| { |
| "paper_id": "Y07-1021", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:46:42.142440Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "What Makes Negative Imperative So Natural for Korean [psych-adjective +-e ha-] Constructions? *", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ilkyu", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kim", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Mohyeon", |
| "location": { |
| "postCode": "449-791", |
| "settlement": "Yongin, Gyeonggi", |
| "country": "South Korea" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "onefinedayjazz@hufs.ac.kr" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "Regarding Korean psych-adjectives and their-e ha-counterparts, e.i., [psychadjective +-e ha-] constructions, what is at issue is how to capture the semantic difference and similarity between the two. Concerning this issue, one of the most controversial and difficult problems is whether the psych-construction has Action (Agency) as part of its meaning. The purpose of this paper is to solve this problem by answering the question why psych-constructions are much more natural when they are used as negative imperative than when they are used as positive imperative. First, in order to figure out why positive imperative is not allowed, we show that-e ha-adds the meaning of non-volitional action to psych-adjectives, using Jackendoff's Conceptual Semantics. Secondly, in accounting for why negative imperative is so natural, we show, with Talmy's Force Dynamics theory, what the speaker requires from the hearer is internal volitional action.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "Y07-1021", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Regarding Korean psych-adjectives and their-e ha-counterparts, e.i., [psychadjective +-e ha-] constructions, what is at issue is how to capture the semantic difference and similarity between the two. Concerning this issue, one of the most controversial and difficult problems is whether the psych-construction has Action (Agency) as part of its meaning. The purpose of this paper is to solve this problem by answering the question why psych-constructions are much more natural when they are used as negative imperative than when they are used as positive imperative. First, in order to figure out why positive imperative is not allowed, we show that-e ha-adds the meaning of non-volitional action to psych-adjectives, using Jackendoff's Conceptual Semantics. Secondly, in accounting for why negative imperative is so natural, we show, with Talmy's Force Dynamics theory, what the speaker requires from the hearer is internal volitional action.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Korean psych-adjectives and their -e ha-counterparts, e.i., [psych-adjective + -e ha-] constructions (psych-constructions 1 ) have attracted many researchers with respect to their meaning (e.g. Hong, K-S 1991 , Kim, H-S 1989 , Kim, K-H 2003 , Kim, Y-J 1990 , Kim, S-J 1994 , Lee & Lee 2005 , Nam, S-H 2007 , Yeon, J-H 1996 . With most semanticists agreeing with the idea that the meanings of the two constructions are certainly different from each other, what is at issue is how to capture the difference and similarity between the two. Regarding this issue, one of the most controversial and difficult problems is whether the psych-construction has Action (Agency) as part of its meaning (Kim S-J 1994) .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 60, |
| "end": 86, |
| "text": "[psych-adjective + -e ha-]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 194, |
| "end": 208, |
| "text": "Hong, K-S 1991", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 209, |
| "end": 224, |
| "text": ", Kim, H-S 1989", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 225, |
| "end": 240, |
| "text": ", Kim, K-H 2003", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 241, |
| "end": 256, |
| "text": ", Kim, Y-J 1990", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 257, |
| "end": 272, |
| "text": ", Kim, S-J 1994", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 273, |
| "end": 289, |
| "text": ", Lee & Lee 2005", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 290, |
| "end": 305, |
| "text": ", Nam, S-H 2007", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 306, |
| "end": 322, |
| "text": ", Yeon, J-H 1996", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 689, |
| "end": 703, |
| "text": "(Kim S-J 1994)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The purpose of this paper is to solve this problem by answering the question why psychconstructions are much more natural when they are used as negative imperative than when they are used as positive imperative. In answering this question, first, we show that -e ha-adds the meaning of non-volitional action to psych-adjectives, thus making the whole construction a kind of action. This characteristic of the psych-construction and its difference from psych-adjectives are captured by Jackendoff's (1990 Jackendoff's ( , 2002a Jackendoff's ( , 2002b Jackendoff's ( , 2007 Conceptual Semantics, particularly its mechanism of distinguishing thematic-tier and macrorole tier. Then, we show, with Talmy's (1985 Talmy's ( , 2003 Force Dynamics theory, in the negative imperative of the psych-construction, what the speaker requires from the hearer is internal volitional action.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 485, |
| "end": 503, |
| "text": "Jackendoff's (1990", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 504, |
| "end": 526, |
| "text": "Jackendoff's ( , 2002a", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 527, |
| "end": 549, |
| "text": "Jackendoff's ( , 2002b", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 550, |
| "end": 571, |
| "text": "Jackendoff's ( , 2007", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 693, |
| "end": 706, |
| "text": "Talmy's (1985", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 707, |
| "end": 723, |
| "text": "Talmy's ( , 2003", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The content of the rest of the paper is like the following. In section 2, we will first introduce the concept of Action and Actor on which our analysis is based. Then, in section 3, we will analyze the meaning of psych-constructions, particularly the values they take for the features [VOLITION] and [ACTION] , in order to answer our first question: why is positive imperative for psych-constructions impossible or unnatural at least? In doing so, we will focus on the difference between the conceptual structure of psych-constructions and that of psych-adjectives, working under the framework of Jackendoff's (1990 , 2002a , 2002b Semantics. After that, in section 4, we will answer the second question which is, we believe, much more interesting: why is negative imperative for psych-constructions so natural? We will analyze negative imperative of psych-constructions with Talmy's (1985 Talmy's ( , 2003 force dynamics theory, showing that it can naturally account for why negative but not positive imperative is possible, or at least much more natural, for psych-constructions. In section 5, we support our argument by expanding the scope of predicates that go naturally along with only negative imperative and figuring out their semantic similarity with respect to the features [VOLITION] and [ACTION] . Finally, our conclusion will be given in section 6.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 285, |
| "end": 295, |
| "text": "[VOLITION]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 300, |
| "end": 308, |
| "text": "[ACTION]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 597, |
| "end": 615, |
| "text": "Jackendoff's (1990", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 616, |
| "end": 623, |
| "text": ", 2002a", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 624, |
| "end": 631, |
| "text": ", 2002b", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 876, |
| "end": 889, |
| "text": "Talmy's (1985", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 890, |
| "end": 906, |
| "text": "Talmy's ( , 2003", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1283, |
| "end": 1293, |
| "text": "[VOLITION]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1298, |
| "end": 1306, |
| "text": "[ACTION]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Following Culicover & Wilkins (1986) and Talmy (1985) , Jackendoff (1990:128) argues that \"conceptual roles fall into two tiers: a thematic tier dealing with motion and location, and an action tier dealing with Actor-Patient relations.\" 2 In addition, he adds two more conceptual roles, Experiencer and Stimuls, to the action tier and call it macrorole tier (Jackendoff 2002b ). Now, two conceptual functions are on the level of the macrorole tier: AFF and EXP, each of which takes as its arguments Actor and Patient, and Experiencer and Stimulus.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 10, |
| "end": 36, |
| "text": "Culicover & Wilkins (1986)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 41, |
| "end": 53, |
| "text": "Talmy (1985)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 56, |
| "end": 77, |
| "text": "Jackendoff (1990:128)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 358, |
| "end": 375, |
| "text": "(Jackendoff 2002b", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Action, Actor and Macrorole Tier", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "By postulating the macrorole tier, the traditional notion of Agent can be dissected into a number of independent parts. Jackendoff (1990:129) , for example, analyzes the sentence Bill rolled down the hil.l like the following.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 120, |
| "end": 141, |
| "text": "Jackendoff (1990:129)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Action, Actor and Macrorole Tier", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(1) Bill rolled down the hill. Then, how can we define Action, or the function AFF? Jackendoff (1990 Jackendoff ( , 2002a Jackendoff ( , 2002b Jackendoff ( , 2007 suggests the frame what X did was \u2026 as a means of testing whether a predicate is Action or not.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 84, |
| "end": 100, |
| "text": "Jackendoff (1990", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 101, |
| "end": 121, |
| "text": "Jackendoff ( , 2002a", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 122, |
| "end": 142, |
| "text": "Jackendoff ( , 2002b", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 143, |
| "end": 162, |
| "text": "Jackendoff ( , 2007", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Action, Actor and Macrorole Tier", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(2) a. The ball rolled to the wall. What the ball did was roll to the wall. (Jackendoff 2007:198) Thus, (2a-c) shows rolled, made, and entered are Actions and accordingly, the ball, the wind, and Bill are Actors, while the subjects and the predicates of (2d-f) cannot be Actors and Actions.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 76, |
| "end": 97, |
| "text": "(Jackendoff 2007:198)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Action, Actor and Macrorole Tier", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Jackendoff ( that man-of behavior-ACC sorry AUX-IMP 'Be sorry for his behavior.' (Kim S-J 1994:78) This is very different from other \"normal\" verbs which allow both positive and negative imperatives very naturally as in (5). The above examples show that psych-constructions cannot co-occur with various constructions that imply volitional action, thus do not have [+VOLITION] . In fact, however, there are some cases such as (7c) in which psych-constructions can be used as volitional action. 3 But these cases, as pointed out by Kim S-J (1994) , are not normal but either used in special contexts such as literary works or become natural by certain pragmatic factors. 4 Some (e.g. Kim K-H 2003 , Hong 1991 , Yeon 1996 argue psych-constructions have [+VOLITION] and it is one of the differences between psych-adjectives and their -eha-counterparts. In particular, Yeon (1996) does so by insisting acceptability of sentences in (8) which have adverbs ilpwule/uytocekulo 'on purpose' in them.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 81, |
| "end": 98, |
| "text": "(Kim S-J 1994:78)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 364, |
| "end": 375, |
| "text": "[+VOLITION]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 530, |
| "end": 544, |
| "text": "Kim S-J (1994)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 682, |
| "end": 694, |
| "text": "Kim K-H 2003", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 695, |
| "end": 706, |
| "text": ", Hong 1991", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 707, |
| "end": 718, |
| "text": ", Yeon 1996", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 750, |
| "end": 761, |
| "text": "[+VOLITION]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 869, |
| "end": 875, |
| "text": "(1996)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Why Positive Imperative So Unnatural?", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(8) a. Nay-ka ilpwule/uytocekulo paym-ul mwusewe ha-n-ta. expect from psych-constructions. That is, if, for instance, the meaning of (8a) is 'I pretended to be afraid of a sneak on purpose', the sentence can be acceptable. But in this interpretation 'my internal psychological state' is out of concern, which is crucial in the original meaning of psychconstructions.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Why Positive Imperative So Unnatural?", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A more difficult issue is whether psych-constructions have [+ACTION] , which has caused a lot of conflicts between researchers. While some argue they have action as part of their meaning (e.g. Kim 1990 , Lee & Lee 2005 , Yeon 1996 , others argue they are not actions (e.g. Kim 1994 , Hong 1991 , Nam 2007 . It is important to note that those who maintain psych-constructions have [+ACTION] mostly presuppose their [+VOLITION] . This may be due to the fact that \"when the actor of an action is animate, the default interpretation is that the action is performed voluntarily\" (Culicover & Jackendoff 2005:427 taking Actor as their subject? 2) How can we capture the relationship between the meaning of psych-constructions and that of psych-adjectives?", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 59, |
| "end": 68, |
| "text": "[+ACTION]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 193, |
| "end": 201, |
| "text": "Kim 1990", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 202, |
| "end": 218, |
| "text": ", Lee & Lee 2005", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 219, |
| "end": 230, |
| "text": ", Yeon 1996", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 273, |
| "end": 281, |
| "text": "Kim 1994", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 282, |
| "end": 293, |
| "text": ", Hong 1991", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 294, |
| "end": 304, |
| "text": ", Nam 2007", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 414, |
| "end": 425, |
| "text": "[+VOLITION]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 574, |
| "end": 606, |
| "text": "(Culicover & Jackendoff 2005:427", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Why Positive Imperative So Unnatural?", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let us solve the first problem with linguistic data. At first glance, (9), together with (6-7), seems to act as counterevidence to our argument that the psych-construction is some kind of Action, because normal verbs, having action as their meaning, do not have any problem with going along with contexts used in (6-7) and adverbs such as ellun 'quickly' and ppalli 'quickly' in (9). However, a more elaborate study shows the sentences in (6, 7, and 9) are ungrammatical not because psych-constructions are not actions but because they are not volitional actions. As mentioned above, according to Jackendoff (2002b Jackendoff ( , 2007 , in order for a verb to mean Action whether it is voluntary or not, it must pass the What X did was test. We can test whether the psych-construction has action in its meaning by putting them in a similar context. The following is one such test using X-ka/i han kes-ilakon \u2026 ppwun-ita (what X did was only) construction.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 597, |
| "end": 614, |
| "text": "Jackendoff (2002b", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 615, |
| "end": 634, |
| "text": "Jackendoff ( , 2007", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Why Positive Imperative So Unnatural?", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(10) a. Ku-ka han kes-ilakon kunye-lul coha ha-n kes ppwun-ita. Kim S-J 1994 , Lee & Lee 2005 , Nam S-H 2007 , Yeon J-H 1996 ,", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 64, |
| "end": 76, |
| "text": "Kim S-J 1994", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 77, |
| "end": 93, |
| "text": ", Lee & Lee 2005", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 94, |
| "end": 108, |
| "text": ", Nam S-H 2007", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 109, |
| "end": 124, |
| "text": ", Yeon J-H 1996", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Why Positive Imperative So Unnatural?", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "although they differ from one another in more detail, agree that the meaning of -e ha-in the psych-construction is some kind of \"externalization of internal feeling\" (Yeon J-H 1996:262).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Why Positive Imperative So Unnatural?", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We agree with this analysis and use the function SHOW, first proposed by Kim S-J (1994) 5 , in 5 The following is what Kim S-J has suggested as the meaning of the psych-construction silhe hata:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 95, |
| "end": 96, |
| "text": "5", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Why Positive Imperative So Unnatural?", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "[ EVENT SHOW (x, [ STATE BE/FEEL (x, [ PLACE AT \uc2eb\uc74c][yp])])]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Why Positive Imperative So Unnatural?", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "order to capture this meaning. Two important differences should be noted though; first, while Kim S-J argued the macrorole that subject of the psych-construction takes is Experiencer, we argue it is Actor, and secondly, the function SHOW is now parenthesized, which means the psych-construction does not necessarily mean \"externalization of internal feeling\" any more.;", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Why Positive Imperative So Unnatural?", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "instead, it can just mean just one's internal feeling, without externalizing it, just like psychadjectives. This can be proved by two facts; first, sentences like (12a) are very natural, and secondly, many psych-constructions can have na 'I' as their subject as in (12b-c). there is a variability of acceptability for positive imperative as already shown in (3-4), which seems due to the fact that the construction, after all, is a kind of action and some other out-ofsemantic factors discussed above.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Why Positive Imperative So Unnatural?", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "So far, we have seen why psych-constructions cannot take the positive imperative form. It is because although they have [+ACTION] they lack [+VOLITION] in their meaning which is a crucial element for making imperative possible. What we can expect is, then, negative imperative of psych-constructions must also be unacceptable just like their positive imperative.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 140, |
| "end": 151, |
| "text": "[+VOLITION]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Why Negative Imperative So Natural?", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "However, we can see negative imperative forms are much more natural for psych-constructions as in (13). Sentences in (13) are all counterparts of their positive imperative forms in (3-4). Note that their acceptability or grammaticality is much better than their positive imperative forms. In section 4, we will solve this problem by looking at the verbs in terms of the force dynamics.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Why Negative Imperative So Natural?", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Force dynamics is a semantic category suggested by Talmy (1985 Talmy ( , 2003 that captures and generalizes the meanings of a lot of grammatical words, content words, and linguistic constructions with just a few primitives such as Agonist and Antagonist and their relationship with respect to force. The basic type of force interaction is physical interactions and it further extends to physical/psychological, intrapsychological and sociopsychological interactions. Since force-dynamic pattern in the intrapsychological interaction is the most important pattern with regard to our question, let us examine intrapsychological force dynamics in detail. The following is a minimal pair that contrasts force-dynamically neutral expressions with ones that exhibit force-dynamic patterns on the intrapsychological level (Talmy 2003:412 that is, a man urges to close the door without volition, while, at the same time, the same person volitionally inhibits his desire. The key for explaining the intrapsychological force dynamics and the reason that only negative imperative is possible for psych-constructions is the notion of \"divided self\" (Talmy 2003:431) ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 51, |
| "end": 62, |
| "text": "Talmy (1985", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 63, |
| "end": 77, |
| "text": "Talmy ( , 2003", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 815, |
| "end": 830, |
| "text": "(Talmy 2003:412", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1137, |
| "end": 1153, |
| "text": "(Talmy 2003:431)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Basic Idea of Force Dynamics in Language", |
| "sec_num": "4.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We We argue this is because these predicates, just like psych-constructions, are nonvolitional actions. For example, drowsing and yawning is out of the Actor's control but once the actions (are about to) start, the actor can try to stop doing them with his/her volition. The only difference between the psych-construction and the predicates above is the former can be [-PHYSICAL] when it lacks the function SHOW in its conceptual structure, whereas the latter is always [+PHYSICAL] .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 470, |
| "end": 481, |
| "text": "[+PHYSICAL]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Negative Imperative Presupposes Divided Self!", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Based on the analysis done so far, we can now provide a typology of Korean Action predicates as in Table 1 . it only allows negative one.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 99, |
| "end": 106, |
| "text": "Table 1", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF11" |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Beyond Psych-constructions: A Typology of Korean Action Predicates", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this paper, we made two main arguments on two interesting phenomena regarding psychconstructions. First, for the phenomenon that psych-constructions cannot take positive imperative, we argued, using Jackendoff's (1990 Jackendoff's ( , 2002a Jackendoff's ( , 2002b conceptual semantics, it is because psych-constructions are actions without volition. Secondly, for the phenomenon that psych-constructions can take negative imperative, we argued, using Talmy's (1985 Talmy's ( , 2003 Force Dynamics theory, it is because the required action is an internal volitional action. The two different actions within a single psyche were captured by the force dynamic pattern of intrapsychological interactions. And also, we have suggested that not only psych-constructions but other predicates that have non-volitional action as part of their meaning can go naturally along only with negative imperative, thus showing [-VOLITION] and [+ACTION] as the core condition of allowing only negative imperative.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 202, |
| "end": 220, |
| "text": "Jackendoff's (1990", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 221, |
| "end": 243, |
| "text": "Jackendoff's ( , 2002a", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 244, |
| "end": 266, |
| "text": "Jackendoff's ( , 2002b", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 454, |
| "end": 467, |
| "text": "Talmy's (1985", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 468, |
| "end": 484, |
| "text": "Talmy's ( , 2003", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 911, |
| "end": 936, |
| "text": "[-VOLITION] and [+ACTION]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": "5." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Throughout this paper, we will call [psych-adjective + -e ha-] constructions \"psych-constructions\" just for convenience. 2 Later, Jackendoff (2002a) suggests two more tiers, referential tier and information structure tier.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Some other examples are like the following, all from(Kim S-J 1994:75). ku salam-ul coha hay-la. that man-ACC like AUX-IMP 'Like the man.' yay-tul-a! kippe hay-la. Apeci-ka sala-se tolao-sy-ess-ta. child-PL-VOC happy AUX-IMP father-NOM alive-and come back-HON-PAST-DEC 'Children! Be happy. Father has come back alive.' Ku salam-hanthey com mianhay hay-la. that man-to a bit feel sorry AUX-IMP 'Feel sorry for him.' 4 One pragmatic factor suggested byKim S-J (1994:75) is whether the hearer can get some benefit by following the speaker's order.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Kim S-J (1994) does not see colta as action because it is not volitional. But once we acknowledge the notion of action is divided into two groups according to the feature [VOLITION], we can say the verb is still action even if it is non-volitional.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "The semantic basis of control in English", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "P", |
| "middle": [ |
| "W" |
| ], |
| "last": "Culicover", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jackendoff", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2005, |
| "venue": "Simpler Syntax", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Culicover, P. W. and R. Jackendoff. 2005. The semantic basis of control in English. In Simpler Syntax. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "Semantic Structures", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jackendoff", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1990, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Foundations of Language", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jackendoff", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2002, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Jackendoff, R. 2002a. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Experiencer Predicates, Theory of Mind, and Subjective vs. Objective Valuation. ms", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jackendoff", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2002, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Jackendoff, R. 2002b. Experiencer Predicates, Theory of Mind, and Subjective vs. Objective Valuation. ms. Brandeis University.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Language, Consciousness", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jackendoff", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2007, |
| "venue": "Culture: Essays on Mental Structure", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Jackendoff, R. 2007. Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "Simli hyengyongsa yenkwu: nonhang kyochey ywuhyengtuluy ehwi uymi kwucolul cwungsimulo (Study of psych-adjectives: focusing on lexical meaning structure of argument changing patterns)", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "K-H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kim", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2003, |
| "venue": "Enehak", |
| "volume": "37", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "47--68", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kim, K-H. 2003. Simli hyengyongsa yenkwu: nonhang kyochey ywuhyengtuluy ehwi uymi kwucolul cwungsimulo (Study of psych-adjectives: focusing on lexical meaning structure of argument changing patterns). Enehak 37, 47-68.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "The Lexico-semantic Structure of the Psychological Predicates in Korean", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "S-J", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kim", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kim, S-J. 1994. The Lexico-semantic Structure of the Psychological Predicates in Korean. Seoul National Univ. Ph.D. dissertation.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "The Syntax and Semantics of Korean Case: The Interaction between Lexical and Syntactic Levels of Representation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Y-J", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kim", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1990, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kim, Y-J. 1990. The Syntax and Semantics of Korean Case: The Interaction between Lexical and Syntactic Levels of Representation. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Victoria.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "Simlitongsa-uy uymilon: yenge, hankuke-wa tokile-uy taycoyenkwu (Semantics of Psych-constructions: comparing English, Korean and German)", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "I-H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lee", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "M-H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Lee", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2005, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lee, I-H and M-H, Lee. 2005. Simlitongsa-uy uymilon: yenge, hankuke-wa tokile-uy taycoyenkwu (Semantics of Psych-constructions: comparing English, Korean and German). Seoul: Yeklak.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "Hankuke hyengyongsa kwumwunuy thongsacek pwunlywulul wihaye 1: simli hyengyongsa kwumwun (For classifying Korean adjecive constructions 1: psychadjective constructions)", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "J-S", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Nam", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1993, |
| "venue": "Language Research", |
| "volume": "29", |
| "issue": "1", |
| "pages": "75--106", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Nam, J-S. 1993. Hankuke hyengyongsa kwumwunuy thongsacek pwunlywulul wihaye 1: simli hyengyongsa kwumwun (For classifying Korean adjecive constructions 1: psych- adjective constructions). Language Research 29-1, 75-106.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Hankuke Simliswule-uy Nonhang kwuco-wa saken kwuco Hankuke (Argument Structure and Event Structure of Korean Psych-predicates). Presented at the monthly meeting of the Korean Society for Language and Information", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "S-H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Nam", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2007, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Nam, S-H. 2007. Hankuke Simliswule-uy Nonhang kwuco-wa saken kwuco Hankuke (Argument Structure and Event Structure of Korean Psych-predicates). Presented at the monthly meeting of the Korean Society for Language and Information, March 24.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "Force dynamic in language and thought", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "L", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Talmy", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "Papers from the Twenty-First Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Talmy, L. 1985. Force dynamic in language and thought. In Papers from the Twenty-First Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "L", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Talmy", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2003, |
| "venue": "Toward a Cognitive Semantics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Talmy, L. 2003. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. In Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "(9) a. *na-nun ellun tungsan-ul cohahay-ssta. I-TOP quickly climbing-ACC like-PAST 'I quickly liked climbing.' b. *ku-nun ppalli pwukkulewehay-ssta. he-TOP quickly embarrassed-PAST 'He quickly felt shy.'" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "12) a. Sekhwuni-nun sok-ulo Ciweni-lul pwulewe ha-myenseto ket-ulo-nun Sekhwun-TOP inside-to Ciwen-ACC envy AUX-although outside-to-TOP pwulewe ha-ci ahn-nun-ta. Envy AUX-COMP NEG-PRES-DEC 'Although Sekhwun internally envies Ciwen, he does not externalize his feeling.' (Kim H-S 1989:203) b. nay-ka paym-ul mwusewe ha-n-ta. I-NOM Sneak-ACC afraid AUX-PRES-DEC 'I am afraid of a sneak.' c. nay-ka kohyang-ul kuliwe ha-n-ta. I-NOM hometown-ACC miss AUX-PRES-DEC 'I miss my hometown.' (Yeon J-H 1996:262) Now, we can answer the question why positive imperative with the psych-construction is unnatural. It is because the construction has [+ACTION] but not [+VOLITION]. But note again that the positive Imperative of the psych-construction is not categorically impossible; instead," |
| }, |
| "FIGREF2": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "are finally ready to answer our question. Negative imperative of psych-constructions, by default, presupposes divided self and Agonist's desire. By uttering negative imperative sentences (cf. (13)), the speaker, with the presupposition above in his/her mind, requires Antagonist, one part of the hearer, to volitionally act against Agonist's desire. For example, (13b) can be roughly paraphrased like this: '(I believe part of you (Agonist) is and keeps trying to be sad, but) do not give in to the desire and overcome Agonist.' Here, what is within the parenthesis is the content of the presupposition, and what the speaker tells the hearer to do is obviously an internal volitional action. In contrast, positive imperative of the psych-construction does not presuppose divided self and just requires the hearer to conduct a non-volitional action." |
| }, |
| "TABREF3": { |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>bored AUX-FUT readiness-NOM become COP-DEC</td></tr><tr><td>'I am ready to be bored.'</td></tr><tr><td>d. *simsimhay ha-l nunglyek-i iss-ta.</td></tr><tr><td>bored AUX-FUT ability-NOM COP-DEC</td></tr><tr><td>'I have ability to be bored.'</td></tr><tr><td>e. *simsimhay hay poa-ss-ta.</td></tr><tr><td>bored AUX look-PAST-DEC</td></tr><tr><td>'I tried to be bored.'</td></tr><tr><td>(Kim S-J 1994:77)</td></tr><tr><td>hometown-ACC miss AUX-PROP</td></tr><tr><td>'Let's miss our hometown.'</td></tr><tr><td>(Kim S-J 1994:73)</td></tr></table>", |
| "text": "Let us look at the features one by one to figure out which value psych-constructions have for each feature. First, as for the feature [VOLITION], we can see psych-constructions have a very low degree of, if at all, volitionality. (6-7) shows various ways to test volitionality of action of the psychconstruction. AUX-COMP want-DEC 'I want to be bored.' b. *simsimhay ha-l cwunpi-ka twoye iss-ta." |
| }, |
| "TABREF4": { |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>I-NOM on purpose/intentionally sneak-ACC afraid AUX-PRES-DEC</td></tr><tr><td>'I am afraid of a sneak on purpose/intentionally.'</td></tr><tr><td>b. Nay-ka ilpwule/uytocekulo kohyang-ul kuliwe ha-n-ta.</td></tr><tr><td>I-NOM on purpose/intentionally hometown-ACC miss AUX-PRES-DEC</td></tr><tr><td>'I miss my hometown on purpose/intentionally.'</td></tr><tr><td>(Yeon J-H 1996:264)</td></tr></table>", |
| "text": "However, with our linguistic intuition, they are hardly acceptable. Only the possibility of their being acceptable is that the sentences' having some other meaning than what we would normally" |
| }, |
| "TABREF8": { |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td>):</td></tr><tr><td>(14) not VP/refrain from VPing</td><td>[intrapsychological]</td></tr><tr><td>a. He didn't close the door.</td><td/></tr><tr><td>b. He refrained from closing the door.</td><td/></tr></table>", |
| "text": "First, (14a) is force-dynamically neutral in that no conflicting forces are shown in the linguistic structure. On the other hand, (14b) shows a force interaction occurring within a single psyche;" |
| }, |
| "TABREF10": { |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>'Shiver./Do not Shiver.'</td></tr><tr><td>(16) a. *cola-la./col-ci mala.</td></tr><tr><td>drowse-IMP/drowse-COMP NI</td></tr><tr><td>'Drowse./Do not drowse.'</td></tr><tr><td>b. *ttele-la./ttelci mala.</td></tr><tr><td>shiver-IMP/shiver-COMP NI</td></tr></table>", |
| "text": "Psych-constructions are not only the predicates that allow only negative imperative. Verbs or constructions that refer to one's physiological actions like colta 6 'drowse', haphwum hata 'yawn', pangkwi kkita 'fart', ttelta 'shiver' also permit only negative imperative as in (16)." |
| }, |
| "TABREF11": { |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"3\">: A Typology of Korean Action Predicates</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">+VOLITION</td><td/><td>-VOLITION</td></tr><tr><td/><td>ttaylita</td><td>'hit',</td><td>chata</td><td>psych-constructions,</td></tr><tr><td>+PHYSICAL</td><td colspan=\"3\">'kick', ttwita 'run', etc.</td><td>physiological predicates</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">kongpwu hata 'study',</td><td>(psych-constructions)</td></tr><tr><td>-PHYSICAL</td><td colspan=\"3\">sayngkak hata 'think',</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>etc.</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>Kinds of Imperative</td><td>Both</td><td>positive</td><td>and</td><td>Only negative imperative</td></tr><tr><td>Allowed</td><td colspan=\"3\">negative imperatives</td><td/></tr></table>", |
| "text": "As shown inTable 1, Korean Action Predicates can be divided into four groups according to the criteria of[VOLITION] and[PHYSICAL]. Moreover, regardless of their physicality, they can be further divided into two groups according to their possibility of allowing kinds of imperative: predicates allowing both positive and negative imperatives, and predicates allowing only negative imperative. What is crucial in determining kinds of imperative allowed is the feature[VOLITION]. If the predicate has [+VOLITION] it allows both, whereas if it has[-VOLITION]" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
