Intentionality, scalar change, and non-culmination in Korean caused change-of-state predicates

John Beavers
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Linguistics, The University of Texas at Austin, 305 E. 23rd Street, Mail Code B5100, Austin, TX 78712, USA
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
and Juwon Lee
  • Department of English Education, Jeonju University, 303, Cheonjam-ro, Wansan-gu, Jeonju-si, Jeollabuk-do 55069, Republic of Korea
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar

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.

  • Anscombe, Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret. 2000. Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Arunachalam, Sudha & Anubha Kothari. 2011. An experimental study of Hindi and English perfective interpretation. Journal of South Asian Languages 4. 27–42.

  • 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.

  • Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 159–219.

  • Beavers, John. 2011a. An aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English. Journal of Semantics 28. 1–54.

  • Beavers, John. 2011b. On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 335–370.

  • 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.

  • Beavers, John. 2013. Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics 54. 681–706.

  • 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.

  • Beavers, John & Cala Zubair. 2013. Anticausatives in Sinhala: Involitivity and causer suppression. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 1–46.

  • Bratman, Michael E. 1987. Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • 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.

  • Condoravdi, Cleo & Sven Lauer. 2016. Anankastic conditionals are just conditionals. Semantics and Pragmatics 9. 1–61.

  • Croft, William. 1990. Possible verbs and the structure of meaning. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes, 48–73. London: Routledge.

  • 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.

  • Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.

  • Farkas, Donka. 1988. On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 27–58.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Grano, Thomas. 2017. The logic of intention reports. Journal of Semantics 34. 587–632.

  • 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.

  • Gyarmathy, Zsofia. 2015. Achievements, durativity, and scales. Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin.

  • 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.

  • Härtl, Holden. 2003. Conceptual and grammatical characteristics of argument alternations: The case of decausative verbs. Linguistics 41(5). 883–916.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Inman, Michael Vincent. 1993. Semantics and pragmatics of Colloquial Sinhala involitive verbs. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.

  • Jackendoff, Ray & Peter Culicover. 2003. The semantic basis of control in English. Language 79(3). 517–556.

  • Jacobs, Peter William. 2011. Control in Skwxwú7mesh. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia dissertation.

  • 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.

  • Kearns, Kate. 2007. Telic senses of deadjectival verbs. Lingua 117(1). 26–66.

  • 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.

  • 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/.

  • 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.

  • Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Anthony R. Davis. 2001. Sublexical modality and the structure of lexical semantic representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 24. 71–124.

  • Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Nuttannart Muansuwan. 2000. How to end without ever finishing: Thai semi-perfectivity. Journal of Semantics 17. 147–182.

  • Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27. 77–138.

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Building resultatives. In Claudia Maienborn & Angelika Wöllstein-Leisten (eds.), Event arguments: Functions and applications, 177–212. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

  • Landman, Fred. 1992. The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1. 1–32.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Lee, Juwon. 2015. An intention-based account of accomplishments in Korean. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin dissertation.

  • Lee, Juwon. 2016a. Intentionality and conative constructions in English. Studies in Linguistics 41. 327–356.

  • Lee, Juwon. 2016b. Some activity predicates as accomplishments. Language and Information 20. 117–143.

  • Lee, Yae-Sheik. 2004. Event headedness in the lexicon-syntax interface. Studies in Modern Grammar 36. 135–193.

  • Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Lewis, David. 1973. Causation. The Journal of Philosophy 70. 556–567.

  • Littlemore, Jeannette. 2015. Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Park, Ki-Seong. 1993. Korean causatives in role and reference grammar. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, State University of New York MA thesis.

  • 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.

  • Piñón, Christopher. 2014. Reconsidering defeasible causative verbs. Paper presented at Chronos 11, Pisa, Italy, 16–18 June.

  • Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 2003. The theta system - an overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 229–290.

  • Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Sharvit, Yael. 2003. Trying to be progressive: The extensionality of try. Journal of Semantics 20. 403–445.

  • 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.

  • Singh, Mona. 1998. On the semantics of the perfective aspect. Natural Language Semantics 6. 171–199.

  • Sinhababu, Neil. 2009. The Humean theory of motivation reformulated and defended. Philosophical Review 118. 465–500.

  • Sinhababu, Neil. 2013. The desire-belief account of intention explains everything. Noûs 47. 680–696.

  • Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • de Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 347–385.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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/.

  • Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantic interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2003. Event cancellation and telicity. In Michael McClure (ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 12, 388–399. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

  • 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.

  • Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66. 143–160.

  • Yeon, Jaehoon. 2015. Passives. In Lucien Brown & Jaehoon Yeon (eds.), The handbook of Korean linguistics, 116–136. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

  • 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.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Price including VAT
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


Journal + Issues

Linguistics publishes articles and book reviews in the traditional disciplines of linguistics as well as in neighboring disciplines insofar as these are deemed to be of interest to linguists and other students of natural language. The journal also features occasional Special Issues in these fields.

Search