SHERP

Coerced Relative Clauses in Korean

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 0 time in scopus
Authors
Yeom, Jae-Il
Issue Date
2017
Publisher
Language Education Research Center, Seoul National University
Citation
Language Research, Vol.53 No.2, pp. 287-320
Keywords
coerced relative clausetype mismatchGenerative Lexiconqualia structure
Description
In this paper, I use the following abbreviations: acc(usative case), (imperfective) adni(ominal), (modal) adnm (ominal ending), (perfective) adnp(ominal ending), c(o)mp(lementizer), dec(larative mood), imp(er)f(ective as- pect), n(or)m(ina)l(izer), nom(inativecase), p(a)st, pl(ural), top(ic).
The morpheme nun occurs with an eventive verb and expresses imperfectiveness of the event it denotes. If (u)n is used with an eventive verb, it expresses the perfectiveness of the event that the verb denotes. But it can occur with a stative verb with no meaning of perfectiveness. In addition to the two, the adnominal ending -(u)l often expresses a modal meaning, but there are cases it does not have any meaning of modality: e.g. … (u)l ttay ‘when …’.
Abstract
In this paper, I define a coerced relative clause (= CRC) as an adnominal clause which denotes a property of situations that is converted to a property of things when the clause combines with a head noun that denotes a property of things. The property of situations is always determined by the topmost clause of the CRC. This definition makes the range of CRCs clear, compared with previous analyses, but it makes the range wider than previous analyses of the constructions. In filling the missing links between a property of situations and a property of things, I adopt the Generative Lexicon (= GL) Theory. I show that the analysis of CRCs should be pragmatic and the ways of interpreting CRCs are diverse, on the one hand, but that it should be restricted systematically by the meaning specifications of expressions in the GL, on the other. I also show that the GL Theory, in the current form of the Theory, is not sufficient to fill in all missing meaning components necessary in interpreting CRCs. In this respect, we need a more flexible tool than the GL Theory, or extend the GL Theory so that additional meaning components can be included in the meaning specifications of expressions.
ISSN
0254-4474
Language
English
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10371/135158
Files in This Item:
Appears in Collections:
Language Education Institute (언어교육원)Language Research (어학연구)Language Research (어학연구) Volume 53 Number 1/3 (2017)
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse