’ relation, as roughly illustrated in (9) (cf.

Shim & den Dikken, 2007, p.7):


(9) An Adjunct Analysis of (8a)

... vP

TP (resultative) vP

[DP proi mok]-i swi-key DP v’

‘throat-NOM hoarse’ Chelswui–ka ‘C-NOM’ VP v

solichi- ‘shout’

In (9), the nominative case appearing in the RC is an outcome of TP. Also, the pro is a

possessor of the local subject mok-i ‘throat-NOM.’ This structure is very different from

what we have seen in (6) postulating the null subject (i.e., PRO).

The across-the-board style of analysis suggested by Shim & den Dikken (2007), how-

ever, cannot capture all the diverse syntactic and semantic properties of Korean RCs.

Above all, given the assumption that an RC is a TP adjunct, it is quite predicable that sec-

ondary predicate can accompany with a tense marker such as the present or past verbal in-

flection (e.g., -(nu)n or –a/ess). Unfortunately, this is not borne out, as demonstrated in

(10a):

(10) a.*Chelswui-ka [TP proi mok-i swi-ass-key]

C-NOM throat-NOM hoarse-PST-KEY

solichi-ess-ta.

shout-PST-DEC

‘(Int) Chelswu shouted his throat hoarse.’

b.?*Chelswu-ka kumsoki-ul [TP kukesi-i napccakha-key]

C-NOM metal-ACC it-NOM flat-KEY

twutulki-ess-ta.

pound-PST-DEC

‘(Int) Chelswu hammered the metal flat.’

48 Jongil Kwon

Furthermore, provided that pro as an implicit subject can be freely substituted for by

an overt pronoun, we cannot account for the ungrammaticality of (10b) where pro is re-

placed by the pronominal kukes ‘it.’

In sum, we have attested in this chapter that there are at least three types of RCs in

English and Korean. While English ones take a uniform structure for secondary predicate

(i.e., small clause carrying a null subject), Korean RCs are not likely to be analyzed in a

uniform way. This is mainly due to the fact that the unergative RC in Korean can have a

fully saturated structure, and thus it is definitely distinct from the English ECM-like

structure.

III. Proposal and Consequences

1. Semantics of Korean Resultative Constructions

It has been commonly observed in the literature that there are certain semantic differ-

ences between English and Korean RCs (Shim & den Dikken, 2007; Son, 2008; Lee,

2016, and many others). First of all, English RCs are very sensitive to the so-called

‘Aktionsart’ effect such as telicity (Simpson, 1983; Levin & Rappaport Hovav, 1995).

Provided that an RC expresses a state of change resulted from the action of a main verb, a

changed state described in the RC presupposes an end point of the event (i.e., accomplish-

ment of action). For example, the English verb hammer, usually brings with either the

durative adverbial for two hours or the accomplishment adverbial in two hours, and thus

(11a) can be interpreted as either atelic or telic. (11b), however, permits only a telic read-

ing since secondary resultative predicate is usually restricted to the telicity effect in

English. This telicity effect, on the contrary, disappears in the Korean RC in (12), which is

ambiguous:


(11) a. John hammered the metal for two hours/

in two hours. (atelic or telic)

b. John hammered the metal flat (*for two hours)/

in two hours. (telic only)

(12) Chelswu-ka (twu sikan tongan)/(twu sikan maney)

C-NOM two hour during/ two hour in

kumsok-ul napccakha-key twutulki-ess-ta.

metal-ACC flat-KEY pound-PST-DEC

‘Chelswu hammered the metal flat for two hours/in two

hours.’ (atelic or telic)

Note that the telicity effect is found in the Korean RC (14) where the aspectual suffix

–e/aci is attached to the secondary predicate. In Korean, the aspectual suffix –e/aci is typi-

cally used as a passive marker for action verbs (e.g., kkay-ta ‘break’ vs. kkay-eci-ta

‘become broken’). When it accompanies with stative verbs or adjectives, it is regarded as

an inchoative marker indicating a change of state. Ironically, English inchoative verbs

such as flatted or cleaned do not appear in the RC, as shown in (13):

(13) a. John hammered the metal flat/(*flatted)

b. John wiped the desk clean/(*cleaned)

(14) Chelswu-ka (*twu sikan tongan)/(twu sikan maney)

C-NOM two hour during/ two hour in

kumsok-ul napccakha-eci-key twutulki-ess-ta.

metal-ACC flat-KEY pound-PST-DEC

‘Chelswu hammered the metal in two hours so that it

became flat.’ (telic only)

50 Jongil Kwon

In terms of the telicity effect, the Korean RC in (14) containing the inchoative marker

–e/aci are exactly in line with the English one in (11b), which does not allow any in-

choative verbal form. Although there is some chiastic morphological relationship between

English and Korean RCs, the telicity restriction leads us to assume that the RC in (14) is

a true type of RC in Korean, but not the one in (12).

Another semantic difference between English and Korean RCs provides a strong evi-

dence in favor of the assumption that the RC in (14) is substantially the counterpart of the

English RC (11b). It has been often suggested in the literature that there is a strong se-

mantic connection between the first predicate (i.e., a main verb) and the secondary predi-

cate in the RC (Washio, 1997; Lee, 2016, inter alia). In English, for example, the main

verb wipe in (15b) directly entails the result denoted by the secondary predicate clean.

This semantic accordance between two predicates is also captured in (16b). However,

(16a) is relatively free from such semantic restriction, and thus it fits with the un-

predictable result denoted by the adjective telepta ‘dirty’:

(15) a. John hammered the metal flat/(*thick)

b. John wiped the desk clean/(*dirty)

(16) a. Chelswu-ka chayksang-ul kkaykkusha-key/telep-key

C-NOM desk-ACC clean-KEY/dirty-KEY

takk-ass-ta.

wipe-PST-DEC

‘(Lit) Chelswu wiped the desk clean/badly.’

b. *Chelswu-ka chayksang-ul telep(w)-eci-key

C-NOM desk-ACC dirty-ASP-KEY

takk-ass-ta.

wipe-PST-DEC



This implies that only the RC including the aspectual marker –eci is regarded as a true

type of RC with regard to semantic restrictions.

In sum, we have discussed a couple of semantic properties in Korean RC, which is

sharply distinct from English one, A semantic approach to Korean RCs suggests that the

RC in (14) containing the inchoative marker –eci is a true counterpart of the English RC.

Meanwhile, the Korean RC in (12), which has been hitherto regarded as a null subject RC,

appears to be a pseudo type of resultative. In the next section, we will explore the nature

of a pseudo type of RC in detail.

2. Proposal: A Resultative Adverbial Analysis

In the previous section, we have seen that only the RC in (14) carrying the inchoative

suffix -eci is parallel to the English RC with respect to a couple of semantic agreement. In

this section, it will be argued that the [AP-key] construction in (12) is a resultative adverb

rather than a small clause. Also, this section provides a syntactic and semantic account for

how a simple adverb can take its semantic subject like a resultative predicate.

Geuder (2000) observed that a special type of English adverb describes something cre-

ated by the event denoted by a main verb, as given in (17) (cf. Geuder, 2000, pp.81-84):

(17) a. John decorated the room beautifully/(*beautiful).

(i) So, the decoration of the room is beautiful.

⇒ Resultant argument: beautiful decoration

(ii) #So, the room is beautiful.

b. John loaded the cart heavily/(*heavy).

(i) So, the load of the cart is heavy.

⇒ Resultant argument: heavy load

(ii) #So, the cart is heavy.

Unlike a manner adverb (e.g., slowly or quickly) describing how the action is con-

52 Jongil Kwon

ducted, the adverbs in (17) are very similar to the secondary predicate of English RC in

that they denote the changed state caused by the event of a main verb. The adverb beauti-

fully in (17a), so to say, does not describe the action of decorating, but the result state of

the decoration event. Geuder called this a ‘resultative adverb’ in the sense that it describes

something lexically hidden in the event of a main verb. Unlike secondary resultative pred-

icate whose semantic subject is always associated with the direct object (i.e., the DOR),

the resultative adverbs in (17) have their own implicit subjects that are contextually de-

termined by the semantics of a main verb. According to Geuder, the implicit subject can

be easily recovered by the so-called ‘result nominalization’ such as beautiful decoration or

heavy load, as demonstrated in (17). This explains exactly why in (17), the interpretation

(i) is much better than the one (ii).

Similarly, Levinson (2010) showed that although they are not semantically distinct

from the typical resultative adjectives, the adjectives in (18) do not semantically modify

the direct object. For instance, Mary’s hair does not become tight as a result of her braid-

ing; rather, what becomes tight is her braid implicitly created by braiding. Note that the

implicit argument of adjective (e.g., braid and pieces) is not overtly realized in the syntax,

but is pragmatically created from the event of a main verb, as shown in (18) (cf. Levinson,

2010, P.137):

(18) a. Mary braided her hair tight.

⇒ Her braid is tight. vs. #Her hair is tight.

b. Mary chopped the parsley fine.

⇒ The chopped pieces are fine. vs. #The parsley is fine.

Levinson claims that the adjectival construction in (18) is a ‘pseudo’ resultative in that

it modifies a covert argument contextually (or pragmatically) derived by the lexical en-

tailment of a main verb. The pseudo RC is not syntactically and semantically parallel with

the true RC, which always modifies the direct object (i.e., the DOR).5


Nakazawa (2012) argues that the semantic subject of an RC is not always identical

with the argument selected by the unaccusative verb in Japanese and Korean, as illus-

trated in (19) and (20) (cf. Nakazawa, 2012, p.598):

(19) a. Kawa-ga atu-ku koot-ta

river-NOM think-KU froze-DEC

‘(Lit) The river froze thick.’

b. Kang-i twukkep-key el-ess-ta

river-NOM thick-KEY freeze-PST-DEC


(20) a.?*Kangi-i [PROi twukkep-key] el-ess-ta.

river-NOM thick-KEY freeze-PST-DEC

‘(Int) #The river froze, so the river is thick.’

b. Kang-i [(elum-i) twukkep-key] el-ess-ta.

river-NOM ice-NOM thick-KEY freeze-PST-DEC

‘(Int) The river froze, so (the ice) became thick.’

In (19) and (20), the [AP-ku/-key] construction in Japanese and Korean is clearly dis-

tinct from the typical RC that we have seen in the previous chapter. Particularly, it does

not directly modify the subject of the unaccusative verb; rather, it modifies a contextually

created argument (i.e., ice), which is not phonetically realized in the sentence whatsoever.

What is noteworthy in (19) and (20) is that the previous analysis based on the null subject

structure cannot capture the semantic disagreement expressed in (20b).6 Furthermore,

5. Levinson (2010) claims that the pseudo RC is not semantically identical with the resultative adverb suggested in Geuder (2000). The semantic criteria to distinguish them suggested by her are more or less unclear. In this paper, I will treat both resultative adverb and pseudo resultative as the same category.

6. Wechsler & Noh (2001, p.409) claims that the Korean word twukep-key ‘thick-KEY’ is not a resultative, but a manner adverb (i.e., ‘The river froze in a thick manner.’). This reading is acceptable, albeit marginally. But their analysis cannot still capture the reading in (20b).

54 Jongil Kwon

the [AP-key] twukkep-key ‘thick-key’ in (20b) cannot be analyzed as a manner adverb

since it can occur with its local subject (cf. Wechsler & Noh, 2001). According to Geuder

(2000) and Levinson (2010)’s analysis, the local argument (e.g., the ice in (20b)) is a sine

qua non in the resultative adverbial construction. Note that although it is semantically

created as an entailment of a main verb, the local subject can vary depending on the prag-

matic environments where the event happens.

Adopting their insightful findings, I propose that some of Korean RCs (i.e., the

[AP-key] construction in (2) and (5)) can be analyzed as a resultative adverb, but not a

true type of RC. This resultative adverb is unusual in that it can introduce its own subject

to form a resultative predicate (i.e. a fully saturated clause). To put it differently, against

the small clause-based analysis in which secondary predicate always carry a null subject, I

suggest that the [AP-key] construction is a resultative adverb, and that it is a fully satu-

rated phrase containing an implicit subject. Moreover, the local subject can be realized as

an explicit form, as seen in (20b). The following structure (21) represents a resultative ad-

verb construction for the unaccusative RC in (19b) and (20b):

(21) An Resultative Adverb Analysis of (19b) and (20b)

... VP

DP V’

kang-i ‘river-NOM’ AdvP (resultative adverb) V’

(ei or elumi-i ‘ice-NOM’) Adv’ V

AP Adv el- ‘freeze’

twukkep ‘thick’ -key


Note that the resultative adverb in (21) is an adjunct of the main verb, and has its in-

dividual subject, independent from the matrix arguments (i.e., direct object and subject)

selected by the main verb. I assume that the subject of a resultative adverb can be either

implicitly or explicitly realized, and is assigned nominative case as a default case (cf. Jang

& Kim, 2001).

3. Consequences

There is some empirical evidence supporting the resultative adverb analysis of Korean

[AP-key] constructions. First of all, depending on various pragmatic considerations, di-

verse local subjects can be showed up in the resultative adverb constructions, as exempli-

fied in (22):

(22) a. Chelswu-ka kumsok-ul (kuth-i/moseli-ka)

C-NOM metal-ACC end-NOM/corner-NOM

napccakha-key twutulki-ess-ta.

flat-KEY pound-PST-DEC

‘Chelswu hammered the metal so that its end/its corners

became flat.’

b. Chelswu-ka chayksang-ul (pyomyeon-i/kacangcali-ka)

C-NOM desk-ACC surface-NOM/edge-NOM

kkaykkusha-key takk-ass-ta.

clean-KEY wipe-PST-DEC

‘Chelswu wiped the desk so that its surface/its edge became clean.’

The local subject of the [AP-key] in (22) is totally unpredictable under the null subject

hypothesis demanding a small clause carrying PRO. However, under the resultative ad-

verb analysis, the implicit or explicit local subject of the resultative adverb can be man-

ifoldly determined by the pragmatic information created by the event of a main verb. The

examples in (22) also show that the local subject of a resultative adverb enters into the

56 Jongil Kwon

possessor-possessee relation with the controlled argument of the matrix clause.

Second, a coordination structure strongly supports that the [AP-key] in (23) is an

adverb. To be more concrete, given that coordination happens only when the two con-

joined constituents are identical with each other, the [AP-key] constructions in (23) are

conjoined with the typical manner adverbs such as ppalli ‘quickly’ or yelsimhi ‘diligently.’

Thus, they must be analyzed as an adverb but not an adjective:

(23) a. Kang-i [twukkep-key (kuliko) ppalli] el-ess-ta

river-NOM thick-KEY and quickly freeze-PST-DEC

‘(Lit) The river froze thick and quickly.’

b. Chelswu-ka chayksang-ul [kkaykkusha-key (kuliko)

C-NOM desk-ACC clean-KEY and

yelsimhi] takk-ass-ta.

diligently wipe-PST-DEC

‘(Lit) Chelswu wiped the desk clean and diligently.’

Third, as a resultative adverb, the [AP-key] in (24a) cannot be replaced by the typical

resultative adjunct clause –tolok ‘until.’ This implies that the [AP-key] construction in

(24a) is not a true type of RC. In contrast, note that the [AP-eci-key] in (24b) as a true

type of RC can be substituted for by the –tolok adjunct clause, as demonstrated in (24b):

(24) a. Chelswu-ka kumsok-ul (napccakha-key)/

C-NOM metal-ACC flat-KEY

(?*napccakha-tolok) twutulki-ess-ta.

flat-until pound-PST-DEC


b. Chelswu-ka kumsok-ul (napccakha-eci-key)/

C-NOM metal-ACC flat-ASP-KEY


(napccakha-eci-tolok) twutulki-ess-ta.

flat-ASP-until pound-PST-DEC

‘Chelswu hammered the metal so that/until it became flat.’

Fourth, in Korean, the topic maker –(n)un or the delimiter –man ‘even/only’ is usually

attached into adverbs but not adjectives (Lee, 2016). In this regard, the [AP-key] con-

structions in (25) must be counted as an adverb, as given in (25):

(25) a. Kang-i [twukkep-key-nun/-man] el-ess-ta

river-NOM thick-KEY-TOP/-DEL freeze-PST-DEC


b. Chelswu-ka chayksang-ul [kkaykkusha-key-nun/-man]

C-NOM desk-ACC clean-KEY-TOP/-DEL

takk-ass-ta.

wipe-PST-DEC

‘(Lit) Chelswu wiped the desk clean.’

Fifth, a resultative adverb occurs in the syntactically designated position for adverbs,

as given in (26):

(26) a. [[kkaykkusha-key/kkaykkushi] dakk-un] chayksang

clean-KEY/cleanly wipe-ADN desk

‘the cleanly wiped desk’

b. [[tantanha-key/tantanhi] e(l-u)n] kang

solid-KEY/solidly freeze-ADN river

‘the solidly frozen river’

Note that the resultative adverbs in (26) can be freely alternated with the manner ad-

verbs (e.g., kkaykkushi ‘cleanly’ or tantanhi ‘solidly’).

58 Jongil Kwon

Sixth, scrambling provides empirical evidence for the assumption that the [AP-key]

construction is an adjunct, but not a complement. The [AP-key] construction in (27) is

subject to the so-called ‘adjunct island effect,’ whereby nothing can be extracted from the

adjunct domain. The local subject of the resultative adverb cannot undergo scrambling,

as demonstrated in (27b):

(27) a. Chelswu-ka chayksang-ul [ pyomyeon-i

C-NOM desk-ACC surface-NOM

kkaykkusha-key] takk-ass-ta.


‘Chelswu wiped the desk so that its surface/its edge became clean.’

b.*[pyomyeon-i]k Chelswu-ka chayksang-ul [ [pyomyeon-i]k

surface-NOM C-NOM desk-ACC

kkaykkusha-key] takk-ass-ta.


Finally, Haider (2016) provides a number of cross-linguistic counterexamples against

the null subject analysis of resultatives. The syntactic distribution of English RCs, for in-

stance, is completely parallel to the one of the typical verbal particle, as illustrated in (28)

(modified from Haider (2016, p.7)):

(28) a. She threw open the lid (open) dramatically.

b. Cut open the chilies (open) and remove the seeds.

c. He will set free the oppressed (free).

d. They cut loose the craft (loose).

Like English verbal particles (e.g., up or off), the resultative predicates can undergo

‘pied-piping’ in (28). This pied-piping phenomenon rules out the null subject analysis

since small clause cannot intervene between the main verb and the direct object (e.g.,


*John consider smart his brother.). If English RCs are not treated as a small clause, then

Korean RCs need not to be analyzed as a null subject construction.

In sum, it has been discussed in this section that the [AP-key] construction in Korean

can be analyzed as a resultative adverb rather than a null subject construction. A number

of evidences have been provided here in favor of the resultative adverb analysis. In the

next section, we will consider whether or not the unergative RC is a resultative adverb

from a pure semantic perspective.

4. Further Remarks on Korean RCs: Unergative RCs

Kim (1999), Yeo (2006), and Son (2008) claim that the unergative RC, as seen in (8),

is radically different from the transitive or unaccusative RCs in Korean. In particular,

while the latter requires its resultative predicate to be stative, the former demands even-

tive predicates. Note that the eventive predicates cannot occur with the inchoative suffix

–eci, as shown in (29):

(29) a. Chelswu-ka mok-i swi-(*-eci)-key solichi-ess-ta.

C-NOM throat-NOM hoarse-ASP-KEY shout-PST-DEC

‘Chelswu shouted so (loud) that his throat became hoarse.’

b. Chelswu-ka sinpal-i talh(*-eci)-key talli-ess-ta.

C-NOM shoes-NOM threadbare-KEY run-PST-DEC

‘Chelswu ran away so that his shoes became threadbare.’

In this paper, I assumed that the aspectual marker –eci is a sine qua non for a true type

of RC in Korean. In addition, as in (29), the –eci can be used as a diagnostic to distinguish

stative predicates from eventive predicates. To be more concrete, only canonical stative

predicates can combine with the aspectual marker –eci to be eventive, as seen in (3).

However, the inherent eventive predicates in (29) do not need such an additional eventive

marker. In other words, secondary predicates in the unergative RC are inherently even-

60 Jongil Kwon

tive, and cannot be regarded as the same predicates appearing in the transitive or un-

accusative RCs. This suggests that the [AP-key] constructions in (29) cannot be treated as

a resultative adverb.

In sum, it is quite probable that considering the semantic differences between stative

and eventive predicates, every [AP-key] construction cannot be analyzed as a uniform

phenomenon. At least, stative predicates appearing in the transitive or unaccusative RCs

are considered as a resultative adverb. The eventive predicates in (29) implies that there is

another type of RC in Korean from a pure semantic perspective.

IV. Conclusion

In this paper, I have presented a resultative adverbial analysis of Korean RCs (i.e., the

[AP-key] constructions). We have seen that some of Korean RCs are not parallel to

English ones in certain syntactic and semantic respects. Based on the morpho-syntactic

and semantic differences between English and Korean RCs, I suggested that Korean RCs

that have been typically classified into transitive (object controlled) or unaccusative

(subject controlled) resultatives can be analyzed as a resultative adverb depending on the

absence of the inchoative marker –eci. A resultative adverb is a pseudo type of RC that

does not accompany with the aspectual marker –eci, and is not sensitive to several seman-

tic restrictions that are generally attested in the true type of RC in English and Korean. In

addition, against the major assumption that every RC has a null subject (i.e., PRO) con-

trolled by the direct object selected by a main verb, I proposed that a resultative adverb

can take its independent semantic subject, which can be realized either implicitly or

explicitly.

In conclusion, this paper stands against the assumption that the [AP-key] construction

in Korean is identical with the English RC commonly regarded as a small clause in the

literature. Some empirical evidence supports our suggestion that some of the [AP-key]

constructions in Korean can be analyzed as a resultative adverb. That is to say, Korean

RCs are not a uniform semantic phenomenon.


References

Carrier, J. & J. H. Randall. (1992). The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives.

Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 173-234.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusettes: MIT Press.

Dikken, M. den. (2006). Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and

Copulars. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 47. Cambridge, Massachusettes: MIT Press.

Geuder, W. (2000). Oriented Adverbs: Issues in the Lexical Semantics of Event Adverbs. Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation. University of Tübingen.

Haider, H. (2016). On predicting resultative adjective constructions. Unpublished Manuscript,

Department of Linguistics & Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience. University of Salzburg: Salzburg,

1-20.

Jang, Y. & S. Kim. (2001). Secondary predication and default case. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 26,

113-126.

Kim, J. (1999). Constraints on the formation of Korean and English resultatives. Proceedings of North

East Linguistics Society, 29, 137-151.

Kim, S. & J. Maling. (1997). A cross-linguistic perspective on resultative formation. Texas Linguistic

Forum: The Syntax and Semantics of Predicate, 38, 189-204.

Ko, H. (2015). On the typology of small clauses: null subject and mode of merge in resultatives. Studies

in Generative Grammar, 25(2), 347-375.

Lee, J. (2016). Toward a unified account of resultative constructions in Korean. Proceedings of Pacific

Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 30, 501-510.

Lee, S. (2009). A Causation-based approach to resultative. Studies in Modern Grammar, 55, 119-140.

Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface.

Cambridge, Massachusettes: MIT Press.

Levinson, L. (2010). Arguments for pseudo-resultative predicates. Natural Languages & Linguistic

Theory, 28, 135-182.

Nakazawa, T. (2012). On interpretation of resultative phrases in Japanese. Proceedings of the 26th

Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 592-601.

Shibagaki, R. (2013). Analysing Secondary Predication in East Asian Languages. Newcastle: Cambridge

Scholars Publishing.

Shim, J. & M. den Dikken. (2007). The tense of resultatives: the case of Korean. Unpublished

Manuscript, Linguistics Program, CUNY: New York, 1-22.

Simpson, J. (1983). Resultatives. Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, Bloomington, Indiana:

Indiana University Linguistics Club, 143-157.

Son, M. (2008). Korean resultatives revisited: complementation versus adjunction. Tromsø Working

Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd, 35, 89-113.

Song, H. (2005). Causatives and Resultatives in Korean. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University

of Wisconsin-Madison.

Yeo, S. (2006). Some notes on resultatives in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar, 16(4), 687-706.

Wechsler, S. & B. Noh. (2001). On resultative predicates and clauses.: parallels between Korean and

English. Language Sciences, 23, 391-423.

Washio, R. (1997). Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of East Asian

Linguistics, 6, 1-49.

Received: December 31, 2019; Revised: February 6, 2020; Accepted: February 10, 2020

a resultative adverbial approach to korean resultative … · 2020-02-28 · a resultative...

Documents