Korean verbs

Abstract: We investigate the semantics of Korean embedded clauses that bear the nominalizer kes and declarative marker ta. Such clauses can be embedded by mit ‘believe.’ While such clauses are not factive (Shim and Ihsane 2015), we present elicitation data that shows that nominalized (ta-kes) clauses are felicitously embedded by mit only if their conveyed content was previously asserted in the context; no such restriction arises for non nominalized clauses. Our analysis of such nominalized embedded clauses argues that they do not denote a proposition— a set of possibleworlds—but rather a definite description of a discourse event—an assertion event— that carries propositional content. The use of ta-kes embedded clauses allows Korean verbs like mit to acquire felicity conditions similar to those proposed for response-stance verbs (e.g. agree, deny) (Cattell 1978, Anand and Hacquard 2014).

Abstract: As part of a larger project into the acquisition of tense-aspect marking in Korean, this paper reports the findings of a piece of experimental research looking into “when” and “how” second language learners of Korean develop use of the progressive marker “ko issta”. The paper sets out to test the claims made by the aspect hypothesis (Shirai 1991, Andersen & Shirai 1996) regarding acquisition of progressive marking; namely that (1) progressive marking is acquired first on activity verbs and later on accomplishment and achievement verbs and that (2) learners do not commit "errors" of using progressive marking with state verbs. However, we acknowledge several problems in applying these claims to Korean: (1) since “-ko issta” can be more easily omitted with activity verbs than with other verb types, it appears questionable that progressive marking is acquired primarily with activity verbs in the case of Korean; (2) in contradiction to claims that learners do not “mis-use” progressive marking with state verbs, Korean “-ko issta” frequently occurs with a category of such verbs (cognitive/emotive) verbs in native speaker talk and (3) Korean verbs of wearing may operate both as accomplishment and as achievement verbs, resulting in dual readings when used with progressive marking. Data was collected through a cloze-style test sat by 40 learners of Korean (20 at elementary level and 20 at advanced level) and retrospective interviews. Analysis of the results can be summarized as follows: (1) contrary to the claims of the aspect hypothesis, progressive marking in L2 Korean occurs first on accomplishment rather than activity verbs, (2) Korean L2 learners acquire progressive marking on cognitive-emotive verbs at a late stage and struggle to fully grasp the meaning even at advanced levels, (3) with verbs of wearing, learners acquire the “accomplishment” reading first and the “achievement” meaning later. We conclude the paper by discussing the implications of this research for Korean language education and by making concrete recommendations as to how teaching of this important point of tense-aspect can be improved.

Abstract: In Korean verbal inflection, all forms in the paradigm (A-suffix, C-suffix, or ɨ-suffix forms) suffer from neutralization of some lexical contrasts, and there is no single form of the paradigm from which one can correctly predict all the other forms in the paradigm. Nevertheless, a survey of child errors and historical change show that the attested reanalyses are overwhelmingly based on ambiguities in A-forms, rather than in other affixal contexts (Kang 2006). In this study we conducted a computational modeling of learning of inflected forms of 952 Korean verbs using the Minimal Generalization Learner algorithm (MGL; Albright and Hayes 2002, 2003) to account for this striking asymmetry. The simulation result shows that A-suffix form correctly predicts the other forms in the paradigm at a higher rate than C-suffix form or ɨsuffix form does, indicating that the A-suffix form is indeed the most informative form of the paradigm. This is in line with the previous studies showing that learners designate the most informative form as a privileged base form (Albright 2002, 2008). We compare the model’s errors with attested child errors and historical changes.