Retour vers liste

Détail de la contribution

Auteur: Dongsik LIM

Co-Auteur(s): Jisung SUN, Stony Brook University, USA

Event complexity and subjecthood of dative arguments of Korean psych-predicates

Abstract/Résumé: Nam (2009) distinguishes two types of psych-predicates in Korean: agentive experiencer predicates (AEP) (1) and patientive experiencer predicates (PEP) (2). (1) AEP: koylop- ‘be distressed’, mwusep- ‘be afraid of’, culkep- ‘be pleased at’, cilwuha- ‘be bored of’... (2) PEP: komap- ‘be thankful to’, sepsepha- ‘be disappointed with’, kokkap- ‘be spiteful with’... Both allow so-called double nominative constructions (DNC), but in AEPs, the first, experiencer argument may take Dative, whereas in PEPs, the second, stimulus/causer argument may take Dative (3): (3) a. John-i/eykey ku holangi-ka mwusep-ess-ta. John-Nom/Dat that tiger-Nom was.afraid ‘John was afraid of that tiger.’ b. John-i Mary-ka/eykey komap-ess-ta. John-Nom Mary-Nom/Dat was.thankful ‘John was thankful to Mary.’ Note Nam (2009) does not consider the fact that the experiencer of PEPs may also take Dative (4: here the causer/stimulus argument cannot take Dative): (4) John-eykey Mary-ka/*eykey komap-ess-ta. John-Dat Mary-Nom/*Dat was.thankful ‘John was thankful to Mary.’ AEPs and PEPs are are also different w.r.t. the subjecthood test. E.g., only the dative experiencer of an AEP can bind the subject-oriented reflexive caki ‘self’. However, with a PEP, either the dative argument or the nominative argument can bind caki. Interestingly, in the latter case, the nominative argument is interpreted as experiencer, and the dative argument is interpreted as stimulus/causer: (5) Johni-eykey Tomj-i cakii/*j sensayngnim-pota mwusep-ess-ta. John-Dat Tom-Nom self teacher-than was.afraid ‘Johni was more afraid of Tomj than selfi/*j’s teacher.’ (6) Johni-eykey Tomj-i cakii/j sensayngnim-pota komap-ess-ta. John-Dat Tom-Nom self teacher-than was.thankful ‘Johni was more thankful to Tomj than selfi/*j’s teacher.’ ‘Tomj was more thankful to Johni than self*i/j’s teacher.’ To explain this, we argue AEPs and PEPs involve different numbers of 'v's. AEPs should involve two 'v's: the lower licenses the nominative stimulus, and the higher licenses the dative experiencer. In contrast, PEPs involve either one or two 'v's. With two 'v's appear, like AEPs, the lower licenses the nominative stimulus, whereas the higher licenses the dative experiencer. If only one 'v' appears, it takes either the nominative experiencer, or the nominative causer: the other argument appears as adjunct. We also argue that the nominative experiencer does not necessarily indicate that the experiencer argument is a subject, along Yeon (2003): in DNCs, the nominative experiencer should be analyzed as a focus marker, rather than a marker indicating the subjecthood of the argument.