연구발표회 » 2017학년도 2학기 12월 월례 발표회 일정표 및 초록

한국언어정보학회 2017학년도 2학기 12 월례 발표회 일정표

(발표 순서는 발표자 선생님들의 사정에 따라 변경될 수 있습니다.)








강아름 (고려대)

Two types of speaker’s uncertainty over the epistemic space in Korean


Break (10)


강초롱 (서울대)

Copy theory of movement and pf conditions on spell-out

Break (10)


오은정∙송상헌 (상명대인천대)

On Korean speakers’ knowledge of unaccusativity in English

[12월 첫번째] Two types of speaker’s uncertainty over the epistemic space in Korean (Arum Kang, Korea University)

The main goal of this paper is to propose a novel paradigm of the split epistemic uncertainty, based on two morphologically related particles in Korean: inka in wh-indefinites vs. nka in modalized questions. Previous literature assumes the interrogative-indefinite affinity as a reflex of a semantic relation amongst interrogative markers and indefinites by introducing a set of propositional alternatives (Alternative Semantics: Kratzer & Shimoyama 2002; Alonso-Ovalle 2006; Alonso-Ovalle & Menéndez-Benito 2010, inter alia). However, I challenge these claims by showing that there is a novel paradigm of epistemic ignorance which is not captured by means of propositional alternatives. I suggest a novel analysis, as originally proposed in my doctoral dissertation (Kang 2015), showing how the semantics of (i)nka variants is sensitive to speaker’s epistemic model (Giannakidou 1995 et seq.). In particular, I show that: (i) the common denominator of nka and inka is that they both express speaker’s epistemic indeterminacy; but (ii) the crucial difference arises from distinct epistemic spaces. The division on epistemic states will lead us to assume that there is a binary distinction between the types of alternatives that (i)nka introduces (i.e., propositional alternatives for nka vs. individual alternatives for inka). The division is further supported by the fact that there is a requirement of strict dichotomy with regard to the notion of speaker’s epistemic uncertainty which gives rise to the distinct semantics.

[12월 두번째] Copy theory of movement and pf conditions on spell-out (Chorong Kang, Seoul National University)

In this study, I investigate the question why in some cases an element is pronounced in the position where it is interpreted while in other cases, there is a discrepancy between the position for interpretation and the position for pronunciation. To investigate this issue, I will first discuss a relation between agreement and movement. Inspired by Reverse Agree (Wurmbrand 2012), I will clarify a condition of movement. Based on the suggested relation between agreement and movement, I will propose three different types of movement: phrasal movement, parasitic phrasal movement, and parasitic head movement. Furthermore, based on the Copy theory of movement, I will discuss PF constraints that play a role in copy-selection for pronunciation. Based on the system developed, I will provide a typological study in two representative cases of movement: (i) subject agreement/movement and (ii) wh-agreement/movement. This system provides a new approach for the typology of in-situ subjects and in-situ wh-phrases. In the proposed system, in-situ subject/wh-phrases are the results of either parasitic movement or low-copy pronunciation in phrasal movement. An in-situ phrase generated by parasitic movement does not have a copy in a higher position, so it cannot take a high scope. Furthermore, since the phrase does not undergo movement, it is insensitive to movement constraints (e.g. island constraints). By way of contrast, an in-situ phrase generated by a low-copy pronunciation in a movement chain shows “high” behaviors in addition to sensitivity to movement constraints. I will show how the two theoretically possible in-situ subjects/wh-phrases are realized in languages.

[12월 세번째] On Korean speakers’ knowledge of unaccusativity in English (Eunjeong Oh, Sangmyung University & Sanghoun Song, Incheon National University)

It has generally been assumed that intransitives are classified into two classes, unaccusatives and unergatives, which have distinct syntactic and semantic properties. The single argument of unaccusatives is base-generated in object position whereas the single argument of unergatives originates in subject position (Burzio, 1986; Perlmutter, 1978). Semantically, while the former bears a Theme role, the latter bears an Agent role. Despite such differences, the single argument of these two types of intransitives surfaces in subject position, thereby being identical on the surface. The unaccusative-unergative distinction is presumably universal, but languages vary as to the syntactic and morphological reflexes of such a distinction. Given the cross-linguistic variation, a learnability problem naturally arises for the L2 acquisition of unaccusativity.

This talk addresses Korean speakers’ knowledge of unaccusativity/unergativity in L2 English. More specifically, this talk will address the questions of (1) whether Korean speakers are sensitive to the unaccusative/unergative distinction in English; and (2) whether they are able to distinguish unaccusatives from transitives. With respect to the acquisition of unaccusativity, L2 researchers’ interests have primarily centered around the issue of unaccusative-unergative distinction. That said, we believe that to have a thorough picture of the phenomenon, a more fundamental question is whether Korean speakers are able to distinguish unaccusatives from transitives. This reasoning hinges on the well-known overpassivization of unaccusatives. Overpassivization refers to a phenomenon defined as non-target-like passivization of intransitives by L2 learners. Interestingly, ungrammatical passive unaccusatives (e.g., *An accident was happened) are frequently produced and judged as acceptable by learners from various L1 backgrounds (thus, these errors are language universal rather than language specific). By contrast, unergatives are rarely passivized. For such disparity, the most influential L2 account proposed is Yip’s Transitivization Hypothesis (1990, 1995), which states that unaccusatives are represented as underlying transitives in L2 learners’ grammar. From this hypothesis, the acceptance of ungrammatical transitives (e.g., *We disappeared our heads), rejection of correct unaccusatives (e.g., Our heads disappeared), and acceptance of ungrammatical passive unaccusatives (e.g., *Our heads were disappeared) are predicted.

In order to investigate the two questions, we employed the toolkit OpenSeame and used a 5-point Likert scale. 173 adult Korean speakers (31 beginners/ 59 intermediates/ 31 advanced) participated in the study. Three types of verbs were employed in the task: unaccusatives, unergatives, and transitives. Each type was represented by seven verbs, which were selected based on frequency analyses of learner corpora. Korean learners’ knowledge of unaccusative-unergative distinction was tested, using diagnostics such as overpassivization (*A baby was cried. vs. *A boy was disappeared.), causativization (*A coach ran students. vs. *A magician disappeared a bird.), and compatibility with a purpose clause (*A kid was run to catch a ball. vs. *A boy was appeared to eat a snack.). Korean learners’ knowledge of unaccusative-transitive distinction was tested by comparing the rate of a by agent phrase between transitives and unaccusatives. Researchers have argued that unaccusativity is a semantically determined, but syntactically represented phenomenon (Levin & Rappaport Hovav, 1995). Along these lines, this talk also considers two semantic properties, telicity and animacy, which are frequently argued to be associated with unaccusativity/unergativity.

학회 사무국: [우 05029] 서울시 광진구 능동로 120 건국대학교 KU커뮤니케이션연구소
남윤주 교수 연구실 (중장비실험동 407호)
전화: (02) 2049-6066, 이메일: ksligeneral at gmail dot com
학회 재무/계좌: 농협 302-1342-1990-31(예금주: 재무이사 윤홍옥 교수)
[우 63243] 제주시 제주대학로 102 제주대학교 영어영문학과 윤홍옥 교수 연구실
전화: (064) 754-2722, 이메일: oaktreepark at gmail dot com
편집위원회: 온라인 논문투고 시스템 JAMS 바로가기: https://ksli.jams.or.kr/
[우 38066] 경상북도 경주시 동대로 123 동국대학교 인문대학 영어영문학과 송민영 교수 연구실
전화: (054) 770-2134, 이메일: kslijournal at gmail dot com
개인정보취급방침 | 이용약관 | 이메일 무단수집거부
  ERROR! : 팝업창 출력 지정이 잘못되었습니다.