Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 21:2 (2020) ► pp.351–374

Light verb ellipsis constructions in Korean

 | Chung-Ang University
Drawing on the fact that the light verb ha- ‘do’ in Korean may or may not be elided in negative sentences, I offer a syntactic analysis for the light verb ellipsis in which the various types of light verbs belong to distinct heads, such as v, Appl, and Voice. Hierarchically, they occupy different syntactic positions. Thus, the light verb ellipsis ascribes itself to a syntactic hierarchy. The ellipsis behavior of various types of the light verb distinguishes them in a way that implicates structure, not other factors, such as semantics. The syntactic analysis put forth here constitutes substantive evidence supporting the configurational theory of argument structures in which different theta roles can be mapped into various syntactic positions.
Keywords: light verb ellipsis, agent, experiencer, Applicative, Voice, Korean
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Light verb constructions
    • 2.2Distributed Morphology
    • 2.3Argument-introducing heads and theta-roles
  • 3.Light verb ellipsis
  • 4.Different types of light verb ha- and distinct verbal heads
    • 4.1Root ha-
    • 4.2Agentive and Stative ha-
    • 4.3Actional Experiential ha-
    • 4.4Stacking ha-
    • 4.5Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion: Theoretical implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 2 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00064.yim
References (33)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Iordăchioaia, Gianina. 2014. The psych causative alternation. Lingua 1481. 53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arad, Maya. 1998. Psych-notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 101. 203–223. ([URL]) (Accessed 2019-09-10.)
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Choi, Tay-Yeng. 1973. ‘-Ehata’uy pemcwu [The category of -Ehata ]. Hankwukenemwunhak [Studies of Korean Language and Literature] 101. 217–230.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Micheal (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–50. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2015. The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1). 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2005. Consuming results in Italian and English: Flavors of v . In Slabakova, Roumyana & Kempchinsky, Paula Marie (eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2). 197–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane & Mester, Armin. 1988. Light verbs and θ-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19(2). 205–232.Google Scholar
Hale, L. Kenneth & Keyser, S. Jay (eds.). 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the piece of inflection. In Hale, L. Kenneth & Keyser, S. Jay (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye & Lee, Chungmin. 2007. On negative imperatives in Korean. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2). 373–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 1251. 34–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeong, Yeon-ju. 2010. ‘-E ha-’wa thonghaphanun kaykkwanhyengyongsauy uymi thukseng [Semantic characteristics of objective adjectives which are combined with -eo ha-]. Hankwuke Uymihak [Korean Semantics] 331. 297–319.Google Scholar
Jung, Hyun Kyoung. 2016. On the verbalizing suffixes in Korean and their implications for syntax and semantics. Lingua 1791. 97–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina. 2006. Unaccusatives with dative causers and experiencers: A unified account. In Hole, Daniel & Meinunger, André & Abraham, Werner (eds.), Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure, 271–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4). 770–780.Google Scholar
Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1988. Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding and movement. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Kim, Ilkyu. 2007. What makes negative imperatives so natural for Korean [psych-adjective +-e ha-] constructions? Proceedings of the 21th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation. Seoul: The Korean Society for Language and Information (KSLI). ([URL]) (Accessed 2019-10-28.)
Kim, Kyumin. 2011. High applicatives in Korean causatives and passives. Lingua 121(3). 487–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Young-Joo. 1990. The syntax and semantics of Korean Case: The interaction between lexical and syntactic levels of representation. Cambridge: Harvard University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Koh, Jae-sol. 1996. Tongsa ‘ha-’wa hyengyongsa ‘ha-’ [The verb ha- and the adjective ha-]. Journal of Korea Linguistics 331. 145–175.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33), 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Sangbok. 1979. Tongsa ‘malta’ey tayhaye [On the verb malta ]. Yenseyemwunhak [Yonsei Language and Literature] 121. 13–38.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Mchombo, Sam A. (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 11, 113–151. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis & Lee, Hikyoung & Siegel, Laura & Surek-Clark, Clarissa & Williams, Alexander (eds.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium 4(2). 201–225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Phases and the syntax of applicatives. In Kim, Min-Joo & Strauss, Uri (eds.), NELS 31: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 333–349. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2012. Two types of external argument licensing – the case of causers. Studia Linguistica 66(2). 128–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim & Marantz, Alec. 2017. The interpretation of external arguments. In D’Alessandro, Roberta & Franco, Irene & Gallego, Ángel J. (eds.), The verbal domain, 255–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar