Pyoun Ju

THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF KOREAN SERIAL VERB
CONSTRUCTIONS: A CORPUS-BASED ANALYSIS
_______________
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
San Diego State University
_______________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Linguistics
_______________
by
Ju Youn Pyoun
Summer 2011
iii
Copyright © 2011
by
Ju Youn Pyoun
All Rights Reserved

iv
DEDICATION
To my parents.
v
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS
The Syntax and Semantics of Korean Serial Verb Constructions:

A Corpus-Based Analysis
by
Ju Youn Pyoun
Master of Arts in Linguistics
San Diego State University, 2011
This thesis investigates the syntax and semantics of Korean serial verb constructions
(SVCs). Argument structure was analyzed using Lexical Functional Grammar and event
structures. Two main focuses of this thesis are syntactic and semantic restrictions among
verbs and argument identification. The data examined in this thesis validate the hypothesis
that subject arguments are always identified in Korean SVCs (the Subject Sharing
Hypothesis). Among other things, this hypothesis predicts the absence of resultative
constructions in Korean SVCs.
In Chapter 3, a corpus analysis was conducted to examine verb types and verb order
as well as to determine how well the argument identification principles in the literature
correspond with real data. In Chapter 4, the argument structure of deictic and path verbs was
studied with the application of event structures, which helped to explain unsolved issues such
as the consequential and simultaneous distinctions and the optionality of a path argument in
path-deictic constructions.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................x
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................3
2.1 Theoretical Backgrounds ...................................................................................3
2.1.1 Lexical Function Grammar (LFG)............................................................3
2.1.2 Structure of Event .....................................................................................4
2.2 Serial Verb Constructions ..................................................................................4
2.2.1 Transitivity................................................................................................5
2.2.2 Function of SVCs......................................................................................5
2.3 Korean Serial Verb Constructions .....................................................................6
2.3.1 SVC vs CVC .............................................................................................6
2.3.2 SVC vs AVC.............................................................................................7
2.3.3 Simultaneous SVC vs Consequential SVC...............................................9
2.3.4 Deictic and Path Verbs..............................................................................9
2.4 Argument Identification...................................................................................11
2.4.1 Object Sharing Hypothesis .....................................................................11
2.4.2 Subject Sharing Hypothesis ....................................................................13
2.5 Argument Structure in LFG .............................................................................16
3 CORPUS ANALYSIS OF KOREAN SVCS ..............................................................18
3.1 Method: Parts of Speech Tags and Contexts ...................................................19
3.2 Corpus Analysis: Types of V2 in SVCs ..........................................................20
3.3 Physical Action Verbs as V2 in Korean SVCs ................................................21
3.4 Deictic Verbs as V2 in Korean SVCs ..............................................................22
vii
3.5 Path Verbs as V2 in Korean SVCs ..................................................................23

3.5.1 Path Verbs: olu- vs olli- ..........................................................................24
3.5.2 Restrictions between Verbs of Korean SVCs .........................................25
3.6 The Order of Verbs of Korean SVCs...............................................................26
3.7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................28
4 KOREAN SVCS AND THEIR ARGUMENT STRUCTURE: DEICTIC AND
PATH VERBS .............................................................................................................30
4.1 Simultaneous SVC vs. Consequential SVC: Argument Structure...................32
4.2 Argument Structure of Deictic Verbs in Korean .............................................35
4.2.1 Deictic Verbs in SVCs and Argument Structure ....................................37
4.2.2 A Goal/Source PP or a Path Verb: Complement of Deictic Verb ..........37
4.3 Argument Structure of Path Verbs in Korean..................................................40
4.4 Argument Structure of SVCs with Three or More Verbs ................................42
4.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................44
5 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................45
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................47
APPENDIX
FIGURES & TABLES.................................................................................................49
viii
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 2.1. Korean Path Verbs ..................................................................................................11

Table 3.1. Korean Path Verbs: Intransitive and Transitive......................................................24
Table 3.2. Restrictions on the Verb Choice between V1 and V2 ............................................29
Table A.1. Types of V2s in Korean SVCs in the Corpus with Meaning, Transitivity,
and the Number of Occurrence and Percentage...........................................................51
Table A.2. Categorical Analysis of V2s in Korean SVCs with Types, Meaning,
Transitivity, and the Number of Utterances in the Corpus ..........................................53
Table A.3. Types of the V1s Occurred with the Deictic Verb -ka ‘Go’ in the Corpus
with Meaning, Transitivity and Voice .........................................................................55
Table A.4. Types of the V1s Occurred with the Deictic Verb o- ‘Come’ in the Corpus
with Meaning, Transitivity and Voice .........................................................................57
Table A.5. Types of the V1 Occurred with the Intransitive Path Verb olu- 'Move Up'
with Meaning, Transitivity and Directional Features ..................................................58
Table A.6. Types of the V1 Occurred with the Transitive-Causative Path Verb olli-
'Raise' with Meaning, Transitivity and Directional Features ......................................59
Table A.7. Types and the Number of Occurrences of SVCs with Three Main Verbs.............60
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 2.1. Obligatory object argument sharing. .....................................................................12

Figure 2.2. Empty category analysis........................................................................................13
Figure 2.3. Korean. ..................................................................................................................15
Figure 2.4. Chinese. .................................................................................................................15
Figure 4.1. A tree of example (86)...........................................................................................35
Figure 4.2. A tree of example (87)...........................................................................................36
Figure A.1. The type hierarchy of Korean complex verb constructions..................................50
Figure A.2. The percentage of the token of the V2 in Korean SVC by its category
according to the number of the occurrences in the corpus...........................................50
Figure A.3. The type hierarchy of the second verb of Korean serial verb
constructions. ...............................................................................................................50
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, my thanks go to the members of my thesis committee, especially

Dr. Jean Mark Gawron, whose patience, inspiration and encouragement made this thesis
possible. I also deeply appreciate his help on analyzing the corpus, on which this thesis was
developed. I also want express deepest thanks to Dr. Soonja Choi for letting me to work for
her research at the Child Language Lab, where I was able to have invaluable experience
about research and linguistics. I appreciate Dr. Eunjeong Ko for generously accepting the
position of committee. Many thanks also go to the other members in the Linguistics
Department at the San Diego State University.
I would like to thank my dear friends and fellow students, especially to Rina
Pasamonik, Cheryl Downs, Wona Lee, and Kyoungmi Ha for their friendship and support. I
am very grateful to Sam Barboo for editing my thesis. I express my thanks to all my friends
from Hanbit Church for their prayer and encouragment. Foremost, I thank God for wisdom
and knowledge that he has blessed me.
To my beloved parents, Junghee Kim and Kumsik Pyoun, I deeply appreciate for
their moral and financial support. Without their faith in me, this thesis would have not been
possible. I am also thankful to my sisters, Eunju and Eunkyoung, and brother-in-laws for
their love and support. My thanks also go to my dearest brother, Kyuate, who has been my
best friend and a source of tremendous emotional support during my studies in the United
States.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Serial verb constructions (SVCs) are an interesting linguistic phenomenon observed

in many languages in Western Africa and Asia. The term serial verb constructions captures
an important aspect of the phenomenon—namely, that these are “constructions.” Goldberg
(2006) defined constructions as “conventionalized parings of form and function” (p. 3). The
meanings of SVCs are composed from both the lexical meaning of individual verbs and
arguments, and the structural meaning of the combination of verbs, arguments and other
elements. A number of studies have focused on these constructions in various languages
including Korean, presenting analyses of the semantics and syntax of SVCs, as well as
attempting to explain the argument identification patterns of verbs in SVCs.
SVCs have raised issues in argument structure analysis because the two main verbs
co-occurring in one construction share arguments. Unlike auxiliary verb constructions or
other complex verb constructions, the SVC is a verb-verb compound with no sign of
subordination or coordination between verbs. Consequently, the SVC poses significant
challenges for a theory of argument structure. This thesis will use Lexical Functional
Grammar (LFG) to represent the syntax and semantics of lexical items in SVCs. LFG has
been used to analyze SVCs in a number of studies (Alsina, 1992; Baker, 1989; Goldberg,
2006). Whether arguments in SVCs are best analyzed via the Object Sharing Hypothesis
(Baker, 1989) or the Subject Sharing Hypothesis (Lee, 1992) is still a matter of debate. This
work will argue that the Subject Sharing Hypothesis holds without exception for Korean
SVCs. The work here grows out of a corpus analysis of SVCs in Korean conducted to
investigate what types of verbs are used or can be used as SVCs, to examine whether any
restrictions exist in regard to verbs and word order, and to determine whether argument
identification actually works with real data.
An SVC may involve two or more main verbs. The sub-events represented by each
verb can be interpreted as happening either consequentially or simultaneously (Zubizarreta
& Oh, 2007). This difference seems to be purely semantic in nature as no obvious syntactic
2
difference exists between these two types of SVCs. The purpose of this thesis is to
investigate the syntactic and semantic aspects of Korean SVCs, incorporating event structure
into an LFG analysis. The two main focused areas of investigation are syntactic and semantic
restrictions among verbs in SVCs, and argument identification in SVCs; in particular, I will
present evidence supporting the Subject Sharing Hypothesis.
The outline is as follows. Chapter 2 reviews existing literature. Chapter 3 is discussed
the corpus analysis of Korean SVCs to examine types and restrictions of verbs used in SVCs,
the role of deictic and path verbs, and how argument identification works with actual data.
Chapter 4 discusses the argument identification of Korean SVCs in detail, applying event
structure to the LFG analysis. Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the findings of the thesis and
provides some suggestions for future study.
3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter begins by reviewing some theories on which the analysis of the later
chapters will be based. The two main theoretical topics will be Lexical Functional Grammar
and event structure. In addition, previous research on the syntax and semantics of serial verb
constructions (SVCs) will also be presented. I first examine SVCs in various languages of the
world. Then, previous studies on the Korean SVCs will be discussed and contradicted with
other complex verb constructions. Regarding argument structure, I first discuss the concept
of argument structure and then review previous studies of argument identification in SVCs
based on two hypotheses: the Object Sharing Hypothesis and the Subject Sharing
Hypothesis.
2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS

In this section, we will review two main theoretical backgrounds: Lexical Functional
Grammar (Bresnan, 2001; Dalrymple, 2001; Falk, 2001) and event structure (Davidson,
1967; Parsons, 1990; Kearns, 2000).
2.1.1 Lexical Function Grammar (LFG)

The major theory that the present thesis is based on is Lexical Functional Grammar
(LFG). Dalrymple (2001) distinguishes LFG from other syntactic theories along two
dimensions. First, the theory is not ‘transformational’ but ‘lexical,’ so that the key
information about the syntax and semantics of languages is coded in the lexicon. Second, in
LFG, functional categories like subject and object are central and are assumed to be
‘universal,’ configurational notions like NP and VP are used but may vary from language to
language. LFG has two levels of syntactic representations: ‘f-structure’ and ‘c-structure,’
which are parallel: neither being derived from the other. C-structure is constituent structure,
but there is no d-structure/s-structure distinction. F-structure is a hierarchical arrangement of
features like grammatical functions (Falk, 2001).
4
Bresnan (2001) argues that LFG has advanced syntactic theory in a number of areas,
including Argument Structure, Control, Long Distance Dependencies, Anaphora, Pronoun
Incorporation and Agreement, Topicalization, and Scrambling. The present thesis is focused
on the analysis of argument structure.1
2.1.2 Structure of Event

Davidson (1967) argues that an action sentence, p, meaning ‘x brings it about that p,’
should describe an event. He also proposed that the event itself is one of the arguments of
action verbs. Parsons (1990) reviewed two ways of representing argument roles in logical
form: the incorporation analysis suggested by Davidson in (1), and an independent conjunct
analysis which has come to be known as the Neo-Davidsonian Analysis in (2):
1. Davidsonian Representation
(e)[Stabbing(e,Brutus,Caesar)]
2. Neo-Davidsonian Representation
(e)[Stabbing(e) & Agent(e,Brutus) & Theme(e,Caesar)]
In the Neo-Davidsonian analysis, the verb is analyzed into a number of dyadic relations, all
linked to the main event (Kearns, 2000). In analyzing SVCs, this analysis will be used to
represent the sub-events of SVCs, as well as to represent the argument identification of each
verb in the SVC.
2.2 SERIAL VERB CONSTRUCTIONS

SVCs are found in many languages in the world. In an early cross-linguistic study of
SVCs, Sebba (1987) suggested four criteria to distinguish SVCs from other verb
constructions:
3. Criteria for SVCs
In a sequence of the form V1 … V2.
a. Both V1 and V2 must be lexical verbs, i.e. must be capable of appearing as the
only verb in a simple sentence.
b. If it is possible to conceive of V1 and V2 as denoting separate actions at all, then
both V1 and V2 must be interpreted as having the same tense and aspect. Thus,
for example, V1 may not be interpretable as “past” if V2 us interpreted as
“future.”
1
For more detailed explanation for LFG, please refer to Bresnan (2001) and Dalrymple (2001).
5
c. There must not be an ascertainable clause boundary between V1 and V2, i.e. they
must be within the same clause.
d. No conjunction should separate the verbs in sequence.
The following example from Sranan meets the criteria in (3 a, c, d) and (3 b) is not
applicable.
4. Sranan (Suriname: Sebba, 1987)
Mi teki a.nefi koti a.brede.
1sg take the.knife cut the.bread
‘I cut the bread with a knife.’
2.2.1 Transitivity
SVCs in serializing languages show all four possible combinations in terms of
transitivity: intransitive-intransitive, intransitive-transitive, transitive-intransitive and
transitive-transitive.
5. Intransitive-intransitive
Zhang-san shàng-loú shuì-jiào. (Mandarin Chinese: Li & Thompson, 1973)
Zhang-san go upstairs sleep
‘Zang-san goes upstairs and sleeps.’
6. Intransitive-transitive
Ofóni-bi tọ́ru fin bẹ́in-mi. (Ijo &Williamson, 1965, as cited in Lee, 1992)2
bird river fly cross-past
‘The bird flew across the river.’
7. Transitive-intransitive
Ó mú ìwé wá. (Yòrubá: Bamgboɛe, 1974, as cited in Baker, 1989)
he take book come
‘He brought the book.’
8. Transitive-transitive
Wo ɖa fufu ɖu. (Ewe: Collins, 1997)
they cook fufu eat
‘They cooked fufu and ate it’
2.2.2 Function of SVCs

A serial verb construction functions as ‘a single clause’ and consists of two or more
verbs, neither of which can be an auxiliary. The verbs in SVCs function together to express
‘a single event,’ and the resulting meaning of an SVC is semantically more complex than the
2
The references I am quoting here do not include tense markers, so I assume the translation as they were
in the original sources.
6
meaning of each verb. Complex verb constructions express the goal or direction, convey the
result or extent of an action, express completive aspect and indicate manner, purpose and
causation (Kroeger, 2004). For example, the SVCs in examples (9) and (10) express the goal
or direction of motion:
9. Khmer (tone are not marked; Schiller, 1990, as cited in Kroeger, 2004)
koat yɔɔk mhoup mɔɔk phteah.
he take food come house
‘He brought the food home.’
10. Saramaccan (Suriname: Byrne, 1987, as cited in Kroeger, 2004)
a bi tsá di.meliki go na di.konde.
3sg PAST carry the.mile go LOC3 the.village
‘He had taken the milk to the village.’
2.3 KOREAN SERIAL VERB CONSTRUCTIONS

Korean is an SOV language with the main matrix verb coming in sentence-final
position. It is possible that one or more verbs can come in a sequence with a suffix
connecting the verbs. Such complex verb constructions can be divided into three categories:
auxiliary verb constructions (AVCs), coordinating verb constructions (CVCs), and SVCs
(See Figure A.1 in the Appendix). Several dissertations analyze Korean SVCs along with
other complex verb constructions (Lee, 1992; Chung, 1993; You, 1996; Kim, 1998; Suh,
2000).
2.3.1 SVC vs CVC

In Korean, two verbs in a coordinating verb construction (CVC) are connected by a
coordinating conjunction -ko, while verbs in an SVC are connected by a dummy suffix -e/a.
SVCs describe a single event where two sub-events are fused while CVCs consist of two
separate events in a sequence. The following examples illustrate these differences: (11) is a
SVC while (12) is a CVC.
11. John-i sakwa-lul kkak-a mek-ess-ta.
John-NOM apple-ACC peel-EC eat-PAST-DC4
‘John ate the apple by peeling it.’
3
LOC=Locative
4
NOM=nominative, ACC=accusative, EC=connecting suffix, DC=declarative sentence-ending marker
7
12. John-i sakwa-lul kkak-ko mek-ess-ta.

John-NOM apple-ACC peel-and eat-PAST-DC
‘John peeled the apple and ate the apple.’
Chung (1993) suggests the following scope of negation principle in Korean:
13. Scope of ani
The negation particle ani has scope over the verb to which it attaches.
Example (14) illustrates the scope of negation in a sentence with one main verb:
14. John-i sakwa-lul ani mek-ess-ta.
John-NOM apple-ACC NEG eat-PAST-DC
‘John did not eat the apple’
He notes that negation can be used to distinguish SVCs from CVCs. In SVCs, ani takes
scope over both verbs, or the first verb as in (15). Note also that ani cannot separate the two
verbs in an SVC as in (16).
15. John-i sakwa-lul ani kkak-a mek-ess-ta.5
John-NOM apple-ACC NEG peel-EC eat-PAST-DC
(i) ‘It is not the case that John peeled and ate an apple.’
(ii) ‘John ate the apple without peeling it.’
16. *John-i sakwa-lul kkak-a ani mek-ess-ta.
John-NOM apple-ACC peel-EC NEG eat-PAST-DC
‘John peeled the apple but did not eat it.’
However, in a CVC, ani can separate the two verbs, and in that position, ani only takes scope
over the verb that it immediately precedes, as shown in examples (17) and (18).
17. John-i sakwa-lul ani kkak-ko mek-ess-ta.
John-NOM apple-ACC NEG peel-AND eat-PAST-DC
‘John ate the apple without peeling it.
18. John-i sakwa-lul kkak-ko ani mek-ess-ta.
John-NOM apple-ACC peel-AND NEG eat-PAST-DC
‘John peeled the apple but did not eat it.
2.3.2 SVC vs AVC

Unlike the case of SVCs and CVCs, Korean SVCs and auxiliary verb constructions
(AVCs) are not structurally distinguishable. For example, in (19), the verb mek- is the main
verb while in (20) the verb po- ‘try to’ has a different meaning from the full verb counterpart
5
These examples are based on Chung (1993) but they are slightly edited and clarified for the purpose of
this section. The grammatical glosses also have been changed to be consistent with other examples in this paper.
8
po- ‘see’ and also does not have normal argument structure, rather it works as an auxiliary
verb.
19. John-i sakwa-lul kkak-a mek-ess-ta.
John-NOM apple-ACC peel-EC eat-PAST-DC6
‘John ate the apple by peeling it.’
20. John-i sakwa-lul kkak-a-po-ss-ta.
John-NOM apple-ACC peel-EC-try-PAST-DC
‘John tried to peel the apple.’
As we can see in examples (19) and (20), verbs in both the SVC and AVC constructions are
connected with the morpheme –e/a, which makes these constructions difficult to distinguish
solely from their structures. Suh (2000) argued that the second verb of AVC loses its full
predicate function, including its lexical meaning and argument structure, and has an abstract
meaning.
A Korean pro-form kuli ha- ‘do so’ in a parallel position can refer back to the V1 and
the internal argument in an AVC but not to the V1 and the internal argument in an SVC (Suh,
2000). This test also supports the mono-clausality of Korean SVC.
21. *John-i koki-lul kwu(p)-e mek-ca,
John-NOM meat-ACC broil-EC eat-as
Mary-to kuli ha-e mek-ess-ta.
Mary-also do so-EC eat-PAST-DC.
‘As John broiled the meat and ate it, Mary did so and eat it, too.’
22. John-i chayk-ul ilk-e peli-ca,
John-NOM book-ACC read-EC be.completely-as
Mary-to kuli ha-e peli-ess-ta.
Mary-also do so-EC be.completely-PAST-DC
‘As John was completely reading the book, Mary did so too.’
In addition, a ‘–se insertion’ test can also help distinguishing these two constructions
(Lee, 1976). The meaning of the suffix –se is ‘by means of’ or ‘and then,’ It is allowed for
SVCs, but not for AVCs.
23. John-ka cip-ey ke(t)l-e-se ka-ta.
John-NOM house-GOAL-SUFFIX walk-EC go-DC
‘John goes to the house by walking.’
24. John-i koki-lul kwu(p)-e-se mek-ess-ta.
John-NOM meat-ACC broil-EC-SUFFIX eat-PAST-DC
6
NOM=nominative, ACC=accusative, EC=connecting suffix, DC=declarative sentence-ending marker
9
‘John broiled the meat and then ate it.

25. *John-i chayk-ul ilk-e-se peli-ess-ta.
John-NOM book-ACC read-EC-SUFFIX be.completely-PAST-DC
‘John was completely reading the book.’
This argues in favor of Suh’s idea that the second verb in an AVC loses its lexical meaning.
2.3.3 Simultaneous SVC vs Consequential SVC

Korean SVCs may be divided into two broad categories depending on the temporal
ordering of the verbs in an SVC. Zubizarreta and Oh (2007) call these two categories of
SVCs ‘consequential’ and ‘simultaneous.’ In consequential SVCs: “the event denoted by the
first V precedes the event denoted by the second V” (p. 68). In addition, the first event must
be perceived as enabling the second event to take place. In simultaneous SVCs, there is no
temporal order between the two verbs. Instead, the V1 usually expresses the manner of the
V2, and the events denoted by both verbs occur simultaneously.
26. John-i sayngsen-ul cap-a mek-ess-ta.
John-NOM fish-ACC catch-EC eat-PAST-DC
‘John caught and (then) ate the fish.’
27. John-i hakkyo-ey kel-e ka-ss-ta.
John-NOM school-LOC walk-EC go-PAST-DC
‘John went to school by walking.’
Example (26) is a consequential SVC and example (27) is a simultaneous SVC because of
the semantic relations between the two verbs. Zubizarreta and Oh also argued that the
Temporal Iconicity Condition governs the surface ordering of verbs in consequential SVCs
but not in simultaneous SVCs.
28. Temporal Iconicity condition (TIC) (Li, 1993)
Let A and B be two subevents (activities, states, changes of states, etc.) and let A' and
B' be two verbal constituents denoting A and B, respectively; then the temporal
relation between A and B must be directly reflected in the surface linear order of A'
and B' unless A' is an argument of B' or vice versa.
2.3.4 Deictic and Path Verbs

Korean has two motion and direction denoting verbs: ka- ‘go’ and o- ‘come.’ In the
literature, Korean researchers use the term “deictic” for these verbs since these verbs are
equivalent to the English deictic verbs ‘go’ and ‘come.’ It is interesting to note that the
10
Korean equivalents of ‘bring’ and ‘take’7 are serial verbs: kaci-e ka- ‘have-go: bring’ kaci-e o
‘have-come: take.’
The construction headed by ka-/o- denotes movement along a physical path, which
can either be denoted by a PP8 complement or a path verb. A physical path is encoded by a
PP, pang-ey ‘room-LOC,’ in example (29), but by a path verb, tul-e ‘move into-EC,’ in
example (30) (Zubizarreta & Oh, 2007):
29. a. John-i pang-ey ka-ss-ta.
John-NOM room-LOC go-PAST-DC
‘John went to the room.’
b. John-i pang-ey o-ass-ta.
John-NOM room-LOC come-PAST-DC
‘John came to the room.’
30. a. John-i (pang-ey) tul-e ka-ss-ta.
John-NOM room-LOC move.into-EC go-PAST-DC
‘John went into the room.’
b. John-i (pang-ey) tul-e o-ass-ta.
John-NOM room-LOC move.into-EC come-PAST-DC
‘John came into the room.’
Zubizarreta and Oh (2007) claim that in an SVC with path and deictic verbs, the
locative is optional since the “path-denoting V fulfills the complementation requirements of
ka-/o-,” so a path verb can be analyzed as “a path argument incorporated into the head of a
directed motion construction: that is, [Vpath V]” (p. 82). We will discuss their argument in
detail in Chapter 4.
Korean has both intransitive and transitive path verbs. The transitive verbs are all
causatives derived from the intransitives (Zubizarreta & Oh, 2007). Table 2.1 shows four
types of Korean path verbs.
Intransitive path verbs can occur as both V1 in path-deictic constructions and V2 in
SVCs while transitive path verbs come only as V2, the head of an SVC (Zubizarreta & Oh,
2007). We will cover examples of this pattern in Chapter 3.
7
Fillmore (1997) considered that ‘bring’ and ‘take’ with ‘go’ and ‘come’ indicate motion with place and
time in his discussion of deixis.
8
PP=prepositional phrase.
11
Table 2.1. Korean Path Verbs

Intransitive path verbs Transitive path verbs
Olu- ‘(move) up’ Ol-li- ((move) up + causative)
‘cause something to move up’
Nayli- ‘(move) down’ Nayli-ø ((move) down + causative)
‘cause something to move down’
Tul- ‘(move) into’ Tul-i ((move) into + causative)
‘cause something to move in’
Na- ‘(move) out of’ Na-i ((move) out of + causative)
‘cause something to move out’
2.4 ARGUMENT IDENTIFICATION

Serial verb constructions raise issues for a theory of argument structure, since these
constructions have two predicates with their own independent argument structures. The
arguments, theta roles of the complex predicates, are identified, or merged. Several scholars
take a lexical approach to the problem, paying attention to the theta roles of arguments, as
well as to their functional categories.
2.4.1 Object Sharing Hypothesis

Baker (1989) argues that sharing of internal arguments is obligatory in SVCs, where
two verbs, both of which he proposed as heads of VP, θ-mark the same internal arguments.
The consequences of argument sharing are the following:
31. a. Each verb may or may not θ-mark the subject of the whole serial VP.
b. For each other argument  in the SVC:
 must be θ-marked by all the verbs that follow it.
 must be θ-marked by the verb that immediately precedes it.
 is not θ-marked by any verb that precedes it other than as in (ii).
c. For each verb in the SVC, the arguments of that verb must appear in the
hierarchical order as follows:
Agent> Instrument> Patient/Theme> Goal/Location
The following example (32), from Yòrubá, supports obligatory object argument sharing in
SVC. As we can see in Figure 2.1, it becomes ungrammatical if subject arguments are
shared. Note that the SVC in (32) consists of a transitive V1 followed by an intransitive V2
(Baker, 1989).
32. Yòrubá
Olú ti omọ náà ɛubú
12
Figure 2.1. Obligatory object

argument sharing.
Olu push child the fall

‘Olu pushed the child down.’
Collins (1997) partially supported Baker’s internal argument sharing, proposing that the
argument sharing must be mediated by an empty category,
33. Me nya ɖevi-ɛi dzo [eci9 (yi)10].

I chase child-DEF leave P
‘I chased the child away.’
Here, eci is an empty element like pro. Figure 2.2 is a tree for example (33),
illustrating the empty category analysis:
Examples (32) and (33) are both resultative SVC
SVCs,
s, which are lacking in Korean. I will
discuss this further in the following section on Subject Sharing. SVCs can also be analyzed
as control structures where the second verb incorporates into the first verb, which is
compatible with the idea that SVCs are lexical functional ‘compounds’ (Collins, 1997).
Choi (2003) has an alternative take on argument sharing in SVCs, but she takes a
somewhat different perspective. According to her, shared arguments are copies left by A-
A
9
ec=empty category
10
yi is a postposition(P) in Ewe that assign Case to NPs that do not have structural case (Collins, 1997).
13
Figure 2.2. Empty category anal

analysis.
movement, rather than the lexical insertion of an element such as pro,, as in Collins. Since the
distinction between a control and movement account of SVCs will not play a further role in
this thesis, I will not present the details.
2.4
2.4.2 Subject Sharing Hypothesis
Lee (1992) proposed the Subject Sharing Hypothesis (SSH) for SVCs. According to
the SSH, subject sharing is obligatory for serial verbs, and object sharing is only possible
when both verbs are transitive.
34. Subject Sharing Hypothesis
Only if two verbs are transiti
transitive must there be object sharing.
All and only serial verbs share a subject.
The following example is the kind of example that would be expected, given the SSH. It is
also a possible counter-example
example for the Object Sharing Hypothesis:
35. Yòrubá (Awóyalé, 1998, as cited in Lee, 1992)
Ajá mu omi kú
dog drank water die
‘The dog died as a result of drinking water.’
In example (35), the V1 is mu ‘drank’ and the V2 is kú ‘die’ and these two verbs share their
subject arguments ajá ‘dog,’ rather than omi ‘water.’
Resultative SVCs are common in serializing languages, but they do not occur in
Korean. Resultative constructions consist of a head V1 denoting primary causal events and a
V2 denoting a resulting state. The V1s are usually action verbs while V2s are state verbs
(Déchaine, 1991, as cited in Lee, 1992). These can be analyzed as cases of Object Sharing
14
because the state verb is treated as an unaccusative verb, an intransitive verb with an
underlying object. The following example (36) is an attempt to form a resultative SVC in
Korean, using a transitive action verb and a state verb:
36. *Kangto-ka salam-ul ttayli-e cwuk-ess-ta. (Kang, 1991)
robber-NOM man-ACC hit-EC die-PAST-DC
‘The robber struck the man dead.’
Lee points out that example (36) is not grammatical in Korean, but note that it becomes
acceptable if the V2 cwuk- ‘die’ is changed to its transitive counterpart cwuki- ‘kill,’ as in
example (37).
37. Kangto-ka salam-ul ttayli-e cwuki-ess-ta.
robber-NOM man-ACC hit-EC kill-PAST-DC
‘The robber struck the man dead.’
It seems that obligatory subject sharing is specific to the SOV languages like Korean. In the
following sections, we discuss why. Note that example (36) violates the Subject Sharing
Hypothesis, while (37) obeys it.
Chung (1993) argues that obligatory subject identification is specific to head-final
languages. He compared Chinese for SVO and Korean for SOV languages as in examples
(38) and (39). The differences between these two languages are analyzed based on the
Linking Rules of Zubizarreta (1987)11. For the clearer picture of this account, compare the
trees in Figures 2.3 and 2.4.
38. Korean
*John-i Bill-ul ttali-e cwuk-ess-ta.
John-NOM Bill-ACC hit-EC die-PAST-DC
‘John hit Bill as a result Bill died.’
39. Chinese
ta da-si-le Bill.
he hi-die-ASP Bill
‘He hit Bill (and as a result) he died.’
11
Linking Rules (Zubizarreta 1987)
Core Linking Rules
If a predicate P is projected onto a position H in the lexical frame, then
Link the internal arg-variable of P to a position governed by H.
Link the external arg-variable of P to the head of the lexical frame.
Default Linking rules
If B does not apply, then copy the index of the argument governed by the head of the lexical frame
onto the head of the lexical frame.
15
Figure 2.3. Korean.
Figure 2.4. Chinese.
He proposed that the index of the top node is projected from the head of the SVC.
The index indicates which argument is realized as the subject of the verb. In the Chinese
example in (39) the head is V1, and the projected head is the theme from the V1. In the
Korean example in (38), the head is V2. This example is ungrammatical because John is an
external argument and no node for John can be projected from V2.
Another explanation for the subject sharing of SVCs comes from a constraint on (40).
40. Preservation of the Highest Argument of Head (PHAH)
verb construction, the Absolute Prominence value12 of the highest argument
In a verb-verb
of a head verb cannot be lower than that of the highest argument of a non-head
head verb. In
example (38), the highest argume
argument of the head verb (V2) is the theme, which is lower in
prominence value than the highest argument, agent, of the non-head
head verb. Thus, the PHAH
rules out example (38) in Korean but does not rule out example (39) in Chinese.
12
The absolute prominence values to the thematic roles (Chung, 1993)
1993).
Agent/Experiencer (1), Instrument (2), Theme/Patie
Theme/Patient (3), Goal/Source (4) and Locative (5)
16
2.5 ARGUMENT STRUCTURE IN LFG

Bresnan (2001) defines argument structure as “an interface between semantics and
syntax of predicators” (p. 304). It encodes information about the number of arguments as
well as their syntactic type. An example of an LFG argument structure is given in (41).
41. Lexical semantics (Bresnan, 2001)
 Lexico-semantic projection
a-structure
 Lexico-syntactic projection
final syntactic structure
An argument structure consists of a predicate with its argument roles, the relative
prominence of roles represented in an ordering, and syntactic features. Example (42) shows
the basic argument structure of the transitive verb hand:
42. hand (<sub> <obj> <obj2>)
ag pt go
This LFG analysis is adapted to the discussion of argument identification of SVCs in Chung
(1993) and You (1996).
The definition of SVCs regarding argument structure is as follows (You, 1996):
43. Definition of SVCs
a. V2: main verb
b. ag1 = ag2
c. <th1> = <th2> iff both are available
d. In realizing the argument of V1 and V2, the argument structure of the latter takes
precedence over the former. Only those arguments of V1 which have no referentially
identical counterparts in V2 are realizable.
He also proposed that Korean SVCs should satisfy the Subject Identification Condition and
the Object Identification Condition. These two conditions basically follow the SSH.
44. Subject Identification Condition
The subject of V2 and the subject of V1 are referentially identical.
45. Object Identification Condition
If both V1 and V2 contain theme roles in their argument structure, the two themes
must be referentially identical.
According to the subject condition, the subject of V1 and subject of V2 must be
shared. The object condition says the object of V1 and the object of V2 are only indentified if
they are themes.
In this thesis, I will apply the following formulae from Chung (1993) for determining
the lexical entries of SVCs. These verbs have only an agent and a theme. V3 in the following
17
examples designates the serialized verb. More example cases will be dealt with later, as they
arise.
a. V1: <ag>
b. V2: <ag’>
c. V3 (V1+V2): <ag=ag’>
a. V1: <ag, th>
b. V2: <ag’, th’>
c. V3 (V1+V2): <ag=ag’, th=th’>
In example (46), both verbs are intransitive, so in the serialized verb, subject arguments are
only identified. There are two arguments for example (47), and both arguments are identified.
For the following examples (48) and (49), subject arguments are identified while the object
argument, only occurring for one verb, remains unidentified.
a. V1: <ag, th>
b. V2: <ag’>
c. V3(V1+V2): <ag=ag’, th>
49. Intransitive- transitive
a. V1: <ag>
b. V2: <ag’ th>
c. V3(V1+V2): <ag=ag’, th>
18
CHAPTER 3
CORPUS ANALYSIS OF KOREAN SVCS
Serial verb constructions (SVCs) are not only juxtapositions of two verbs; rather there
are formal and semantic features that differentiate SVCs from other verb constructions. In
Korean, the stem of the first verb is always followed by the bound connecting morpheme -
e/a, which cannot occur with affixes of tense, aspect or honorification; thus, it is the second
verb that carries all the tense, aspect, honorification markers as well as other sentence-ending
markers, such as declaration, negation, question and so on. The only truly productive
morphemes that can occur on V1 are the passive and causative morphemes. Arguably, these
create lexemes, which can then host full array of tense, aspect, and modality morphemes.
Thus, when they occur as main verbs on their own, there is clear morphological evidence that
the SVC combines two independent lexemes to create a new lexeme.
Several previous studies have established the cross-linguistic significance of SVCs. A
central issue in the studies of SVCs has been the realization of verbal arguments of verbs in
SVCs. Not all the kinds of verbs can enter into an SVC, at least for Korean. The literature
suggests that certain verbs, especially deictic and path verbs, are more likely to be used in
SVCs. To confirm this, I conducted a corpus analysis. In addition, it was also my goal to
observe how the well LFG accounts of argument identification actually work with actual
corpus data. For argument identification of SVCs, I support Lee’s (1992) idea of the Subject
Sharing Hypothesis (SSH) that subject identification is obligatory while object identification
is optional. Object Identification can only happen with transitive-transitive verb construction
when object arguments of verbs have the same theta roles.
In this chapter, I present my findings from the corpus study. Section 3.1 introduces
the method and the corpus used for the analysis. Section 3.2 is about the general analysis of
types of serial verbs used in the corpus, focusing on the second verb (V2) of SVC. Section
3.3 discusses physical action verbs. Section 3.4 discusses SVCs with deictic verbs as V2 and
analyzes their argument structure. Section 3.5 discusses Korean SVCs with path verbs as V2,
19
distinguishing intransitive and transitive path verbs. In section 3.6, I discuss the ordering of
verbs in SVCs with three main verbs.
3.1 METHOD: PARTS OF SPEECH TAGS AND CONTEXTS

The corpus used in this analysis is the Sejong Corpus, which is a product of the 21st
Century Sejong Project of the National Institute of the Korean Language. For this study, only
written-language corpus was used. In Korean, argument omission is more common in
speaking than writing. Thus, written corpora generally yield more accurate results in studying
argument structure.
In this corpus, we searched for all the constructions of which the parts of speech are
tagged as ‘first verb_VV-e/a_EC second verb_VV’ and ‘first verb_VV -e/a_EC second
verb_VX’ to investigate SVCs. The abbreviation VV used in this corpus means a main verb
and VX means an auxiliary verb. Even though we have defined an SVC as a construction
with two main verbs, I found many instances of SVCs with VV –e/a VX in the corpus. Thus,
we looked at both constructions to get a broader sample. Korean auxiliary verb constructions
(AVCs) are not morphologically distinguishable from SVCs. Thus, I manually examined all
the corpus data to check whether the verbal constructions are SVCs or AVCs. In most cases,
we can distinguish SVCs from AVCs by looking at only the verbs used in SVCs. However,
in other cases like following examples (50) and (51), context is necessary. Consider the two
following examples with the verb ka- ‘go’ as V2 of SVCs:
50. elum-i nok-a ka-ta.
ice-NOM melt-EC PROG-DC
‘the ice is melting away’
51. ku-ka cip-ey ke(t)l-e ka-ta.
he-NOM house-GOAL walk-EC go-DC
‘he goes to the house by walking.’
Both examples are complex verb constructions utilizing the verb ka- as V2. In example (53),
however, V2 ka- is an auxiliary verb with the aspectual meaning ‘become,’ while in example
(51), V2 ka- has the meaning ‘go,’ with the first verb (V1) ket ‘walk’ specifying the manner
of going. Thus, on the basis of meaning, example (50) is classified as an AVC, rather than an
SVC.
20
In addition to the distinct meanings of ‘ka’, these constructions can be distinguished

through syntactic tests provided in Chapter 2. Examples (52) and (53) show the result of
inserting –se in (50) and (51).
52. *elum-i nok-a-se ka-ta.
ice-NOM melt-EC-SUFFIX PROG-DC
‘the ice is melting away’
53. ku-ka cip-ey ke(t)l-e-se ka-ta.
he-NOM house-GOAL walk-EC-SUFFIX go-DC
‘he goes to the house by walking.’
Intuitively, what is going on is that inserting the suffix –se makes complex verb constructions
coordinating verb constructions. Example (50) is an AVC, so the sentence is unacceptable or
odd with ‘–se insertion’ as in example (52). In example (51), on the other hand, ‘ka’ function
as a main verb, so the coordination of verbs after ‘–se insertion’ in example (53) is possible.
3.2 CORPUS ANALYSIS: TYPES OF V2 IN SVCS

The most important features of verbs I considered in analyzing corpus data is
transitivity because transitivity indicates how many arguments a verb can have. Based on the
assumption that the V2 is the head of an SVC, I first analyzed types of V2s. Table A.1 (see
Appendix) shows the types of V2s in the corpus, along with their transitivity, the number of
the occurrences and the percentage listed in alphabetical order. The list is limited to corpus
tokens, so it is not an exhaustive listing of all possible V2s in Korean. There are a very few
types that give rise to very many tokens. The number of V2 Types is 83 and the number of
V2 tokens is 4780. The overall type-token ratio is 1:57. This type-token ratio suggests that
the set of V2s is a closed class in the Korean lexicon. Several V2s occurred only once in the
corpus, but the great majority of examples can be accounted for with only a few V2 types. In
fact, about 35% of SVCs in the corpus can be accounted for with only seven V2s. Thus, there
is a high degree of conventionalization in SVCs.
The V2s in (see Appendix, Table A.1) are divided into four different categories:
deictic, path, physical action, and other verbs. These categories are spelled out (see
Appendix, Table A.2; for the percentage graph of Table A.2, refer to Figure A.2 in the
Appendix). I use the term ‘physical action’ for verbs that take an agent argument for a
subject but do not belong to the categories of deictic and path verbs. Even though 58.89% of
21
the V2 tokens are physical action verbs, that represents very few types. The type-token ratio
of the physical action verbs is 1:43.
On the other hand, there are 1087 tokens of deictic verbs acting as V2s, which is 23%
of the V2 tokens in this corpus. There are two types of deictic verbs ka- ‘go’ and o- ‘come’ in
Korean, so the type-token ratio of the deictic verbs is 1:543. Moreover, the number of path
verb tokens is 610, divided up among 5 verbs. The type-token ration for the path verbs is
1:122. These counts suggest that deictic and path verbs play an important role in Korean
SVCs. It should be noted that deictic and path verbs can also occur together in SVCs, with
the deictic verb as V2. The following sections will discuss SVC verbs in detail.
3.3 PHYSICAL ACTION VERBS AS V2 IN KOREAN SVCS

As I mentioned earlier, physical action verbs broadly refer to verbs with an agent
argument as a subject. These verbs comprise almost 59% of tokens and 65 types in the
corpus. In terms of transitivity, all four logically possible combinations are attested:
intransitive-intransitive, transitive-intransitive, intransitive-transitive, transitive-transitive.
The following examples illustrate this:
celmuni-tul-i moi-e anc-ta.
young.person-PL-NOM gather-EC sit-DC
‘Young people gather and sit.’
wucwusen-i wiseng-uy twi-lul coch-a nal-ta.
spacecraft-NOM space shuttle-POSS back-ACC follow-EC fly-DC
‘A spacecraft flies-follows the back of a space shuttle.’
56. Intransitive-transitive
(ku-ka) tamcang-ul ttwi-e nem-ess-ta.
(he-NOM) wall-ACC jump-EC go.over-past-DC
‘He jumped over the wall.’
wuli-ka okswuswu-lul kwu(p)-e mek-ta.
we-NOM corn-ACC bake-EC eat-DC
‘We bake-eat the corn.’
For the examples above, subjects are shared by both verbs. Object arguments are only shared
in example (57) with transitive-transitive verbs. Note that (56) and (57) differ in another
important respect. The temporal relations of V1 and V2 are different. In (56), the going over
and the jumping events are simultaneous. In (57), the baking and eating are sequential. In the
22
next chapter, we will argue that this has important consequences for the event structure of the
resulted SVC verb. For one thing their argument must be shared in sequential SVCs like the
one in (57).
3.4 DEICTIC VERBS AS V2 IN KOREAN SVCS

Table A.2 (see Appendix) gives the statistics for deictic and path verbs as V2. The
deictic verb ka- occurs with 61 different types of V1s, while the deictic verb o- occurs with
31 types of V1s (see Appendix, Table A.3 and A.4). The V1 preceding a deictic verb can be
either intransitive or transitive.
58. An intransitive verb as V1:
a. na-nun kang-ul hyangha-ese heyemchi-e ka-ss-ta.
I-TOPIC river-ACC head.toward-GOAL swim-EC go-PAST-DC
‘I swam-went heading toward the river’
b. kem-un mwulchey-ka nay-ccok-ulo ki-e o-ass-ta
black-ADJ body-NOM my-direction-GOAL crawl-EC come-PAST-DC
‘A black body crawled-came heading toward my direction.’
59. A transitive verb as V1:
hoysa-ey tosilak-ul ss(a)-a o-ass-ta.
office-to lunch.box-ACC pack-EC come-DC.
‘(she) packed the lunch box and came to the office.’
In all three examples (58 a, b) and (59), subject arguments are identified.
Moreover, some lexical passives are also found in the position of the V1 with a
deictic verb as V2 in the corpus. Consider the following example:
60. An intransitive passive verb as V1:
celm-un hankwuk yeseng-tul-i ilpon-ulo phal-li-e ka-ss-ta.
young-ADJ Korean woman-PL-NOM Japna-to.GOAL sell-PASS-EC go-PAST-DC
‘Young Korean women were sold to Japan.’
a. V1 phal-li- ‘sell-passive’ <th, go>
b. V2 ka- ‘go’ <th, go>
c. V3 phal-li-e ka- ‘be sold-go to’ <th, go>
It is interesting that in example (60), the subject arguments are theme. The verb ka- normally
takes the agent argument as a subject. However, when it is used with the passive verb as a
part of the SVC, the verb ka- ‘go’ takes theme argument as a subject. Thus, the subject
arguments are identified by both the passive verb phal-li- ‘be sold’ and the deictic verb ka-
‘go’ In addition, the oblique argument remains unidentified.
61. A transitive causative verb as V1:
a. (ku-ka) nay tokkam-ul olmki-e ka-ss-ta
23
he-NOM my flu-ACC transfer-EC go-PAST-DC

‘He took (transferred-went) my flu.’
b. centhong hanok-ul Conglo-eyse olmki-e o-ass-ta.
traditional Korean.style.house-ACC Conglo-from transfer-EC come-PAST-DC
‘(They) transferred-came a traditional Korean house from Conglo.’
In example (61), the verb olmki- ‘move, shift, transfer’ is the only causative verb used with
deictic verbs in the corpus. These are possible counter-examples for SSH. The subject
argument of the verb ka- in (a) is theme tokkam ‘flu’ rather than agent ku ‘he,’ which makes
the subject argument not possible to be identified. We will discuss this example in detail in
Chapter 4.
3.5 PATH VERBS AS V2 IN KOREAN SVCS

Path verbs play a particularly important role in Korean SVCs. In section 3.2, we
noted that path verb V2s make up 13% of the overall V2 tokens, even though only five types
of path verbs are observed in the corpus. In addition, path verbs are observed as V1 with a
deictic verb as V2, as well as V2 with a deictic verb as V3 in three-verb SVCs. SVCs with
three main verbs will be discussed in the next section.
Korean path verbs are themselves interesting in that each path verb has an active form
as well as a lexical causative counterpart. The two forms of Korean path verbs are compared
in Table 3.1.
Out of 8 path verbs in Table 3.1, 4 actives and 4 causatives, only 5, nay-, nayli, olli,
olu and tul, are found as V2 in SVCs. However, the verb nayli- has the same form for both
active and causative. Thus, whether the verb nayli- is active or causative cannot be
determined without looking at context. Consider the following two examples.
62. Intransitive active path verb as V2
ttangpatak-i kkeci-e nayli-ess-ta
ground-NOM sink-EC move.down-PAST-DC
‘The ground was compressed.’
63. Transitive causative path verb as V2
kunye-ka Pata-uy son-ul cap-a nayli-ess-ta
13
she-NOM Pata-POSS hand-ACC grasp-EC move.down.cause-PAST-DC
‘She grasped and took down Pata’s hand.’
13
poss=possesive
24
Table 3.1. Korean Path Verbs: Intransitive and Transitive

Intransitive path verbs Transitive path verbs
Olu- ‘(move) up’ (‘rise’) Ol-li- ((move) up + causative)
‘cause something to move up’ (‘raise’)
Nayli- ‘(move) down’ Nayli-ø ((move) down + causative)
‘cause something to move down’ (‘lower’)
Tul- ‘(move) into’ Tul-i ((move) into + causative)
‘cause something to move in’ (‘insert’)
Na- ‘(move) out of’ Na-i ((move) out of + causative)
‘cause something to move out’(‘extract’)
In example (62), the path verb nayli- ‘move down’ used in this context is intransitive and
preceded by the intransitive manner verb kkeci- ‘sink.’ The subject of the SVC kkeci-e nayli-
‘sink down’ is ttangpatak ‘the ground’ and there is no object argument. On the other hand,
example (63) has the transitive verb, cap- ‘grasp,’ as V1 and the causative path verb, nayli-
‘cause to move down’ as V2. Both V1 and V2 have two arguments, the subject argument and
the object argument. The argument realization regarding the causative structure will be
discussed in detail in the next section where the discussion of the intransitive path verb olu-
and its causative counterpart olli- will be discussed.
3.5.1 Path Verbs: olu- vs olli-

Among the path verbs in Table A.2, olu- ‘rise’ and olli- ‘raise’ are the only ones with
both intransitive and causative forms occurring as V2 in the corpus. The causative morpheme
–li attached to the two-syllable verb stem /o.lu-/ yields /ol.li/.
The number of tokens of the verb olu- in the corpus is 188, and that of the verb olli- is
267 (see Table A.2 in the Appendix). According to Table A.5 (see Appendix), 28 types of V1
with olu- ‘move up’ as V2 were found in the corpus. The number of types of V1 with olli- as
V2 is 29, shown in Table A.6 (see Appendix). In terms of transitivity, intransitive path verbs
can be used with various types of verbs as V1: intransitive, transitive and intransitive-
passive. On the other hand, V1s with the transitive causative verb as V2 in the corpus are all
transitive.
Let us consider two examples of SVCs found in the corpus: one with the intransitive
verb olu- and the other with the transitive-causative verb olli-.
64. SVC with olu- ‘move up’ as V2
25
say-ka himcha-key nal-a olu-ta.

bird-NOM powerful-ADV fly-EC move.up-DC
‘The bird flies up powerfully.’
65. SVC with ol-li- ‘cause to move up’ as V2
(wuli-ka) pyektol-ul ssah-a ol-li-ta.
we-NOM brick-ACC stack-EC move.up-cause-DC
‘We stack-cause to move up the bricks.’
In example (64), both V1 nal- ‘fly’ and V2 olu- ‘move up’ have only one argument, the
subject argument. The subject arguments are shared by both verbs. On the other hand,
example (65) contains the SVC with the transitive verb ssah- ‘stack’ as V1 and the transitive
causative path verb ol-li- ‘cause to move up’ as V2. Both subject argument and object
argument are shared by V1 and V2. The argument identification of SVCs with the causative
verb has been discussed by Chung (1993) based on the Alsina’s (1992) study on the
argument structure of causatives. According to Alsina, the patient of the causative predicate
can be either “fused,” identified, with the logical subject or the logical object of the base
predicate. Example (65) is also consistent with Chung’s claim about the argument structure
of the derived SVCs in Korean; the patient or theme of the causative verb ol-li- ‘move up-
cause’ is pyektol ‘block’ and it is also the logical object of the V1 ssah- ‘stack’ by
identification of both arguments of SVC verbs. The lexical entries for the argument
identification of example (65) are provided in (66).
66. a. V1 ssah ‘stack’ <(ag), th>
b. V2 ol-li ‘move.up-cause’ <(ag’), th’>
c. V3 ssah-a oli ‘stack and move.up-cause’ <(ag=ag’), th=th’>
3.5.2 Restrictions between Verbs of Korean SVCs

As I discussed earlier, verbs in the Korean SVCs are not an arbitrary combination of
two verbs. The results in Table A.5 and A.6 suggest the possibility of certain restrictions that
govern the choice of verbs used in the SVCs. V1 and V2 are both main verbs, so the
restriction may not be one-sided, but rather mutual. The semantic features of both verbs as
well as their transitivity play a role in the construction of Korean SVCs.
Consider the following examples of serial verbs in Korean.
67. The verb tot- ‘bud, grow’ with path verbs
a. tot-a olu-ta
bud-EC move.up-DC
b. *tot-a tul-ta
26
bud-EC move.in-DC
The verb tot- means ‘to bud’ or ‘to grow up.’ When plants or flowers grow, they have
the tendency to grow upward. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that this verb has a meaning
that corresponds to the English preposition ‘up.’ The path verb olu- has the prepositional or
directional meaning of ‘up’ while the path verb tul- has the directional meaning of ‘in’ or
‘through.’ In example (67), (a) is grammatical while (b) is ungrammatical. The meaning, or
semantic features, of the verbs restrict the choice of which verb combines with the other, or
vice versa. The path verb tul- cannot come with the verb tot- because the features ‘up’ and ‘in
or through’ conflict in example (67 b). This semantic restriction is also observed in SVCs
with transitive path verbs.
68. The verb ssah- ‘stack’ with path verbs
a. ssah-a ol-li-ta
stack.up-EC move.up-causative-DC
b. *ssah-a tul-i-ta
stack.up-EC move.in-causative-DC
Like the verb tot- ‘bud,’ the verb ssah- ‘stack up’ also has prepositional meaning of ‘up.’
Thus, the transitive path verb olli- can occur with ssah- while tuli- cannot appear with ssah-
as in example (68).
In addition, if the V1 contains both directional meaning of ‘up’ and ‘in,’ V1 does not
conflict with either kind of verbs as it is seen in example (69).
69. The verb nal- ‘fly’ with path verbs
a. nal-a olu-ta
fly-EC move.up-DC
b. nal-a tul-ta
fly-EC move.in-DC
The verb nal- in Korean means ‘to fly’ or ‘to move through the air.’ The verb nal- ‘fly’ has
the directional meaning of ‘up’ as well as ‘in or through’ internally; thus, both examples
(69 a) and (69 b) are grammatical.
3.6 THE ORDER OF VERBS OF KOREAN SVCS

Korean is believed to be a relatively free-order language for the phrases in a sentence
except that the predicate comes at the end of the sentence. There is a fixed rule for the
ordering of the verb morpheme affixes. The serialized verbs in verb constructions also have a
fixed order. Usually exchanging the positions of the two verbs inside a verb phrase results in
27
ungrammaticality. As we discussed in the previous chapter, Korean SVCs can be divided into
two types: consequential SVCs and simultaneous SVCs. For the consequential SVCs, the
temporal order is reflected in surface order (this is the so called Temporal Iconicity Condition
(TIC)). The verb of the earlier event comes before the verb of the later event. For the
simultaneous SVCs, the order of the verbs cannot be determined by TIC. We see
manner + path, path + deictic, manner + action, manner + deictic, path + deictic and so on.
When a deictic verb occurs, it is always the final verb, so *deictic + path, *deictic + manner
are not possible. Also, manner verbs are always V1, so *action + manner, *deictic + manner,
and *path + manner are not possible. For SVCs with three verbs, there is a fixed order among
verbs. Regarding the order of SVCs with three verbs, Sohn (1999) suggested that the most
natural order is “manner/cause predicate + path predicate + deictic predicate” (p. 381). The
data in the corpus also support this argument. In Chapter 4, I will propose that the order in
simultaneous SVCs is fixed by subordination. V1 is always the argument (-role filler) of
V2; so, in a head final language, it comes first.
The number of SVCs with three main verbs (SVC3) is quite large. According to
Table A.7 (see Appendix), the total number of tokens is 1312, suggesting that SVC3 is a very
common phenomenon in Korean. Moreover, 98 percents of the examples follow the
unmarked order of SVC3: V1 manner verb, V2 path verb, and V3 deictic verb. It is notable
that all the path verbs found in SVC3 in the corpus are intransitive. Consider following
example of a Korean SVC3:
70. Transitive manner verb + intransitive path verb + deictic verb construction
(nwu-ka) cip-tam-ul nem-e tul-e ka-ta
(someone-NOM) house-fence-ACC go over-EC move.into-EC go-DC
‘(Someone) move over the house fence and go into (the house).’
In example (70), the verb nem- ‘move over’ indicates manner and the verb tul- ‘move into’
expresses path, and the verb ka- ‘go’ is a deictic verb. The subject arguments, nwu-ka
‘someone-NOM,’ are identified by all three verbs and the object argument remains
unidentified.
There are some exceptions to the order of SVCs with a manner-path-deictic order.
Consider example (71) with a path verb as V3. This is the only example without the deictic
verbs ka-/o- as V3.
71. Transitive verb + transitive manner verb + transitive causative path verb
28
ku-lul hanul-lo cap-a kkul-e ol-li-ta.

he-ACC sky-GOAL hold-EC pull-EC move.up-cause-DC
‘he was hold, pulled and raised toward the sky.’
All three verbs in example (71) are transitive, so both arguments, an agent and a theme have
been identified. The optional goal argument of the verb olli- has occurred, but it remains
unidentified in the argument sharing process.
In simultaneous SVCs with three verbs, each verb is in charge of the manner, path, or
deictic part of one event. As we observed earlier, deictic verbs always come in the final
position among serialized verbs, and path verbs usually come as the final verb if there is no
deictic verb. Therefore, it is quite reasonable that if there are three verbs in a simultaneous
event, the order is more likely to be manner-path-deictic verbs. In consequential SVCs with
three verbs, the TIC governs the order of verbs.
3.7 CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have discussed types of verbs used in the SVC, focusing on V2.
Among the V2s found in the corpus, deictic and path verbs occupy more than one third of the
token. Figure A.3 (see Appendix) shows the type hierarchy of the second verb of Korean
SVCs as we observed in this chapter. The argument identification of Korean SVCs mostly
followed the previous studies on argument identification. As we have seen from the
examples, the subject argument is identified by all the verbs in the SVC, and the object
arguments are fused only if they have the same type of theta roles. Korean SVCs seem not to
be a closed category, but there are some restrictions on the choice between the verbs inside
the SVCs. We also saw that the order of verbs in SVCs is strict.
Table 3.2 provides some of the generalizations we observed from the corpus analysis
for restrictions on the verb choice between types of V1s and V2s, regarding the issue of
headship in SVCs:
Obvious generalizations from this chart are as follows:
 When a deictic verb occurs in an SVC, it is always the head (V2).
 When a manner verb occurs in an SVC, it is never the head (V2).
 When a transitive path verb occurs in an SVC, it is always the head (V2).
Generalizations (a) and (b) are very natural: with Korean being a head-final language, the
fact that deictic verbs always come as the final verb of SVCs readily suggests that a deictic
29
Table 3.2. Restrictions on the Verb Choice between V1 and V2

V2 V1 Deictic Path-intr Path-tr Manner Other
of Motion
Deictic * √√ * √√ √
Path-intr * * * √√ √
Path-tr * * * * √
Manner of * * * * √
Motion
Other * √ * √ √
* never happens, √ happens, √√robustly happens
verb is always the head in an SVC, and manner verbs cannot come as the final verb in SVCs
because the semantic nature of manner verbs is to modify the following motion verb. We will
formalize these in detail in the next chapter. Generalization (c) is a puzzle; transitive path
verbs in SVCs in the corpus are found to be all V2, but there is no obvious reason why these
verbs should always be heads.
Chapter 4 will discuss argument identification in Korean SVCs in detail from a
somewhat different perspective. The verbs show interesting syntactic and semantic
phenomena when they are used in the SVC. The consequential SVC and simultaneous SVC
will be recalled, and I will discuss their differences in terms of argument identification by
introducing events.
30
CHAPTER 4
KOREAN SVCS AND THEIR ARGUMENT

STRUCTURE: DEICTIC AND PATH VERBS
In the previous chapter, we discussed the importance of deictic and path verbs in
Korean serial verb constructions (SVCs) using the corpus. The present chapter discusses
argument licensing in Korean, deictic and path verb SVCs.
SVCs raise the issue of argument structure licensing since they introduce two
predicates with distinct argument structures. Baker (1989) proposed the two predicates Q-
mark the same internal argument, making argument-sharing obligatory for the object
argument. On the other hand, Lee (1992) proposed the Subject Sharing Hypothesis (SSH);
subject sharing is obligatory while object sharing is optional.
Several researchers have specifically dealt with the issue of argument identification in
Korean SVCs. Kim (1998) proposed that argument licensing in SVCs was subject to two
conditions: the subject identification condition for the external arguments and the object
identification condition for the internal arguments. The subject condition requires that the
subject of the first verb (V1) and the subject of the second verb (V2) must be shared. The
object condition requires that the object arguments are shared by both verbs if they have the
same theta roles. For this thesis, I assume the idea of the subject identification condition for
Korean SVCs: subjects of verbs are always identified.
In the corpus analysis in Chapter 3, I found possible counter examples against the
SSH. We will repeat the example (61 a) here.
72. (ku-ka) nay tokkam-ul olm-ki-e ka-ss-ta
he-NOM my flu-ACC transfer(move.cause)-EC go-PAST-DC
‘He took (transferred-went) my flu.’
a. V1 olmki- ‘move.cause’: <ag, th> (go)
b. V2 ka- ‘go’: <th’, go>
c. V3 olmki-e ka- ‘move.cause-go’: <ag, th=th’, go>
In example (72), the subject argument in V2 and the object argument in V2 seem to be
identified. It is also interesting that ku ‘he’ is also the goal or recipient of tokkam ‘flu.’ There
are two possible explanations for this counter example. First, if we consider the
31
causativization of the verb happens after the serialization, this example supports the SSH.
The intransitive form of the verb olm-ki- is olm- ‘move/contract.’
73. Lexical entries for olm-a ka-:
a. V1 olm- ‘move’: <th> (go)
b. V2 ka- ‘go’: <th, go>
c. V3 olm-a ka- ‘move-go’: <th=th’ go>
Second, the verb olm-ki- has been found to be used with both deictic verbs ka- ‘go’
and o- ‘come.’ It might be possible that this verb is an exception as an idiomatic usage rather
than used as an SVC because this verb is the only causative V1 that appeared with deictic
verbs as V2 in the corpus.
In Korean, there are two deictic verbs: ka- ‘go’ and o ‘come.’ These deictic verbs
require an oblique goal/source argument.
74. nay-ka secem-ey ka-ta.
I-NOM bookstore-GOAL go-DC
‘I go to the bookstore’
75. Mary-ka hakkyo-eyse o-ta.
Mary-NOM school-SOURCE come-PAST-DC
‘Mary comes from the school’
In example (74) the deictic verb ka- ‘go’ has two arguments: agent and goal. In example (75),
the deictic verb o- ‘come’ also has two arguments: agent and source. However, like the
English deictic verb come, the Korean deictic verb o- also is more complicated than ka- ‘go.’
The verb o- can take source or goal arguments, depending on the temporal and spatial
positions of speakers and listeners (Fillmore, 1997)14. In the remainder of this chapter, we
will discuss the argument licensing properties of deictic verbs as well as those of path verbs.
In Chapter 2, we saw that Korean SVCs are divided into two categories depending on
the semantic relations between subevents encoded by the verbs in SVCs: ‘consequential’ and
‘simultaneous’ (Zubizarreta & Oh, 2007). In this chapter, this categorization of Korean SVCs
is supported and the distinction between categories is explained using the formalism of event
structure. Event structures are also introduced to account for argument identification patterns
14
This discussion is not so related to the issue of argument structure, but I want to show the neutrality of
the verb o- ‘come’ in oblique argument selection.
*keki-eyse ka-ta there-source go-dc ‘Go from there’
keki-eyse o-ta there-source come-dc ‘Come from there’
keki-ey ka-ta there-goal go-dc ‘Go to there’
keki-ey o-ta. there-goal come-dc ‘Come to there’
32
in Korean SVCs, especially with deictic and path verbs. As discussed in Chapter 2, Davidson
(1967) proposed that an event itself can be the argument of predicates. The event-based
semantics for a sample clause is recalled here (Parsons, 1990):
76. (e)[Stabbing(e) & Agent(e,Brutus) & Theme(e,Caesar)]
In the case of SVCs, we will propose that there are three salient events: e1, the event
introduced by V1, e2, the event introduced by V2 and the complex event e3, of which e1 and
e2 are subparts. The two events will be joined into a simple larger event in consequential
SVCs. The first event will bear a theta-role with respect to the second in simultaneous SVCs.
4.1 SIMULTANEOUS SVC VS. CONSEQUENTIAL SVC:

ARGUMENT STRUCTURE
Before we discuss argument licensing for deictic and path verbs in SVCs, we need to
clarify the distinction between simultaneous and consequential SVCs.
77. Mary-ka hakkyo-ey heyemchi-e ka-ta.
Mary-NOM school-GOAL swim-EC go-DC
‘Mary goes school by swimming.’
a. V1 heyemchi- ‘swim’: <ag>
c. V3 heyemchi-e ka- ‘swim-go’: <ag, go>
78. Mary-ka hakkyo-ey ppang-ul kwu(p)-e ka-ta.
Mary-NOM school-GOAL bread-ACC bake-EC go-DC
‘Mary bakes the bread and goes to school.’
a. V1 kwup- ‘bake’: <ag, th>
c. V3 kwu(p)-e ka- ‘bake-go’: <ag, th, go>
As we discussed earlier, what defines an SVC as either simultaneous or consequential is the
primary relation between the verbs. In a consequential SVC, there is a salient temporal
ordering between verbs like in example (78), while in a simultaneous SVC, there is no
temporal ordering between verbs. Thus, example (77) is a simultaneous SVC while example
(78) is a consequential SVC, governed by the temporal iconicity condition (TIC). The TIC
requires that if the events denoted by verbs in an SVC are sequential, the surface order of
verbs reflects the temporal ordering of events (Li, 1993).
The LFG analysis of argument identification does not clearly distinguish between the
two types of SVCs. In order to capture the fact that the difference between the two types of
SVCs lies in the order of events denoted by verb, we introduce event structure into the
33
analysis. Examples (79) and (80) show how to combine event-semantics with the LFG
analysis.
79. A Simultaneous SVC
Mary-ka hakkyo-ey heyemchi-e ka-ta.
Mary-NOM school-GOAL swim-EC go-DC
‘Mary swims to school.’
a. V1 heyemchi- ‘swim’: e1<ag>
b. V2 ka- ‘go’: e2<th, go>
c. V3 heyemchi-e ka- ‘swim-go’: e3<ag, go>
e3 = e2
e1 = means (e2)
In example (79), e1 and e2 happen simultaneously, because e1 is the means event of e2. The
theme argument of ka- and the agent argument of heyemchi- are identified but this has been
left unspecified because both are subjects, and by the Subject Sharing Hypothesis, subjects
are always identified. The event identified with e3 is the head event (e2 in this case). We use
the higher argument in the thematic hierarchy15 for the subject role in (c).
80. A Consequential SVC
Mary-ka hakkyo-ey ppang-ul kwu(p)-e ka-ta.
Mary-NOM school-GOAL bread-ACC bake-EC go-DC
a. V1 kwup- ‘bake’: e1<ag, th>
b. V2 ka- ‘go’: e2<th, go>
c. V3 kwu(p)-e ka- ‘bake-go’: e3<ag, th, go>
e1 < e216 and e3 = e1  e217
On the other hand, the events in example (80) are temporally ordered. The agent
‘Mary’ bakes the bread, and then she goes to school. The event ‘Mary bakes the bread’
should precede the event ‘Mary goes to school.’ We assume the large e3 inherits the roles of
its sub-events e1 and e2. It is interesting to note that for both examples (79) and (80), if V1
and V2 change their surface order, then both of the sentences become ungrammatical. Note
that TIC only governs the surface ordering of consequential SVC. The reason why the
simultaneous SVC also has fixed ordering is that Korean is a head-final language where
complements and adjuncts, the modifiers, come before the head. In making V1 an argument
15
Thematic hierarchy: Agent > Instrument > Patient/Theme > Goal/Location (Baker, 1989).
16
x < y indicates that x precedes y
17
e3 is the join of e1 and e2 as [[John and Mary]] = [[John]]  [[Mary]] Thus, e3 just is the smallest event containing
both e1 and e2 as sub-events.
34
of V2, we have made V2 the head. Thus, it is natural that in the simultaneous SVCs, V2s,
most of which are manner predicates ‘modifying’ V1s, come before the head verbs that are
being modified. As we shall see below, however, manner verbs may occur as V2 when they
do not fill an argument position.
Some other examples of simultaneous SVCs follow. All are taken from the corpus
examples discussed in Chapter 2.
81. wucwusen-i wiseng-uy twi-lul coch-a nal-ta.
spacecraft-NOM space shuttle-POSS back-ACC follow-EC fly-DC
‘A spacecraft flies-follows the back of a space shuttle.’
a. V1 coch- ‘follow’: e1<ag, pa18>
b. V2 nal- ‘fly’: e2<ag> (go)
c. V3 coch-a nal ‘follow-fly’: e3<ag, pa> (go)
e3 = e2
e1 = path (e2)
82. (ku-ka) tamcang-ul ttwi-e nem-ess-ta.
(he-NOM) wall-ACC jump-EC go.over-past-DC
‘He jumped over the wall.’
a. V1 ttwi- ‘jump’: e1<ag>
b. V2 nem- ‘go over’: e2<ag, pa> (go)
c. V3 ttwi-e nem ‘jump-go over’: e3<ag, pa> (go)
e3 = e2
e1 = means (e2)
Note that the manner verb fly may be a V2 when it expresses the primary event as in (81).
Some other examples of consequential SVCs follow.
83. wuli-ka okswuswu-lul kwu(p)-e mek-ta.
we-NOM corn-ACC bake-EC eat-DC
‘We bake-eat the corn.’
b. V2 mek- ‘eat’: e2<ag, th>
c. V3 kwu(p)-e mek- ‘bake-eat’: e3<ag, th>
e1 < e2 and e3 = e1  e2
84. hoysa-ey tosilak-ul ss(a)-a o-ass-ta.
office-to lunch.box-ACC pack-EC come-DC.
‘(she) packed the lunch box and came to the office.’
a. V1 ssa- ‘pack’: e1<ag, th>
b. V2 o- ‘come’: e2<th, go>
c. V3 ss(a)-a o ‘pack-come’: e3<ag, th, go>
18
Pa=patient
35
e1 < e2 and e3 = e1  e2
85. celm-un hankwuk yeseng yeseng-tul-i ilpon-ulo phal-li-e ka-ss
ss-ta.
young-ADJ Korean womanwoman-PL-NOM Japna-to.GOAL sell-PASS-EC go--PAST-DC
‘Young Korean women were sold to Japan.’
a. V1 phal-li- ‘sell-passive’
passive’ e1<th, go>
b. V2 ka- ‘go’ e2<th, go
go>
c. V3 phal-li-e ka- ‘be sold
sold-go to’ e3<th, go>
e1 < e2 and e3 = e1  e2
In (83), the patient corn must be shared since V1 and V2 can both contribute a patient to e3.
Note that the two non-subject
subject segments of SVCs need not be identical when they play
different roles, as in (84). Note also that the shared theme and goal arg
arguments
uments of sell and go
must be identified under the event
event-joining
joining analysis as in (85). Thus, the distinction between
simultaneous and consequential SVCs and the event structure analysis based on it are making
some predictions about argument sharing.
4.2 ARGUMENT
GUMENT STRUCTURE OF DEICTIC VERBS IN
KOREAN
The
he following two examples illustrate the oblique goal/source argument of Korean
deictic verbs. Trees in Figure 4.1 and 4.2 show the clearer picture of examples (86) and (87).
Figure 4.1. A tree of example (86).
86. nay-ka secem-eyey ka

ka-ta.
I-NOM bookstore-GOAL go-DC
‘I go to the bookstore’
87. Mary-ka hakkyo-eyse
eyse oo-ta.
Mary-NOM school-SOURCE come-DC
‘Mary comes from the school’
36
Figure 4.2. A tree of example (87).
Korean deictic
eictic verbs are intransitive, but they are two
two-place
place predicates that require an oblique
argument. The NP hakkyo-ey
ey in example (86) is goal-denoting
denoting argument of the verb ka- ‘go,’
and the NP hakkyo-eyse in example (87
(87) is source-denoting
denoting argument of the verb
ve o- ‘come.’
Several tests can be used to identify whether a phrase is a complement or an adjunct:
adjacency, reordering, and do
do-so
so replacement. The two former tests, adjacency and
reordering are not applicable to Korean because it is a relatively free
free-ordering
rdering language. The
Korean equivalent of the ‘do so’ phrase is kuliha-ta (Son, 2006). If the goal PP is a
complement phrase to the verb ka-, that should not appear with the VP kuliha-ta.
kuliha Compare
the following examples in (88) and (89).
88. Mary-ka hakkyo-ey ey ka ka-ss-ta.
Mary-NOM school-GOAL go-PAST-DC
‘Mary went to school’
*John-to hakkyo-ey ey kuliha
kuliha-yess-ta.
John-also school-GOAL do-so-PAST-DC
‘John
John did so to school.’
89. Mary-ka hakkyo-ey ey ka ka-ss-ta.
Mary-NOM school-GOAL go-PAST-DC
‘Mary went to school’
John-to kuliha-yess
yess-ta.
John-also do-so-PAST-DC
‘John did so.’
In example (88), the phrase kuliha
kuliha-yess-ta ‘did so’ cannot replace the verb ka-ss-ta
ka ‘went’
because it is V, not V’. This test supports the idea that the goal PP is a complement,
complemen not an
adjunct.
Based on this, wee will therefore assume that Korean deictic verbs possess an oblique
goal/source argument. The argument
rgument structures of the verb ka- and o- are therefore as
follows:
37
90. ka- ‘go’: <theme, goal>

o- ‘come’: <theme, goal/source>
4.2.1 Deictic Verbs in SVCs and Argument Structure

This section will deal with argument identification in SVCs using deictic verbs.
According to the corpus analysis in Chapter 3, deictic verbs occupy 23% of the V2 tokens in
SVCs. Deictic verbs can appear neither as V1 in SVCs nor as V2 of SVC3s.
91. Mary-ka hakkyo-ey ttwi-e ka-ta.
Mary-NOM school-GOAL run-EC go-DC
‘Mary goes to school by running.’
92. *Mary-ka hakkyo-ey ka-a ttwi-ta.
Mary-NOM school-GOAL go-EC run-DC
Example (91) is grammatical while example (92) is ungrammatical. In general, deictic verbs
only appear as the rightmost verb among SVC verbs. The reasons for this are probably
complex; as noted in Chapter 2, there is a high degree of conventionalization in SVCs.
When a deictic verb is the V2 of an SVC, V1 can be either intransitive or transitive.
When a deictic verb is used with a path verb in the SVC, a simple argument identification
account would predict that the goal/source arguments would be identified and remain as an
obligatory argument of the SVC predicate. Instead, however, something interesting happens.
The goal/source argument is possible, but is it no longer obligatory. We now turn to the
question of why this happens.
4.2.2 A Goal/Source PP or a Path Verb: Complement

of Deictic Verb
In the corpus of SVCs, there are a number of cases of path verbs combing with deictic
verbs. As we mentioned in Chapter 2, Zubizarreta and Oh (2007) argued that path-denoting
verbs satisfy the complementation requirement of Korean deictic verbs, which makes the
goal/source argument19 optional. According to their analysis, a path verb should be analyzed
as “a path argument incorporated into the head of directed-motion construction”: [Vpath V].
Consider the following examples used to motivate their claim.
19
Zubizarreta and Oh used the term “locative argument.”
38
93. John-i (pang-ey) tul-e ka-ss-ta.20

John-NOM (room-GOAL) move into-EC go-PAST-DC
‘John went in (to the room).’
94. John-i *(pang-ey) ka-ss-ta.
John-NOM (room-GOAL) go-PAST-DC
‘John went to the room.’
The goal argument is optional with both a path verb and a deictic verb in (93), while it is
obligatory for the lone deictic verb in (94).
If the path verb satisfies the complementation requirement of the deictic verb, the
following argument identification is the simplest picture of what happens.
95. a. V1 a path verb: <th> (goal)
b. V2 a deictic verb: <th’, goal>
c. V3 path +deictic verbs: <th=th’, Vpath> (goal)
Here, the verbal argument Vpath is substituted for the goal PP. But if the goal argument has
really been satisfied by the path verb, why does the SVC in (c) still allow a goal, since in
general, predicates do not allow two goals? The answer is that a path verb does not really
supply a goal. It rather supplies a path, and parts of path may be further specified. Thus, from
now on, I will use the term ‘path’ rather than ‘goal/source’ for oblique arguments of deictic
and path verbs.
The Zubizarreta and Oh (2007) analysis is compatible with the approach to
simultaneous SVCs, taken here. This is shown in (96).
96. a. V1 a path verb: e1<th> (path)
|
subj
where start/end (path (e1))=start/end-loc (e1)
b. V2 a deictic verb: e2<th, path>
| |
subj oblique
c. V3 path +deictic verbs: e2 <th> (path)
|
subj
e3 = e2
e1 = path (e2)
20
This example from Zubizarreta and Oh is slightly edited and clarified for the purpose of this section. The
grammatical glosses have been changed to be consistent with other examples in this paper.
39
In (a), e1, is the traversal of an appropriate kind of path by the theme, and the end
points of the path can be specified by an optional path argument. For example, source and
goal arguments specify the start and end of the path respectively. In (b), e2 is the event
described by a deictic verb. In e2, the start-end location is specified by an obligatory path
argument. In (c), the path event e1 actually fills the path argument of e2; thus, for example, a
goal argument indicating the end location of e1 becomes the end of the path of e2. The path
argument of V2 disappears, since it is filled by V1; the optional path argument of V1 is
inherited.
We now turn to an example to illustrate the analysis:
97. Mary-ka (san-ey) ol(u)-a ka-ta.
Mary-NOM (mountain-PATH) move up-EC go-DC
‘Mary climbs up (to the mountain).’
a. V1 olu- ‘move up’: e1<th> (path)
|
subj
start/end (path (e1))=start/end-loc (e1)
b. V2 ka- ‘go’: e2<th, path>
| |
subj obli
c. V3 ol(u)-a ka- ‘climb’: e2 <th> (path)
|
subj
e3 = e2
e1 = path (e2)
Again, the information that two themes are identified is left out, since it follows from the
SSH.
When a deictic verb is used with a non-path verb, the obligatory path argument does
not become optional. This can be seen with the SVC heyemchi-e ka in (79) repeated here.
79. Mary-ka hakkyo-ey heyemchi-e ka-ta.
Mary-NOM school-PATH swim-EC go-DC
‘Mary swims to school.’
a. V1 heyemchi- ‘swim’: e1<ag>
c. V3 heyemchi-e ka- ‘swim-go’: e3<ag, path>
e3 = e2
e1 = means (e2)
Note that example (79) becomes ungrammatical when the goal argument is left out as in (98).
98. *Mary-ka heyemchi-e ka-ta.
Mary-NOM swim-EC go-DC
40
‘Mary swims to.’

This is because the V1 fills the means role, not the path, and so the goal is still required. To
further illustrate this point, recall example (80).
80. Mary-ka hakkyo-ey ppang-ul kwu(p)-e ka-ta.
Mary-NOM school-PATH bread-ACC bake-EC go-DC
| |
subj obj
| |
subj obli
path (e2)=end-loc (e2)
c. V3 kwu(p)-e ka- ‘bake and go’: e3 <ag, th, path>
| | |
subj obj obli
e1 < e2 and e3 = e1  e2
In example (80), the oblique goal argument remains obligatory because V1 is not a path verb.
All arguments are inherited by V3, and subjects are identified. Thus, the serial verb is a
three-place predicate with agent, theme and path arguments.
4.3 ARGUMENT STRUCTURE OF PATH VERBS IN KOREAN

As we discussed earlier, path verbs, unlike deictic verbs, specify properties of a path
as a part of their lexical semantics. Whether accompanying source/goal phrases are
complements or adjuncts is somewhat unclear. I will assume their realization is encoded in
the lexical entries of path verbs as an oblique complement, but nothing very much depends
on this.
Argument structures of the verb olu- and ol-li- are presented in (99).
99. olu- ‘move up’: <th> (path)
ol-li- ‘move up-cause’: <ag, th> (path)
As we observed in the previous section, the verb olli- is the lexical causative of olu-. This
causativization adds an additional agent argument to the causative verb.
As we discussed in the previous section, path verbs can occur as V1 of a deictic verb
in an SVC. Intransitive path verbs are used as V1s with deictic verbs. When intransitive path
verbs are used as V2s, preceded by a non-deictic and a non-path verb, they function as
normal, agentive intransitive verbs. The V1 of a path verb in an SVC may be either
41
intransitive or transitive. Consider the two following examples of intransitive path verbs.
Note that example (100) is a simultaneous SVC while example (101) is a consequential SVC.
100. An intransitive verb + an intransitive path verb
say-ka nal-a olu-ta.
bird-NOM fly-EC move.up-DC
‘The bird flies up.’
a. V1 nal- ‘fly’: e1<ag>
b. V2 olu- ‘move up’: e2<th> (path)
c. V3 nal-a olu- ‘move up by flying’: e3<ag> (path)
e3 = e2
e1 = means (e2)
101. An transitive verb + an intransitive path verb
mal-i ttang-ul pakcha-(a) olu-ta.
horse-NOM ground-ACC kick.off-EC move.up-DC
‘The horse kicks off the ground and moves upward.’
a. V1 pakcha- ‘kick off’: e1<ag, pa>
c. V3 pakcha-(a) olu- ‘kick off and move up’: e3<ag, pa> (path)
e1 < e2 and e3 = e1  e2
Transitive path verbs are different from intransitive path verbs because they have one
more argument, added by the causative morpheme. According to the corpus analysis in
Chapter 3, intransitive path verbs used in the V2 position of SVCs take intransitive,
transitive, and intransitive-passive verbs as V1. On the other hand, causative path verbs only
take transitive verbs as V1 in the SVC. According to Table A.6, V1s of transitive path verbs
are always transitive. Consider the following example:
102. Mary-ka chayk-ul cip-e ol-li-ta.
Mary-NOM book-ACC pick up-EC move.up-cause-DC
‘Mary picks up and causes the book to move up.’
a. V1 cip- ‘pick up’: e1<ag, th>
b. V2 ol-li- ‘move up-cause’: e2<ag, th> (path)
c. V3 cip-e ol-li- ‘pick up and move up-cause’: e3<ag, th> (path)
e1 < e2 and e3 = e1  e2
In example (102), the V1 cip-‘pick up’ takes two arguments, agent and theme, and the V2 ol-
li- ‘cause to move up’ also takes two arguments, so both arguments are identified.
It is also observed that causative path verbs tend not to combine with manner verbs
(Zubizarreta & Oh, 2007). Example (103) is ungrammatical while example (104) is
grammatical. It is interesting that a causative path verb can be used with a transitive-
causative verb in (104), but not with an intransitive verb as in (103).
42
103. *Mary-ka chayk-ul nal-a ol-li-ta.

Mary-NOM book-ACC fly-EC move.up-cause-DC
‘*Mary flies and cause the book to move up.’
104. Mary-ka chayk-ul nal-li-e ol-li-ta.
Mary-NOM book-ACC fly-cause-EC move.up-cause-DC
‘Mary cause the book to move up by flying it.’
Corpus analysis verifies that only transitive V1s can precede transitive-causative path verbs.
Manner of motion verbs in Korean are usually intransitive since they only express a manner
and lack a second argument.
Moreover, transitive-causative path verbs do not combine with deictic verbs in SVC.
The following example with a transitive-causative path with a deictic verb is ungrammatical.
105. *Mary-ka chayk-ul ol-li-e ka-ta.
Mary-NOM book-ACC move.up-cause-EC go-DC
‘Mary causes the book to move up and goes’
Not just transitive-causative path verbs, but almost all causative verbs are not used as V1 of
deictic verbs.
106. *Mary-ka say-lul nal-li-e ka-ta.
Mary-NOM bird-ACC fly-cause-EC go-DC
‘Mary caused the bird to fly and go’
Examples (105) and (106) violates the SSH that subjects of verbs in SVC are always
identified. In example (106), the subject of ka- ‘go’ is the object of nal-li- ‘fly-cause.’
4.4 ARGUMENT STRUCTURE OF SVCS WITH THREE OR

MORE VERBS
Three-verb SVCs are not unusual in Korean. As we saw in Chapter 3, the number of
SVC3s examples is almost one-fourth the number of SVCs with two verbs. SVC3s show
interesting restrictions, or rules, on the types and ordering of the verbs. As we mentioned
earlier, the most natural ordering of SVC3s is “manner/cause predicate + path predicate +
deictic predicate” (Sohn, 1999). Example (107) follows this unmarked ordering of SVC3s.
107. say-ka (hanul-lo) nal-a ol(u)-a ka-ta.
bird-NOM sky-PATH fly-EC move.up-EC go-DC
‘The bird flies up (to the sky).’
a. V1 nal- ‘fly’: e1<ag>
c. V3 ka- ‘go’: e3<th, path>
path(e3)=end path (e3)
d. V4 nal-a ol(u)-a ka-ta ‘fly-move up-go’: e4<th> (path)
43
e4 = e3
means (e3) = e2
means (e2) = e1
A more accurate English translation for example (107) might be ‘the bird moves upward by
flying.’ Moreover, example (107) is a simultaneous SVC in which all three events happen
without an obvious temporal order. Thus, each verb must play a role with respect to the
following verb. I have chosen the means role in both cases.
There is no principled limit on how many verbs can occur in one SVC. However,
SVCs with more than four verbs are not common in Korean. If there are more than four verbs
in one SVC, it might be conceptually too difficult to grasp the meaning. Moreover, as we
discussed in earlier chapter, SVCs express an event that has sub-events; thus, it is also not
easy for four different events to constitute a single event. In the following example, the SVC
has four main verbs:
108. cwi-ka chicu-lul pha-(a) mek-e tul-e ka-ss-ta.
mouse-NOM cheese-ACC dig-EC eat-EC move.into-EC go-PAST-DC
‘The mouse eats his way into the cheese by digging’
a. V1 pha- ‘dig’: e1<ag, pa>
b. V2 mek- ‘eat’: e2<ag, pa>
c. V3 tul- ‘move into’: e3<th> (path)
d. V4 ka- ‘go’: e4<th, path>
e. V5 pha-(a) mek-e tul-e ka- ‘dig-eat-move into-go’: e5<ag, pa> (path)
e2 < e3
e3 = path (e4)
e1 = means (e2)
The first two verbs are transitive verbs with agent and patient arguments, and two latter verbs
are an intransitive path verb and a deictic verb. The subject arguments of all four verbs refer
to the single reference, cwi ‘mouse,’ and thus are identified. The patient arguments of the two
transitive verbs are identified as well. As we observed earlier, a path verb satisfies the
complementation requirement of a deictic verb; thus, the path argument in e5 becomes
optional. The SVC in example (108) is consequential overall in the sense that there is a
temporal order between pha-(a) mek- and tul-e ka-. However, the relation between verbs
pha- and mek- is simultaneous. This means the identification of the two patient arguments
must be stipulated. The relation between the verbs tul- and ka- is also simultaneous. It is also
notable that the English translation cannot convey the exact meaning of the Korean SVC.
The more verbs involved in the construction, the harder, or less exact, the translation is.
44
4.5 CONCLUSION
Korean SVCs mostly follow the previous literature on the argument identification of
SVCs. Subject arguments are always shared by all verbs in an SVC, and object and oblique
arguments are identified only if they have the same type of theta roles. However, Korean
deictic verbs as V2 showed a unique argument identification pattern when the V1 is a path
verb. The obligatory path arguments of a deictic verb became optional in the context of a
deictic verb combined with a path verb. To explain this unique phenomenon, the event
structure was introduced. The second event of path is fused into the first event to complement
the path argument, which makes the path argument optional. This particular kind of argument
fusion only happens for deictic-path verb combinations and effectively makes them a
separate construction. For non deictic-path SVC verbs, the first and the second events either
happen simultaneously or consequentially, but are not fused into one event.
45
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
This thesis has examined several issues presented by the Korean serial verb
construction (SVC): verb types, ordering, and argument structure. From the corpus analysis,
we observed that Korean SVCs are not a closed class, but deictic verbs and path verbs have
much higher token counts than other verbs. Deictic verbs and path verbs are also of interest
because of their unique argument structure properties.
We have seen that the order of verbs in SVCs is not arbitrary. The second verb is the
head; there is a great deal of evidence pointing this way, including placement of tense and
aspect affixes, and the general tendency of Korean to be head-final. This affects the ordering
of deictic and path verbs. The deictic verb is always the ultimate verb among the main verbs
and the path verb can come in either penultimate or ultimate position among the main verbs.
There are also restrictions on the choices of verbs. The restrictions proved to be more lexical
in nature than structural. If two verbs are semantically incompatible, they cannot occur in the
SVC. For example, a verb with the prepositional meaning ‘up’ cannot co-occur with the
prepositional meaning ‘in.’
Another important principle is that the subject arguments of the verbs in Korean
SVCs are always identified. We saw in the corpus that the path-deictic verb pattern is
common for Korean SVCs but the path verb used is always intransitive. Korean SVCs mostly
follow LFG accounts of argument identification. Subject arguments are always identified
even though they can be omitted. Object and oblique arguments are identified only if they
have compatible theta roles. However, an interesting phenomenon was observed when deictic
verbs combine with intransitive path verbs. The obligatory goal argument of the deictic verb
becomes optional. This transformation cannot be explained by the LFG accounts, but the
event structure account proved useful in providing a solution, following up on an idea by
Zubizarreta and Oh (2007).
Application of event structure helped to explain the issues unsolved by previous
studies. Event structure explained the status change in optionality of the oblique argument in
46
the path-deictic SVC. The event fusion, where the first event became the path of the second
event, only occurred in the path-deictic SVC and the second event is the resulted event of the
SVC. In addition, the event structure formula helped capture the difference between two
types of Korean SVCs: consequential SVCs and simultaneous SVCs. The first event
temporally precedes the second event in the consequential SVC while the first event is the
argument of the second in simultaneous SVCs. We saw how a number of facts about
argument identification followed from this distinction. The event structure analysis was also
readily extended to SVCs with more than three verbs.
This study has only dealt with the Korean SVCs with the focus on the deictic and path
verbs. In future research, it will be interesting to discover whether other languages with serial
verbs have similar kinds of lexical restrictions and argument identification patterns. I also
would like to see how the formula I provided for the event structure analysis is applied to the
SVCs of other languages. In the languages without SVCs, the deictic and path components of
motion events are encoded separately. It seems from the Korean SVC examples that path and
deictic components must be packaged together into an SVC. Thus, it is necessary to conduct
cross-linguistic studies on two languages with SVCs or one with the SVC and the other
without it respectively. Finally, it will be interesting to see whether further study bears out
Lee’s hypothesis about SVCs: head-final languages do not have resultative constructions.
47
REFERENCES
Alsina, A. (1992). On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(4), 517-
555.
Baker, M. C. (1989). Object sharing and projection in serial verb construction. Linguistic
Inquiry, 20(4), 513-553.
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Choi, S. (2003). Serial verbs and the empty category. Retrieved from
http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/tross/choi.pdf.
Chung, T. (1993). Argument structure and serial verbs in Korean. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Collins, C. (1997). Argument sharing in serial verb construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(3),
461-497.
Dalrymple, M. (2001). Lexical functional grammar. Syntax and semantics (Vol. 34). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of
decision and action (pp. 81-120). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Falk, Y. N. (2001). Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based
syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Fillmore, C. J. (1997). Lectures on Deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kang, S. (1991). Parametric head-licensing in syntax. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Sogang University, Seoul, Korea.
Kearns, K. (2000). Semantics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kim, J. Y. (1998). Complex verbs and argument structure in Korean. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Kroeger, P. R. (2004). Analyzing syntax: A lexical functional approach. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, K. D. (1976) Cotongsa-uy uymi pwunsek (Semantic analysis of auxiliary verbs).
Mwunpep Yenkwu (Grammar Research), 3, 215-236.
Lee, S. (1992). The syntax and semantics of serial verb constructions. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1973). Serial verb constructions in Mandarin Chinese:
Subordination or co-ordianation? In C. W. Corum (Ed.), You take the high node and
I’ll take the low node (pp. 96-103). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.
48
Li, Y. (1993). Structural head and aspectuality. Language, 69, 480-504.

Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sebba, M. (1987). The syntax of serial verbs. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Sohn, H. (1999). The Korean language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Son, M. (2006). Directed motion and non-predicative path P in Korean. Nordlyd: Tromsø
Working Papers in Linguistics, 33(2), 176-199.
Suh, Y. (2000). A study of the auxiliary verb construction and verb serialization in Korean.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
You, S. (1996). Argument licensing in complex verbal constructions in Korean.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii.
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1987). Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax.
Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
Zubizarreta, M. L., & Oh, E. (2007). On the syntactic composition of manner and motion.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49
APPENDIX
FIGURES & TABLES

50
Figure A.1.. The type hierarchy of Korean complex verb constructions.

constructions
Non-action
Verbs, 5%
Path Verbs;
13%
Physical Action
Deictic Verbs; Verbs, 59%
23%
Figure A.2.. The percentage of the token of the V2 in Korean SVC by its category
according to the number of the occurrences in the corpus
corpus.
Figure A.3. The type hierarchy of the second verb of Korean serial verb
constructions.
51
Table A.1. Types of V2s in Korean SVCs in the Corpus with Meaning, Transitivity,
and the Number of Occurrence and Percentage
Verb Type Meaning Transitivity # of occurrence Percentage
an hug tr 56 1.17%
anc sit intr 54 1.13%
cap catch tr 21 0.44%
capswusi honorific form of 'eat' tr 2 0.04%
ceykki* turn over tr 8 0.17%
cha kick tr 8 0.17%
chi hit tr 22 0.46%
chiwu clean up tr 6 0.13%
cinay spend intr 5 0.10%
cwi grasp tr 61 1.28%
cwu give tr 53 1.11%
cwuk die intr 80 1.67%
cwuki kill tr 17 0.36%
ep give (a person) a piggyback tr 21 0.44%
hulu flow intr 3 0.06%
ip put on tr 35 0.73%
ka go intr 566 11.84%
kaci have tr 13 0.27%
kaph pay back tr 1 0.02%
kilu bring up, raise tr 1 0.02%
kkakk peel tr 4 0.08%
kkiwu put in tr 5 0.10%
kkwumthultay wriggle intr 1 0.02%
mac meet/get hit tr/intr 12 0.25%
macchwu fit tr 14 0.29%
mak stop, check tr 2 0.04%
mantul make tr 3 0.06%
masi drink tr 35 0.73%
math keep, take a charge of tr 1 0.02%
may tie tr 8 0.17%
mek eat tr 242 5.06%
mou gather tr 63 1.32%
mwul bite tr 67 1.40%
mwut bury, ask tr 1 0.02%
nal fly intr 2 0.04%
nalu carry tr 31 0.65%
nay put out tr/intr 3 0.06%
nayli come down/take down tr/intr 144 3.01%
neh put in tr 390 8.16%
nem go over, across tr/intr 13 0.27%
nemchi overflow intr 7 0.15%
(table continues)
52
Table A.1. (continued)

Verb Type Meaning Transitivity # of occurrence Percentage
nemki pass over tr 39 0.82%
noh put tr 14 0.29%
nwulu press tr 11 0.23%
o come intr 521 10.90%
olli raise tr 267 5.59%
olu rise intr 188 3.93%
palki crack open tr 2 0.04%
pat receive tr 27 0.56%
phal sell tr 9 0.19%
pheci spread intr 54 1.13%
po see tr 87 1.82%
poi show intr/tr 64 1.34%
ponay send tr 93 1.95%
ppay pull out tr 4 0.08%
pwulu call tr 17 0.36%
pwus pour tr 56 1.17%
pwuswu break tr 7 0.15%
pwuth adhere intr 46 0.96%
sa buy tr 4 0.08%
sal live intr 22 0.46%
sali keep alive tr 19 0.40%
se stand intr 122 2.55%
seywu make stand tr 63 1.32%
sim plant, implant tr 3 0.06%
sin wear (shoes or socks) tr 15 0.31%
ssah stack tr 2 0.04%
ssu write, use, wear (a hat) tr 47 0.98%
ssuywu cover, charge (a guilt) tr 2 0.04%
tah contact intr 23 0.48%
takchi approach tr 16 0.33%
tal hang tr 5 0.10%
tam fill tr 27 0.56%
tani go to and from, attend tr/intr 232 4.85%
tha ride, receive tr/intr 28 0.59%
theci burst open intr 10 0.21%
tteleci get a fall intr 9 0.19%
tul carry tr 491 10.27%
tuli be raised tr/intr 8 0.17%
tut hear tr 38 0.79%
twu put, keep tr 5 0.10%
wumsik move intr 2 0.04%
Total 4780 100.00%
53
Table A.2. Categorical Analysis of V2s in Korean SVCs with Types, Meaning,
Transitivity, and the Number of Utterances in the Corpus
Category Verb Type Meaning Transitivity # %
Physical an hug tr 56
Action anc sit intr 54
Verbs cap catch tr 21
capswusi honorific form of 'eat' tr 2
ceykki* turn over tr 8
cha kick tr 8
chi hit tr 22
chiwu clean up tr 6
cwi grasp tr 61
cwu give tr 53
cwuki kill tr 17
ep give (a person) a piggyback tr 21
ip put on tr 35
kaph pay back tr 1
kkakk peel tr 4
kkiwu put in tr 5
kkwumthultay wriggle intr 1
mac meet/get hit tr/intr 12
macchwu fit tr 14
mak stop, check tr 2
mantul make tr 3
masi drink tr 35
math keep, take a charge of tr 1
may tie tr 8
mek eat tr 242
mou gather tr 63
mwul bite tr 67
mwut bury, ask tr 1
nal fly intr 2
nalu carry tr 31
neh put in tr 390
nem go over, across tr/intr 13
nemchi overflow intr 7
nemki pass over tr 39
noh put tr 14
nwulu press tr 11
palki crack open tr 2
pat receive tr 27
phal sell tr 9
pheci spread intr 54
poi show intr/tr 64
(table continues)
54

ponay send tr 93
ppay pull out tr 4
pwulu call tr 17
pwus pour tr 56
pwuswu break tr 7
pwuth adhere intr 46
sa buy tr 4
Physical sali keep alive tr 19
Action se stand intr 122
Verbs seywu make stand tr 63
sim plant, implant tr 3
sin wear (shoes or socks) tr 15
ssah stack tr 2
ssu write, use, wear (a hat) tr 47
ssuywu cover, charge (a guilt) tr 2
tah contact intr 23
takchi approach tr 16
tal hang tr 5
tam fill tr 27
tani go to and from, attend tr/intr 232
tha ride, receive tr/intr 28
tul carry tr 491
twu put, keep tr 5
wumsik move intr 2
Sub-total 2815 58.89%
cinay spend intr 5
Non- cwuk die intr 80
action hulu flow intr 3
Verbs kaci have tr 13
kilu bring up, raise tr 1
po see tr 87
sal live intr 22
theci burst open intr 10
tteleci get a fall intr 9
tut hear tr 38
Sub-total 268 5.61%
Deitic ka go intr 566
Verbs o come intr 521
Sub-total 1087 22.74%
Path Verbs nay put out tr/intr 3
nayli come down/take down tr/intr 144
olli raise tr 267
olu rise intr 188
tuli be raised tr/intr 8
(table continues)
55

Sub-total 610 12.76%
Total 4780
Table A.3. Types of the V1s Occurred with the Deictic Verb -ka ‘Go’
in the Corpus with Meaning, Transitivity and Voice
Verb Type Meaning Transitivity Voice
aphcil(u)-e pass tr
aphse-(e) precede intr
as-a take away tr
cap-hi-e be held intr paasive
ccoch-ki-e be driven away intr paasive
chac-a search tr
chayngki-e put in order tr
chiol(u)-a rise intr
cip-e pick up tr
et-e obtain tr
hayemchi-e swim intr
heychi-e push aside tr
hwipssuli-e sweep away tr
hwitol-a turn round, whirl intr
hwumchi-e steal tr
ikkul-e lead tr
kal(u)-a divide tr
kalocii(u)-e cross tr
kechi-e pass through tr
ketwu-e collect, gather tr
ki(t)-le draw, ladle (water) tr
kkul-li-e be dragged intr passive
kol(u)-a choose tr
kwu(p)-e bake tr
mili-e push tr
mosi-e attend on tr
mwuk-e lodge intr
na-(a) move into intr
nal-a fly intr
nayli-e come down/take down tr/intr
nem-e go over, across tr/intr
ol(u)-a rise intr
olm-ki-e move tr causative
pat-a receive tr
pey-e cut tr
(table continues)
56

pha-li-e be sold intr passive
phihay-(a) avoid tr
pikhi-e get out of the way intr
pilli-e borrow tr
ppay-(a) extract tr
ppayas-a deprive sb of sth tr
ppop-hi-e be pulled out intr passive
pwul-li-e be called intr passive
pwuthcaphi-e be caught intr passive
sa-(a) buy tr
salphi-e observe, examine tr
si(t)-li-e be carried intr passive
ssa-(a) wrap tr
sse-(e) write tr
suchi-e go past by tr/intr
swi-e rest tr/intr
tali-e run intr
tha-(a)* receive tr
toycip-e pick up again tr
tta-(a) pick tr
ttal(u)-a follow tr/intr
ttemili-e push tr
ttut-e pluck, pick tr
tul-e enter intr
twiccoch-a chase after tr
twul(u)-e go around tr
57
Table A.4. Types of the V1s Occurred with the Deictic Verb
o- ‘Come’ in the Corpus with Meaning, Transitivity and Voice
cap-a catch tr
cay-e measure tr
cwu(p)-we gather tr
et-e obtain tr
hwumchi-e steal tr
ikkul-e lead tr
ke(t)-le walk intr
khay-(e) dig up, examine tr
ki-e crawl intr
ki(t)-le draw, ladle (water) tr
kkenay-e take out, draw out tr
kkul-e pull tr
kkunh-e cut tr
kwul(u)-e roll intr
mosi-e attend on tr
nal-a fly intr
olmki-e move tr causative
pakwu-e change tr
pat-a receive tr
ph(wu)-e draw (water) tr
phal-li-e be sold intr passive
pilli-e borrow tr
ponay-e send tr
pwuchi-e send, ship tr
pwul-li-e be called intr passive
sa-(a) buy tr
si(t)-li-e be carried intr passive
ssa-(a) wrap tr
tam-a fill tr
thwi-e bound intr
ttal-li-e be attached to intr passive
58
Table A.5. Types of the V1 Occurred with the Intransitive

Path Verb olu- 'Move Up' with Meaning, Transitivity and
Directional Features
Verb Type Meaning Transitivity Direction
chimil-e push up intr [+UP]
chisos-a rise suddenly intr [+UP]
chitat-la run up intr [+UP]
i(s)-e link tr
kesul(u)-e go upstream tr [+UP]
ke(t)-le walk intr
kkul-e pull tr
makhi-e be stopped intr
mey-e tie tr
nal-a fly intr [+UP]
pakcha-(a) kick off tr [+UP]
penci-e blot intr [+UP]
pheci-e extend intr [+UP]
phi-e blossom intr [+UP]
pokpathi-e well up intr [+UP]
ppet-e spread intr [+UP]
ppetchi-e spread intr [+UP]
ppwum-e-ci be spoutted out tr [+UP]
pwu(s)-e swell intr [+UP]
pwuphwul-e become swollen intr [+UP]
soskwuchi-e raise quickly intr [+UP]
tha-(a) burn intr [+UP]
thwi-e jump intr [+UP]
tot-a bud intr [+UP]
thwingki-e bound intr [+UP]
tulkkulh-e swarm intr [+UP]
tultt(u)-e grow restless intr [+UP]
wumth-e sprout, bud intr [+UP]
59
Table A.6. Types of the V1 Occurred with the Transitive-Causative

Path Verb olli- 'Raise' with Meaning, Transitivity and Directional
Features
Verb Type Meaning Transitivity Direction
an-a hug tr
cap-a catch tr
cep-e fold tr
ceshi-e turn over tr
cha-(a) kick tr
chi-e hit tr
cip-e pick up tr
cwu(p)-we gather tr
kenci-e take out of (water) tr
ket-e roll up (one's sleeves) tr [+UP]
ketwu-e collect, gather tr
ki(t)-le draw, ladle (water) tr [+UP]
mal-a roll up tr
mil-e push tr
mwukk-e tie tr
nakk-a catch (fish) tr
pes-e strip tr
ph(wu)-e ladle out tr
phiwu-e kindle tr
pis-e comb tr
ppwum-e spout out tr [+UP]
phwungki-e give out tr [+UP]
sil-e load tr
ssah-a stack up tr [+UP]
sso-a shot tr
ssul-e sweep tr
tangki-e pull tr
ttal(u)-a pour tr
tul-e carry tr
60
Table A.7. Types and the Number of Occurrences of SVCs with Three Main Verbs
V1 V2 Meaning V3 # of Occurrences
Path Verbs Deictic Verbs
n(a)-a come out ka 44
n(a)-a o 716
nayli-e come down/take down ka 50
Manner
Verb nayli-e o 18
ol(u)-a rise ka 62
ol(u)-a o 26
tul-e enter ka 268
tul-e o 101
Subtotal 1285
Non-path Verbs Deictic Verbs
cin(a)-a pass ka 16
nem-e go over, across ka 9
nem-e o 1
Subtotal 26
Non-path Verbs Path Verbs
kkul-e pull oli 1
Subtotal 1
Total 1312

Pyoun Ju

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pyoun Ju

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF KOREAN SERIAL VERB

CONSTRUCTIONS: A CORPUS-BASED ANALYSIS

San Diego State University

of the Requirements for the Degree

All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

The Syntax and Semantics of Korean Serial Verb Constructions:

3.5 Path Verbs as V2 in Korean SVCs ..................................................................23

Table 2.1. Korean Path Verbs ..................................................................................................11

Figure 2.1. Obligatory object argument sharing. .....................................................................12

First of all, my thanks go to the members of my thesis committee, especially

Serial verb constructions (SVCs) are an interesting linguistic phenomenon observed

2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS

2.1.1 Lexical Function Grammar (LFG)

2.1.2 Structure of Event

2.2 SERIAL VERB CONSTRUCTIONS

2.2.2 Function of SVCs

2.3 KOREAN SERIAL VERB CONSTRUCTIONS

2.3.1 SVC vs CVC

12. John-i sakwa-lul kkak-ko mek-ess-ta.

2.3.2 SVC vs AVC

‘John broiled the meat and then ate it.

2.3.3 Simultaneous SVC vs Consequential SVC

2.3.4 Deictic and Path Verbs

Table 2.1. Korean Path Verbs

2.4 ARGUMENT IDENTIFICATION

2.4.1 Object Sharing Hypothesis

Figure 2.1. Obligatory object

Olu push child the fall

33. Me nya ɖevi-ɛi dzo [eci9 (yi)10].

Figure 2.2. Empty category anal

Figure 2.3. Korean.

Figure 2.4. Chinese.

2.5 ARGUMENT STRUCTURE IN LFG

CORPUS ANALYSIS OF KOREAN SVCS

3.1 METHOD: PARTS OF SPEECH TAGS AND CONTEXTS

In addition to the distinct meanings of ‘ka’, these constructions can be distinguished

3.2 CORPUS ANALYSIS: TYPES OF V2 IN SVCS

3.3 PHYSICAL ACTION VERBS AS V2 IN KOREAN SVCS

3.4 DEICTIC VERBS AS V2 IN KOREAN SVCS

he-NOM my flu-ACC transfer-EC go-PAST-DC

3.5 PATH VERBS AS V2 IN KOREAN SVCS

Table 3.1. Korean Path Verbs: Intransitive and Transitive

3.5.1 Path Verbs: olu- vs olli-

say-ka himcha-key nal-a olu-ta.

3.5.2 Restrictions between Verbs of Korean SVCs

3.6 THE ORDER OF VERBS OF KOREAN SVCS

ku-lul hanul-lo cap-a kkul-e ol-li-ta.

Table 3.2. Restrictions on the Verb Choice between V1 and V2

KOREAN SVCS AND THEIR ARGUMENT

4.1 SIMULTANEOUS SVC VS. CONSEQUENTIAL SVC:

Figure 4.1. A tree of example (86).

86. nay-ka secem-eyey ka

Figure 4.2. A tree of example (87).

90. ka- ‘go’: <theme, goal>

4.2.1 Deictic Verbs in SVCs and Argument Structure

4.2.2 A Goal/Source PP or a Path Verb: Complement

93. John-i (pang-ey) tul-e ka-ss-ta.20

‘Mary swims to.’

4.3 ARGUMENT STRUCTURE OF PATH VERBS IN KOREAN

103. *Mary-ka chayk-ul nal-a ol-li-ta.

4.4 ARGUMENT STRUCTURE OF SVCS WITH THREE OR

Li, Y. (1993). Structural head and aspectuality. Language, 69, 480-504.