Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22, No. 0, pp.767-781
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2022
Received 18 Jul 2022 Revised 20 Aug 2022 Accepted 31 Aug 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.22..202208.767

Further Empirical Evidence on the Role of Verbal Root in the Computation of Telicity

Jihyun Kim ; Wooseung Lee
(1st author) Lecturer, Department of English Education, Korea University jihyunkim@korea.ac.kr
(corresponding author) Professor, Department of English Education, Konkuk University wlee6@konkuk.ac.kr


© 2022 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Though the type of verbal root plays a role in the computation of telicity, very little work has been done on this issue. Given the scarcity of the research on this issue, the present study aims to highlight the role of verbal root in the computation of telicity by providing statistical evidence that English accomplishment predicates behave not uniformly in several diagnostics for telic/atelic distinction: the compatibility with in/for adverbials and the ambiguity of in adverbials between event duration interpretation and event delay interpretation. We test whether English accomplishment predicates behave differently with respect to these diagnostics depending on their verbal root on 65 Korean learners of English and 48 native speakers of English. The result of the first test shows that in adverbials are chosen more often when the accomplishment predicates focus on result rather than manner. Likewise, for adverbials are chosen more often when the accomplishment predicates focus on manner rather than result. The result of the second test shows that in adverbials are interpreted as more ambiguous between the two readings when the predicates focus on result rather than manner. Event duration interpretation is more likely to arise when the predicates focus on result rather than manner, while event delay interpretation is almost equally available for both verbal roots. Taken together, the findings in the present study validate that the aspectual value of the predicate is conditioned, at least partially, by the verbal root.

Keywords:

telicity, completion entailment, accomplishment predicates, types of verbal roots

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and questions. All errors are our responsibility.

References

  • Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Netherlands: Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7]
  • Declerck, R. 2007. Distinguishing between the aspectual categories “(a)telic”, “(im)perfective” and “(non)bounded”. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 29, 48-64. [https://doi.org/10.17161/KWPL.1808.1787]
  • Depraetere, I. 2007. (A)telicity and intentionality. Linguistics 45(2), 243-269. [https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.008]
  • MacDonald, J. E. 2015. Extended projections of V: Aspect. In A. Fabregas, J. Mateu and M. Putnam, eds., Contemporary Linguistic Parameters, 177-200. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
  • Smollett, R. 2005. Quantized direct objects don’t delimit after all: A revised account of the role of quantized direct objects in aspectual composition. In H. J. Verkuyl, H. de Swart and Angeliek van Hout, eds., Perspectives on Aspect, 41-60. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3232-3_3]
  • Kaku-MacDonald, K., J. Liceras and N. Kazanina. 2020. Acquisition of aspect in L2: The computation of event completion by Japanese learners of English. Applied Psycholinguisics 41, 185-214. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641900047X]
  • Kearns, K. 2017. Semantics. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  • Koenig, J-P. and L. Chief. 2008. Scalarity and state-change in Mandarin, Hindi, Tamil, and Thai. In O. Bonami and P. Cabredo Hofherr, eds., Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7, 241-262. Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.
  • Koenig, J-P. and N. Muansuwan. 2000. How to end without ever finishing: Thai semi-perfective markers. Journal of Semantics 17, 147-194. [https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/17.2.147]
  • Krifka, M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution, and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem and P. van Emde Boas, eds., Semantics and Contextual Expressions, 75-115. Dordrecht: Foris. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877335-005]
  • Kim, J. 2022. The acquisition of English time adverbials by Korean learners of English. Korean Journal of Linguistics 47(2), 203-228.
  • Kim, J. and W. Lee. 2022. The role of verbal root in completion entailment of English accomplishment predicates. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 22, 579-592.
  • Lin, J. 2004. Event Structure and the Encoding of Arguments: The Syntax of the Mandarin and English Verb Phrase. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
  • Oh, E. 2014. An experimental study of English perfective interpretation by Korean speakers. Language Information 18, 73-90.
  • Oh, E. 2015. The acquisition and interpretation of English telicity by Korean speakers. English Language and Linguistics 21(1), 79-101. [https://doi.org/10.17960/ell.2015.21.1.004]
  • Ogiela, D., C. Schmitt and M. W. Casby. 2014. Interpretation of verb phrase telicity: Sensitivity to verb type and determiner type. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 57, 865-875. [https://doi.org/10.1044/2013_JSLHR-L-12-0271]
  • Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin. 2010. Reflection on manner/result complementarity. In E. Doron, M. Rappaport Hovav and I. Sichel, eds., Syntax, Lexical Semantics and Event Structure, 21-38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0002]
  • Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY [https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501743726]
  • Verkykuyl, H. J. 1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 39-94. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627398]