Semantics of '-e ha' for psych predicates in Korean

Nam, Bora

doi:10.30961/lr.2024.60.1.29

Lang. Res. 60(1):29-53

pISSN: 0254-4474, eISSN: 2586-7113

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2024.60.1.29

Article

Semantics of '-e ha' for psych predicates in Korean

Bora Nam ¹ ^, ^†

Author Information & Copyright ▼

¹Gyeongin National University of Education

^†Corresponding Author: Assistant Professor Department of English Education Gyeongin National University of Education 21044, Gyesanro 62 Gyeyanggu, Incheon, South Korea E-mail: bnam@ginue.ac.kr

ⓒ Copyright 2024 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Nov 03, 2023 ; Revised: Mar 22, 2023 ; Accepted: Apr 02, 2024

Published Online: Apr 30, 2024

ABSTRACT

This study examines the Korean evidential morpheme -e ha in to the context of psych predicates, addressing the gap in the systematic study of its role in subordinate clauses and its broader semantic implications. This study reveals that -e ha is necessary when there exists a mismatch between the experiencer and the logophor of the clause. This finding highlights the syntactic transformation of psych predicates from adjectives to verbs facilitated by -e ha, which semantically requires endophoric evidence. Considering these findings, the semantic structures of clauses with psych predicates and logophor shifts are discussed. Furthermore, proposed are the semantic denotations of -e ha and a zero morpheme within the framework of epistemic modals with the assumption that the zero morpheme is requisite for psych predicates wherein experiencer aligns with the logophor. These analyses and proposals have broader implications and offer a foundation for analyzing linguistic phenomena from a logophoric perspective.

Keywords: -e ha; evidentiality; psych predicate; logophor; modal

References

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.

Anand, P., & Hacquard, V. (2014). Factivity, belief and discourse. The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim, 1, 69-90.

Charnavel, I. (2019). Perspectives in causal clauses. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 37, 389-424.

Choe, H. S. (2005). Some distributional differences between adjectives and verbs in Korean: A reply to Yeo (2004). Language Research, 41(2), 331-361.

Chung, K. (2010). Korean evidentials and assertion. Lingua, 120(4), 932-952.

Chung, K. (2012). Space in tense: The interaction of tense, aspect, evidentiality and speech acts in Korean. John Benjamins Publishing.

Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press.

Condoravdi, C. (2001). Temporal Interpretations of modals. In D. Beaver, S. Kaufman, & B. Clark (eds.), Stanford papers in semantics. Palo Alto: CSLI Publications.

Cornillie, B. (2009). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language, 16(1), 44-62.

10.

De Haan, F. (2001). The relation between modality and evidentiality. In R. Müller & M. Reis (eds.), Modalität and Modalverben im Deutschen (Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 9) (pp. 201-216). Hamburg: H. Buske.

11.

DeLancey, S. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 369-382.

12.

Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

13.

Faller, M. (2003). Propositional-and illocutionary-level evidentiality in Cuzco Quechua. Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas, 2(1), Article 3.

14.

Faller, M. (2007). The Cusco Quechua reportative evidential and rhetorical relations. Endangered Languages, 14, 223-251.

15.

Faller, M. (2017). Reportative evidentials and modal subordination. Lingua, 186, 55-67.

16.

Garrett, E. J. (2001). Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.

17.

Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of modality, Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

18.

Hacquard, V. (2009). On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32, 279-315.

19.

Hacquard, V. (2010). On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural language semantics, 18, 79-114.

20.

Izvorski, R. (1997). The present perfect as an epistemic modal. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 7, 222-239.

21.

Kamp, H. (1984). A theory of truth and semantic representations. In M. Strokhof, T. Janssen & J. Groenendijk (eds.), Truth, interpretation and information (pp. 1-41). Foris.

22.

Kang, M. (1988). Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding and movement, Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

23.

Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D. (1989). Pronouns, logical variables, and logophoricity in Abe. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 555-588.

24.

Kratzer, A. (1977). What 'must'and 'can'must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(3), 337-355.

25.

Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 639-50). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

26.

Kratzer, A. (2006). Decomposing attitude verbs. Talk Given at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DcwY2JkM/attitude-verbs2006. pdf.

27.

Kwon, I. (2014). The viewpoint shifter-eha-in Korean and how it affects causal event structure. Language Sciences, 42, 30-42.

28.

Lee, C. (2012). Evidentials and modals: what makes them unique. Sprache Und Datenverarbeitung: International Journal for Language Data Processing, 71-98.

29.

Lee, C. (2013). Psych-predicates: 1st person and evidentiality. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 414-421.

30.

Lee, J. (2013). Temporal constraints on the meaning of evidentiality. Natural Language Semantics, 21, 1-41.

31.

Lim, D., & Lee, C. (2012). Perspective shifts of Korean evidentials and the effect of contexts. Paper presented at the Proceedings of SALT, 22, 26-42.

32.

McCready, E., & Ogata, N. (2007). Evidentiality, modality and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 147-206.

33.

Minkoff, S. A. (1994). How some so-called" thematic roles" that select animate arguments are generated, and how these roles inform binding and control. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

34.

Murray, S. E. (2017). The semantics of evidentials. Oxford University Press.

35.

Oswalt, R. L. (1986). The evidential system of Kashaya. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 29-45). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

36.

Plungian, V. A. (2001). The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 349-357.

37.

Plungian, V. A. (2010). Types of verbal evidential marking: An overview. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova (eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages (pp.15-58). Berlin: De Gruyter.

38.

Sauerland, U., & Schenner, M. (2007). Embedded evidentials in Bulgarian. Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung, 11, 525-539.

39.

Roberts, C. (1989). Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 683-721.

40.

Roque, L. & Loughnane, R. (2012). The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology, 16, 111-167.

41.

Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 445-479.

42.

Smirnova, A. (2013). Evidentiality in Bulgarian: Temporality, epistemic modality, and information source. Journal of Semantics, 30(4), 479-532.

43.

Song, J. (2018). Hankukeul eohuijeok jeungkeoseong, Eoneohak, 82, 105-131.

44.

Speas, P., & Tenny, C. (2003). Configurational properties of point of view roles. In A. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in grammar: Volume 1: Syntax and semantics (pp. 315-344). John Benjamins B. V.

45.

Stephenson, T. (2010). Control in centred worlds. Journal of Semantics, 27(4), 409-436.

46.

Stowell, T. (2004). Tense and modals. In J. Guéron and J. Lecarme (eds.), The syntax of time (pp.495-537). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

47.

Sun, J. T. (1993). Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, 63(4), 945-1001.

48.

Tenny, C. L. (2006). Evidentiality, experiencers, and the syntax of sentience in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 15(3), 245-288.

49.

Tournadre, N. (1996). Comparaison des systèmes médiatifs de quatre dialectes tibétains: Tibétain central, ladakhi, dzongkha et amdo. Peeters.

50.

Traugott, E. C. (2014). 4 On the function of the epistemic adverbs surely and no doubt at the left and right peripheries of the clause. In K. Beeching and U. Detges (eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigation of language and language change (pp. 72-91). Leiden: Brill.

51.

Von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2007). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 2, 32-62.

52.

Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12(1), 51-97.