See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228731450

Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi: The Locality Problem as an Epiphenomenon

of the Surface Case Resolution

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

0 2,513

5 authors, including:

James Pustejovsky Claire Bowern

Brandeis University Yale University
313 PUBLICATIONS   13,983 CITATIONS    194 PUBLICATIONS   2,419 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

language diversity View project

DPLACE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James Pustejovsky on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi: The Locality Problem
*
as an Epiphenomenon of the Surface Case Resolution
1)

Jongsup Jun
(Hankuk University of Foreign Studies)

Jongsup Jun. 2006. Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi: The Locality Problem as an
Epiphenomenon of the Surface Case Resolution. Language and Linguistics 37, 209-232.
A well-known property of the Korean light verb construction (=LVC)
is the locality mismatch between theta-marking and case-marking on the
accusative-marked theme; e.g. Kim paksa-ka mullihak-ul yenkwu-lul
hayssta 'Dr. Kim studied physics'. The accusative theme receives its
theta-role inside the verbal noun phrase (=VNP), but seems to be case-
marked by a verbal element outside the VNP. Interestingly, the locality
problem never occurs in the Hindi LVC. In this paper, I develop a case
theory under the framework of conceptual semantics (Jackendoff 1990,
1997, 2002) to explain why the locality problem occurs in one language,
and not in another. In this theory, case is assigned in the syntactic and
semantic modules independently; case alternation results from the
mismatch between syntactic case and semantic case. The theme argument
receives syntactic genitive inside the VNP, and semantic accusative
because it is lower in rank in the thematic hierarchy than the actor argument.
Korean allows case alternation when syntactic case conflicts with semantic
case. We set up the parameter in the opposite direction for Hindi; i.e. Hindi
realizes only the syntactic case when syntactic case does not match its
semantic counterpart. This simple parameter shows that the locality
problem is merely an epiphenomenon of the surface case resolution.

Keywords: Light Verb, Case, Conceptual Semantics

* This is a thorough revision of J. S. Jun (2004), whose preliminary idea

was first presented at the GSAS/Dudley House Workshop on Light Verbs
at Harvard University in 2002. My special gratitude goes to Ray Jackendoff,
Edgar Zurif, Joan Maling, James Pustejovsky, Claire Bowern, Hee-Rahk
Chae, and anonymous reviewers of the paper. This work was supported
by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2005.
210 언어와 언어학 제37집

1. Introduction

The Korean light verb construction (= LVC) is formed by adding

the light verb HATA 'to do' to verbal nouns (= VNs).

(1) a. True LVC:

Kim paksa-ka mullihak-ul/uy yenkwu-lul hay-ss-ta
K doctor-NOM physics-ACC/GEN study-ACC do-Pst-Dec
'Dr. Kim studied physics'
b. Incorporated LVC
Kim paksa-ka mullihak-ul/*uy yenkwu-hay-ss-ta
ACC/*GEN

In many studies, the light verb HATA is assumed to be light. In

(1), it is the VN yenkwu 'study' rather than the light verb that is
responsible for such thematic roles as agent and theme. In the true
LVC in (1a), the VN yenkwu is marked accusative by the light verb.
In the incorporated LVC in (1b), however, the VN is part of the
light verb complex.
A well-known property of the Korean LVC has to do with case.
The internal argument of the true LVC ― i.e. mullihak 'physics' in
(1a) ― alternates between accusative and genitive.1) On the other

1) An anonymous reviewer pointed out that the use of genitive on mullihak

in (1a) is close to ungrammatical or at best marginally acceptable. Although
this reaction is not uncommon facing the data like (1a), we have reasons
why a number of previous studies have focused on the use of either genitive
or accusative on the theme argument as in (1a) in terms of the locality
problem (cf. H-D Ahn 1991; J. Yoon 1991; Grimshaw & Mester 1988;
Y-S Lee 1992, inter alia). Most importantly, the use of genitive in (1a)
is too simplified to show the real nature of the construction. A more
prevalent use of genitive on the theme in the true LVC can be found in
a complex complement NP, as shown below.
(i) Kim paksa-ka [cicin-i palsaynghan wenin]-uy
K doctor-NOM [earthquake-NOM happen-REL cause]-GEN
yenkwu-lul hayssta
 Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi▪Jongsup Jun 211

hand, the internal argument of the incorporated LVC cannot get

genitive, but only accusative, as shown in (1b). So the first question
in the Korean LVC is how we get different distributions of case
between the true LVC and the incorporated LVC.
Another important question has been widely discussed in the literature
concerning locality for theta-marking and case-marking in the true
LVC. Grimshaw & Mester (1988) and J. Yoon (1991) point out that
case-marking or theta-marking cannot both be local in the true LVC
unless the VNP-internal argument is marked genitive.2) In (1a), the

study-ACC did
'Doctor Kim studied the origins of the earthquake'
The acceptability of the genitive theme in the true LVC varies from close
to ungrammatical to fully acceptable under relevant discourse situations.
The study of linguistic data becomes particularly difficult when the data
do not usually occur in everyday conversations. The use of elicited unnatural
data is analogous with laboratory experiments in biology or chemistry, where
the experiments are carefully designed to elicit certain data that are not
readily available in natural situations. This is why Jackendoff (1994) draws
parallelism between the elicited linguistic data and the experimental data
in laboratory situations. This is also why the linguistic science deals with
intuitively unclear and hence controversial data to explain speakers'
knowledge of a language (Schütze 1996). The genitive theme in (1a) is
not immediately acceptable to many speakers, perhaps because there are
other syntactic and pragmatic reasons to disfavor the use of the genitive
theme in the true LVC. Nevertheless, the fact that we can readily create
situations where the genitive theme can be used in the true LVC shows
there lies something behind the curtain.
2) The VN also licenses the agent role to the external argument Kim paksa.
In many earlier studies, the external argument is also the argument of the
light verb. Theories differ depending upon whether there is argument sharing/
fusion between the light verb and the VN (O'Grady 1995; J. Yoon 1991;
Butt 1995, 1997; T. Mohanan 1997; J-R Kim 1993; Kageyama 1991; J.
K. Lee 2001 Rosen 1989), whether the external argument of the light verb
controls that of the VN (Isoda 1991; Matsumoto 1992a, b; Sato 1993);
or whether the Korean HATA or the Japanese SURU is in fact a heavy
verb (Y-H Kim 1981; Hasegawa 1991; Kajihara 1991; Terada 1990;
Uchida & Nakayama 1993). Because of this complex situation, the internal
argument of the VN provides a better ground for explaining the locality
mismatch between case and theta-roles than the external argument.
212 언어와 언어학 제37집

VN yenkwu licenses the theme role to mullihak, which is marked

either accusative or genitive. The classical assumption of case-marking is
that NP-internal arguments are marked genitive, and that NP-external
arguments are marked nominative and accusative. When mullihak is
marked genitive, it is inside the VNP in traditional approaches, as
shown in (2).

(2) Kim paksa-ka [VP [VNP mullihak-uy yenkwu]-lul hay]-ss-ta

GEN

In (2), mullihak gets both the theme role and the genitive case
inside the VNP. Both theta-marking and case-marking are local here.
When mullihak is marked accusative, however, it is outside the
VNP, as shown in (3).

(3) Kim paksa-ka [VP mullihak-ul [VNP yenkwu]-lul hay]-ss-ta

ACC

In (3), mullihak gets accusative, even though it is the internal

argument of the VN. In traditional approaches, mullihak cannot remain
inside the VNP, since accusative is not assigned to adnominal arguments.
If mullihak gets accusative (possibly by HATA or some other verbal
element) outside the VNP as in (3), the VN should theta-mark its
argument outside its local domain.3) In short, the case-marking domain

Without further ado, I assume that the external argument Kim paksa
belongs to HATA in (1a) as far as the surface syntax is concerned; i.e.
there might be argument sharing, fusion, control, or whatever in the
deep syntax, but, on the surface, the external argument behaves as the
external argument of HATA.
3) The nominative-marked Kim paksa is always outside the VNP, and brings
about non-local theta-marking. Since Kim paksa gets both case and the
theta-role directly by HATA in some theories, the discussion of the external
argument tends to be theory-specific, or unnecessarily complicated (cf.
Footnote 3). For my thorough treatment of the external argument based
 Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi▪Jongsup Jun 213

does not match the theta-marking domain in (3). This is the locality
mismatch between case-marking and theta-marking in the Korean
(and also Japanese) LVC.4)
The LVC is important in south Asian languages like Hindi. T.
Mohanan (1994, 1997) discusses two types of the Noun-Verb complex
predication in Hindi.

(4) a. ilaa-ne mohan-kaa apmaan kiyaa

I-ERG M-GEN(M) insult-NOM(M) do-Perf-M
'Illa insulted Mohan'
b. ilaa-ne mohan-kii prašamsaa kii
I-ERG M-GEN(F) praise-NOM(F) do-Perf-F
'Illa praised Mohan'
(5) a. ilaa-ne mohan-ko pasand kiyaa
I-ERG M-ACC liking-NOM(F) do-Perf-M
'Ila liked (approved of) Mohan'
b. ilaa-ne mohan-ko ksamaa kiyaa
I-ERG M-ACC forgiveness-NOM(F) do-Perf-M
'Illa pardoned Mohan'
(T. Mohanan 1997, 454 & 457)

In Hindi, a verb agrees with its highest nominative-marked argument

in its local domain, i.e. the clause. If there is no nominative argument
in the clause, the default masculine singular -aa is added to the verb.
In (4), the VNs (apmaan 'insult' and prašamsaa 'praise'), which are
also called the host of the complex predication in the literature (Masica
1991; T. Mohanan 1994, 1997), are marked nominative, and the

on argument fusion in the conceptual structure, see J. S. Jun (2003).

4) Notice that it is the accusative, and not the genitive, theme that brings
about the locality problem, which is the main topic of this paper. Although
I provided substantial justification for the study of the genitive theme in
(2), the controversial genitive theme does not constitute a main research
question of this paper. My concern is, in fact, restricted to a narrower
domain of the true LVC, namely the locality problem with the accusative
theme.
214 언어와 언어학 제37집

light verb (ki-) agrees with them in gender (i.e. masculine kiyaa vs.
feminine kii). Notice that mohan gets NP-internal genitive when the
VNs agree with the light verb in gender.
In (5), however, the nominative-marked VNs (pasand 'liking' and
ksamaa 'forgiveness') do not agree with the light verb. The verb is
inflected for the default masculine singular -aa, even though its
nominative-marked arguments are feminine. When the VNs do not
agree with the light verb in gender, the internal argument mohan gets
verbal case.
After studying behavioral differences in agreement, passivization,
negation, and gapping between (4) and (5), Mohanan (1994, 1997)
concludes that the host VNs in (5) are inherent part of the VN-LV
complex predicates, whereas the host VNs in (4) are syntactic arguments
of the verb. The bracketing in (6) and (7) shows the difference.

(6) True LVC:

a. [Clause ilaa-ne [VNP mohan-kaa apmaan] kiyaa]
b. [Clause ilaa-ne [VNP mohan-kii pra amsaa] kii]
(7) Incorporated LVC:
a. [Clause ilaa-ne mohan-ko pasand-kiyaa]
b. [Clause ilaa-ne mohan-ko ksamaa-kiyaa]

The VNs (apmaan and prašamsaa) are syntactic arguments of the

light verb in (6), whereas in (7), the VNs (pasand and ksamaa) are
part of the main verbs. According to Mohanan (1997, 466), such complex
verbs as pasand-kiyaa and ksamaa-kiyaa are lexicalized items. The
structural difference between (6) and (7) accounts for the different
case-marking on mohan. In (6), mohan gets genitive, since it is the
internal argument of a VN. In (7), mohan gets accusative, since it is
the primary object of a complex verb.
Notice that (6) is parallel with the true LVC with genitive-marked
arguments in Korean, and that (7) is parallel with the incorporated
 Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi▪Jongsup Jun 215

LVC in Korean. In (6) and (7), both case-marking and theta-marking

are local, which is precisely the case for the true LVC with genitive
arguments and the incorporated LVC in Korean.
There is a striking difference between the Korean LVC and the
Hindi LVC. In the Korean true LVC, the internal argument of a VN gets
either genitive or accusative as shown in (1a). As I already discussed,
the accusative object brings about the locality mismatch between case-
marking and theta-marking in the Korean LVC. A cross-linguistically
valid question is whether or not the internal argument of a VN can
get verbal case in the Hindi LVC. The answer is No. Look at the
contrast in (8) and (9).

(8) a. [Clause ilaa-ne [VNP mohan-kaa apmaan] kiyaa]

GEN
b. *[Clause ilaa-ne mohan-ko [VNP apmaan] kiyaa]
ACC
(9) a. [Clause ilaa-ne [VNP mohan-kii prašamsaa] kii]
GEN
b. *[Clause ilaa-ne mohan-ko [VNP prašamsaa] kii]
ACC

Since mohan cannot get verbal case in (8) and (9), no locality mismatch
between theta-marking and case-marking arises in the true LVC in
Hindi.5)
The difference between the Korean LVC and the Hindi LVC immediately
raises one important theoretical and empirical issue. Why does the
locality mismatch occur in one language (i.e. Korean), and never in

5) It is interesting that Hindi scholars have not shown interest in the locality
problem for the light verb construction (Miriam Butt, p.c.). As far as Hindi
is concerned, the locality mismatch between theta-marking and case-marking
never arises, and hence never asks for special attention from scholars. When
we look at Hindi from a cross-linguistic perspective, however, the locality
problem arises. That is, we are struck by the fact that the Korean/ Japanese
LVC displays the locality mismatch whereas the Hindi counterpart does not.
216 언어와 언어학 제37집

another (i.e. Hindi)? This is not merely a theoretical question, since

we can also put the same question into empirical terms: Why does
the internal argument of a VN in the true LVC show case alternation
in one language (i.e. Korean), and never in another (i.e. Hindi)? After
briefly reviewing previous studies of the LVC in section 2, I will
present my own analyses under the frameworks of conceptual semantics
(Jackendoff 1990, 1997, 2002) and the Case-in-Tiers theory (Yip,
Maling & Jackendoff 1987; Maling 1993) in section 3. Section 4 presents
some consequences of the theory, and section 5 is the conclusion.

2. Previous Studies of the LVC

Most researchers assume complex predication to account for the

LVC phenomena. A VN is combined with a light verb to form either
a true or an incorporated LVC. The argument structure of the VN
somehow interacts with the argument structure of the light verb to
create the combined argument structure of the LVC. Scholars agree
that the VN is contentful; i.e. the argument structure of the VN is
crucial in determining the composite argument structure of the LVC.
On the contrary, scholars do not agree whether or not the light verb
is contentful. For this reason, many earlier studies can be viewed
with respect to the question of whether or not they consider the light
verb contentful.
Grimshaw and Mester's (1988) argument transfer is a representative
proposal that assumes an empty argument structure for the light
verb. (10) illustrates the argument transfer from the VN to the LV.

(10) a. VN (x, y, z)
b. LV ( ) <ACC>
c. VN (z) + LV (x, y) <ACC>
 Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi▪Jongsup Jun 217

Miyagawa (1989), S. Rosen (1989b),Sells (1990), Yamamoto (1992),

C-S Suh (1996), and H-D Ahn (1991) also assume an empty argument
structure for the light verb.
In another group of studies, the light verb is assumed to make some
thematic contribution to the entire LVC. The light verb has its own
argument structure, which interacts with the argument structure of
the VN. Approaches to the LVC in categorial grammar (=CG), Lexical
Functional Grammar (=LFG), O'Grady (1995), J. Yoon (1991), Butt
(1995, 1997), T. Mohanan (1997), J-R Kim (1993), Kageyama(1991),
and J. K. Lee (2001) proposed argument sharing/fusion between the
two argument structures of the VN and the LV. On the other hand,
Isoda (1991), Matsumoto (1992a, b), and Sato (1993) proposed argument
control in configurational terms.
Finally, H-P Choi (1937), H-P Im (1979), Y-H Kim (1981), Hasegawa
(1991), Kajihara (1991a, b), Terada (1990), and Uchida & Nakayama
(1993) proposed the heavy HATA/SURU hypothesis. In this approach,
the light verb, in fact the heavy verb, is contentful, and provides the
argument structure of the LVC as a whole. See J. S. Jun (2003) for
detailed review of these approaches.

3. Conceptual Semantic Explanation

An important idea of conceptual semantics (Jackendoff 1990, 1997,

2002) is the tripartite architecture of language, where semantics and
phonology as well as syntax make completely autonomous modules of
language. Each module has its own primitives, combinatorial rules,
and structural representations. That is, syntax has its own primitives
like syntactic categories (e.g. N, V, A, etc.), combinatorial rules
(e.g. X-bar syntax; Jackendoff 1977), and structural representations
like syntactic trees. Likewise, semantics has its own primitives like
218 언어와 언어학 제37집

semantic categories (e.g. Thing, Event, Property, etc.), combinatorial rules

(e.g. X-bar semantics; Jackendoff 1987b), and structural representations
called conceptual structures (Jackendoff 1990).6) In this section, I
present how the basic idea of conceptual semantics can be expanded
to deal with tough questions like locality mismatch in terms of case
assignment.

3.1 Head fusion

What I propose for the complex predication in the VN-LV complex

is head fusion of two conceptual structures. Given two functional
predicates and their conceptual structures E1 and E2, where E stands
for Event, head fusion merges E1 and E2 to create the composite
conceptual structure. Butt (1995, 1997) also presented a similar
idea of event fusion based on event transparency in her study of the
Urdu complex predication. The guiding idea of head fusion is found
in Jackendoff (1974), where he explains the difference between put
the blame and get the blame in terms of merger of subcategorization
frames.
(11) is the informal statement of head fusion.

(11) Head Fusion:

To form the composite conceptual structure out of two
predicational heads:
a. Align the conceptual structures of both predicates, so
that their function-argument configurations match, and
b. Fuse the two conceptual structures into one composite
structure, so that matched functions and arguments become
one.

For illustration, look at the Korean data in (12).

6) For parallels between phonology and syntax/semantics, see Jackendoff (1997).

 Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi▪Jongsup Jun 219

(12) a. Mina-ka Inho-lul pinan-ul hay-ss-ta

M-NOM I-ACC blame-ACC do-Pst-Dec
'Mina put the blame on Inho'
b. Inho-ka Mina-loputhe pinan-ul pat-ass-ta
I-NOM M-from blame get-Pst-Dec
'Inho got the blame (from Mina)'

(12a) is a HATA construction. (12b) uses another productive light

verb PATTA 'to get'.
(13) shows the respective conceptual structure for HATA, PATTA,
and pinan 'blame'.

(13) a. hata 'to do (light verb)'

Thematic Tier, [ … ]
Action Tier, [AFF ([ ]A, [ ]A)]
b. patta 'to get (light verb)'
Thematic Tier, [GO ([Y]A, [TO ([α])]) … ]
Action Tier, [AFF( ,[ ]α)]
c. pinan 'blame'
Thematic Tier, [CAUSE ([ ](A), [GO
([RESPONSIBILITY_FOR ([Z])], [TO ([ ])]A)])]

Head fusion of (13a, b) with (13c) generates the composite conceptual

structure corresponding to (12a, b) respectively.

3.2 Morphosyntax

Head fusion accounts for the semantics of complex predication showing

how function-argument structures in the conceptual structure interact
and merge together. Then, what kind of structural descriptions do we
need to represent the true LVC and the incorporated LVC? How does
the morphological information interact with syntax? How can we achieve
cross-linguistic generalizations with our theory?
220 언어와 언어학 제37집

When we review a number of previous studies of the LVC, we see

that different theorists assume different syntactic structures under
various theoretical frameworks. Some people stipulate a number of
invisible functional projections into the LVC while others do not.
Some people stubbornly use binary branching trees, while others are
more or less flexible. Renowned scholars disagree with one another
whether the VN projects into a phrase or not. When it comes to the
diversity of theories, it is a mess. Nevertheless, it seems that there
are at least a couple of points which most, if not all, researchers
would agree. For instance, in the LVC, the VN is the complement to
the light verb, and not vice versa. The true LVC seems to be a maximal
projection of the light verb, whereas the incorporated LVC seems to
make a word. The VN in the true LVC seems to be capable of taking
its own complement and making a maximal projection, whereas the
VN in the incorporated LVC is not.7) These points may well be considered
as minimal assumptions for the study of the LVC. These minimal
assumptions suggest the syntactic structures for the true and the
incorporated LVCs in (14).

7) H-R Chae (1996) argues against the traditional phrase/word distinction

based on the following data.
(i) mullihak-ul yenkwu-tul-ha-n-ta
physics-ACC study-PL-do-Pres-Dec
'They study physics'
(ii) Kim paksa-ka mullihak-ul yenkwu-man-ha-n-ta
K doctor-NOM only
'Dr. Kim only STUDIES physics'
If yenkwu-hata were a word, it would be hard to explain how the plural
marker and the delimiter can occur inside the main verb violating the lexical
integrity hypothesis. Chae's arguments are convincing, but the problem
is not that simple since we also have a good number of motivations for
the phrase/word distinction in the literature of the Korean, Japanese, and
Hindi LVC. So I leave this problem as an open question in this paper,
but interested readers may find more discussion in J. S. Jun (2003).
 Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi▪Jongsup Jun 221

(14) a. Minimal structure for the true LVC:

VP

VNP LV

... ... ... VN

b. Minimal structure for the incorporated LVC:
VP

VN LV

I assume that the two minimal structures for the LVC in (14) are
constructions in the sense of construction grammar (Goldberg 1995),
and that these constructions are lexical entries like regular words.
The lexicon also has a number of VNs, light verbs like HATA. (15)
shows part of such a lexicon.

(15) a. VP-construction
VP

VNP LV
b. V-construction
V

VN LV
c. HATA LV
d. pinan 'blame' VN
e. yenkwu 'study' VN

Given the lexicon in (15), we can, in fact, generate all possible

LVCs. The V-construction in (15b), HATA in (15c), and pinan in
(15d) are put together like Lego blocks, which generates the so-called
incorporated LVC pinan-hata. With a simple PS-rule (like "XP →
(YP) X"), the VN yenkwu in (15e) projects into a VNP. This VNP
combines with the VP-construction in (15a), and HATA in (15c).
222 언어와 언어학 제37집

This will yield the true LVC yenkwu-lul hata. We do not need any
esoteric pre-syntactic lexical operation or syntactic movement.

3.3 Surface case resolution

The key idea of case in conceptual semantics (J. S. Jun, 2003) is

that case is both syntactic and semantic. In many theories including
GB, minimalism, LFG, GPSG, HPSG, etc., case is determined in
syntax. On the other hand, many others do think that case is determined
in semantics: e.g. cognitive linguists, Role and Reference Grammar,
such LFG studies as K-S Hong (1991) and Alsina (1996, 1997).
Descriptively, case is explained by its function and meaning, i.e.
syntax and semantics. Since case is explained by both syntactic and
semantic terms equally well or badly, the null hypothesis should be
that function and meaning are the head and tail of case. To put this
idea into practical terms, an NP gets nominative/accusative/etc. simply
because its function and meaning collaborate to mark it so.
I adopt the Case-in-Tiers approach proposed by Yip, Maling &
Jackendoff (1987), and elaborated in Maling (1993) and Maling, Jun
& Kim (2001). In this theory, syntactic arguments are hierarchically
lined up with respect to its embedding in syntactic trees. Case is
mapped onto these arguments hierarchically. In (16), nominative is
mapped onto the NPSUBJ rather than the NPOBJ, because the NPSUBJ
is less deeply embedded than the NPOBJ in syntax.

(16) Syntactic Hierarchy: NPSUBJ > NPOBJ

󰠾 󰠾
Case Tier Hierarchy: NOM > ACC

This is the syntactic case mapping in tiers.

In conceptual semantics, the semantic structure is as highly organized
and configurational as the syntactic structure, and the semantic arguments
 Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi▪Jongsup Jun 223

are hierarchically lined up with respect to its embedding in semantic

trees. Case is also mapped onto these arguments hierarchically. In
(17), the actor gets nominative, because it is higher than the theme
in semantic hierarchy.

(17) Semantic Hierarchy: THINGactor > THINGtheme

󰠾 󰠾
Case Tier Hierarchy: NOM > ACC

This is the semantic case mapping in tiers.

The semantic case in conceptual semantics is different from such
semantic cases as dative in traditional theories. Also, the semantic
case in conceptual semantics has nothing to do with meaning. In (17),
cases like nominative and accusative are directly mapped onto thematic
roles like actor and theme. But this does not mean that nominative
is the case for actor, and that accusative is the case for theme. In
conceptual semantics, thematic relations like actor and theme do not
play a significant role in grammar. Rather, thematic roles are merely
derived concepts over conceptual structures (Jackendoff 1987a). That
is, a THING argument is defined as actor when it occupies a certain
position in a highly configurational semantic tree. This is exactly
parallel with the statement that an NP is defined as the subject of a
sentence when it occupies a certain position in a highly configurational
syntactic tree. For this reason, the thematic roles in the semantic
hierarchy in (17) are simply defined labels over structural positions of
a conceptual structure. What (17) amounts to say is that when a THING
argument occupies a higher structural position in a conceptual structure
than another THING argument, the configurationally higher THING gets
nominative, and the configurationally lower THING gets accusative.8)

8) RRG (=Role and Reference Grammar) also develops its semantic case theory
that has nothing to do with meaning per se (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997).
In RRG, case assignment is semantic, but it refers to a thematic hierarchy,
224 언어와 언어학 제37집

One may wonder why we need this mechanism for semantic case
when we already have a mechanism for syntactic case. The reason
lies in the architecture of language in conceptual semantics. Since
syntax and semantics are two autonomous levels of grammar, we need
correspondence rules between syntax and semantics. In order to define
correspondence rules, we first have to identify syntactic and semantic
entities that correspond to each other. In other words, we need an
interface component between syntax and semantics. J. S. Jun (2003)
argues that case plays this interface role between syntax and semantics.
To illustrate the point, we have three NPs in syntax and three THINGs
in semantics. We mark one of the three NPs with nominative, and
mark one of the three THINGs with nominative. Correspondence rules
refer to this case marking in both syntax and semantics, and map the
NP with nominative marking in syntax onto the THING with nominative
marking in semantics. For this reason, syntactic and semantic markings of
case are required by the foundational architecture of conceptual semantics.
The crucial aspect of this theory is the surface case resolution. In
most cases, syntactic case matches its corresponding semantic case.
That is, an NP gets nominative in syntax, because it is the subject.
Its corresponding THING argument gets nominative in semantics,
because it is the actor. Therefore, the NP gets nominative because
its syntax and semantics collaborate to mark it nominative.
A problem occurs when syntactic case conflicts with the semantic
case. When syntactic case does not match the semantic case, languages
differ in choosing syntactic case over semantic case, semantic case over
syntactic case, either syntactic or semantic case, both syntactic and
semantic cases, etc. The LVC provides one such example. In the LVC,
the NPOBJ of a VN remains inside the VNP, as shown in (18). Following
the standard assumption, I assume that the adnominal genitive is strictly

which is derived from a highly configurational semantic structure as in

conceptual semantics.
 Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi▪Jongsup Jun 225

syntactic. Therefore, the NPOBJ in (18) gets the syntactic genitive.

(18) VP

VNP LV

NPOBJ VN

GEN

The NPOBJ in (18) may correspond to the theme argument in (19),

which attracts accusative by virtue of the semantic case mapping in
(17).

(19) [Event F([THINGactor ], [F ([THINGtheme ], [ ... ])])]

󰠾 󰠾
NOM ACC

(18) and (19) show that there is mismatch between the syntactic
genitive and the semantic accusative.
I assume that Korean and Japanese choose either syntactic or
semantic case when the two cases do not match.9) This explains why
we have case alternation between genitive and accusative in the true
LVC in Korean. Because the NPOBJ is an internal argument of the
VN, it is generated inside the VNP, and gets adnominal genitive in
syntax. On the other hand, the corresponding THING argument of
the NPOBJ in the conceptual structure gets accusative. Because Korean
allows either syntactic or semantic case when they conflict, either
genitive or accusative surfaces, as shown in (1a).
What I propose for the Hindi LVC is that it chooses only the syntactic
case when it conflicts with the semantic case. When the syntactic genitive

9) For detailed arguments, see the discussion of the aspectual nominal construction
in Korean and Japanese in J. S. Jun (2003).
226 언어와 언어학 제37집

conflicts with the semantic accusative as in (18) and (19), only the
syntactic genitive surfaces. This explains why case-alternation never
occurs on the NPOBJ in the Hindi LVC.

3. Some Theoretical and Empirical Consequences

One theoretical consequence is that the locality mismatch is just

an epiphenomenon to case theory. In the Korean LVC, the locality
mismatch occurs when the internal argument is case-marked by accusative.
The verbal case on the internal argument forced researchers to move
the internal argument out of its local domain, i.e. outside the VNP.
On the contrary, whether the internal argument is marked genitive
or accusative, it remains inside the VNP in my theory. Hence, the locality
mismatch is just apparent and epiphenomenal to case theory.
The proposed theory in this paper has empirical consequences as
well. In particular, my theory explains Grimshaw and Mester's (1988)
famous problem of the hierarchical argument transfer. Look at (20).

(20) a. ce calyo-ka wuli-eykey [VNP [ku-uy ilon-i

that data-NOM us-to he-GEN theory-NOM
thuliessta-nun sasil]-uy cungmyeng]-ul ha-n-ta
mistaken-Pst-Comp fact-GEN proof-ACC do-Pres-Dec
'The data proves to us the fact that his theory was wrong'
b. *ce calyo-ka [ku-uy ilon-i thuliessta-nun sasil]-ul
[VNP wuli-eykey-uy cungmyeng]-ul ha-n-ta
us-to-GEN proof-ACC do-Pres-Dec

The argument structure of cungmyeng 'proof' is hierarchically organized

as in (21).

(21) (Source (Goal (Theme)))

 Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi▪Jongsup Jun 227

According to Grimshaw & Mester, argument transfer occurs following

an outside-in fashion. That is, you cannot transfer theme when goal
remains in the VN's argument structure. (20b) is not grammatical
since the accusative-marked theme clause is transferred when the
genitive-marked goal remains inside the VNP.
In my theory, we do not need to posit any ad-hoc stipulation for
the hierarchical argument transfer phenomena. Following the basic
idea of Baker's UTAH and the conceptual semantic linking principle
(Jackendoff 1990), we assume that a lower ranked theta role does
not occupy a higher syntactic position than a higher ranked theta
role. Suppose there are at most two argument positions available for
VP-internal arguments, which is a standard assumption in conceptual
semantics. (22) is ungrammatical, simply because NPTheme occupies a
configurationally higher position than NPGoal. The UTAH problem
does not occur in (23), where NPTheme gets either adnominal genitive
from syntax or accusative from semantics.

(22) *VP

NPTheme VNP LV

NPGoal VN HATA
(23) VP

NPGoal VNP LV

NPTheme VN HATA

4. Conclusion

One important contribution of my paper to the understanding of the

LVC is to show that unlike the prevalent discussion of the Korean/
228 언어와 언어학 제37집

Japanese LVC in the literature, the locality mismatch does not occur
in Hindi. That is, the locality mismatch per se must be parameterized
to occur or not to occur in any theory. In this paper, I have tried to
parameterize the locality mismatch in terms of the surface case resolution
between the syntactic and the semantic case in my conceptual semantic
case theory. Within this view, case alternation in the Korean LVC is
the result of the mismatch between the syntactic genitive and the
semantic accusative. One empirical gain of the theory is that it provides a
natural account for the hierarchical argument transfer. Now that we
have gained insights into case as well as the light verb construction
in Korean and Hindi, it is time to pursue our inquiry into case based
on more cross-linguistic data.

참고문헌

Ahn, Hee-Don (1991). LightVerbs, VP-Movement, Negation and Clausal

Architecture in Korean and English. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ.
of Wisconsin-Madison.
Alsina, Alex (1996). The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar:
Evidence from Romance. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Alsina, Alex (1997). "Causatives in Bantu and Romance", in Alex
Alsina, Joan Bresnan & Peter Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates,
203-246. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Butt, Miriam (1995). The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Butt, Miriam (1997). "Complex predicates in Urdu", in Alex Alsina,
Joan Bresnan & Peter Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates, 107-149.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Chae, Hee-Rahk (1996). "Ha-uy thuksengkwa kyengswule kwumun
[Properties of ha- and light predicate constructions]", Language
 Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi▪Jongsup Jun 229

Research 32-3, 409-476.

Choi, Hyon-Pay (1937). Wulimalpon [Korean Grammar]. Kyengseng:
Yenhuy Cenmum Chwulphanpu. (Reprint in 1971. Seoul: Cengum
Munhwasa.)
Goldberg, Adele (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach
to Argument Structure. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Grimshaw, Jane & Armin Mester (1988). "Light Verbs and θ-marking",
Linguistic Inquiry 19, 205-232.
Hasegawa, Nobuko (1991). "On head movement in Japanese: the case
of verbal nouns", Proceedings of Sophia Linguistic Society 6,
8-32.
Hong, Ki-Sun (1991). Argument Selection and Case Marking in Korean.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford Univ.
Im, Hong-Pin (1979). "Yongenuy ekumpunli hyensangey tayhaye",
Korean Journal of Linguistics, 4-2.
Isoda, Michio (1991). "The light verb construction in Japanese", Papers
from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society,
231-247.
Jackendoff, Ray (1974). "A deep structure projection rule", Linguistic
Inquiry 5-4, 481-505.
Jackendoff, Ray (1977). X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Jackendoff, Ray (1987a). "The status of thematic relations in linguistic
theory", Linguistic Inquiry 18, 369-411.
Jackendoff, Ray (1987b). "X-bar semantics“, in James Pustejovsky (ed.),
Semantics and the Lexicon, 15-26. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Jackendoff, Ray (1994). Patterns in the Mind: Language and Human
Nature. New York: Basic Books.
230 언어와 언어학 제37집

Jackendoff, Ray (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning,
Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Jun, Jong Sup (2003). Syntactic and Semantic Bases of Case Assignment:
A Study of Verbal Nouns, Light Verbs and Dative. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Brandeis University.
Jun, Jong Sup (2004). "The Locality Mismatch in the Light Verb
Construction in Korean and Hindi", in Gulsat Aygen, Claire
Bowern & Conor Quinn (eds.), Papers from the GSAS/Dudley
House Workshop on Light Verbs, 77-94. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ.
Kageyama, Taro (1991). "Light verb constructions and the syntax-
morphology interface", in Heizo Nakajima (ed.), Current English
Linguistics in Japan, 169-203. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kajihara, Satomi (1991a). The Syntactic Feature of Argument Transfer
with Suru. M.A. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Kajihara, Satomi (1991b). "Derivation of the N-suru compound", ms.,
Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Kim, Jeong-Ryeol (1993). "Parsing light verb constructions in lexical-
functional grammar", Language Research 29-4, 535-566.
Kim, Young-Hee (1981). "Kancepmyengsa pomunpepkwa 'ha'uy uymi
kinung", Hangul, 173/174.
Lee, Jong Kun (2001). "Light verbs and argument structures", in
Susumu Kuno et al. (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics
IX, 542-551. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
Lee, Young-Suk (1992). "Case and word order variations in nominal
clauses", Language Research 28-2, 359-380.
Maling, Joan (1993). "Of nominative and accusative: the hierarchical
assignment of grammatical case in Finnish", in Anders Holmberg
& Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Case and Other Functional Categories
 Light Verbs in Korean and Hindi▪Jongsup Jun 231

in Finnish Syntax, 49-74. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Maling, Joan, Jong Sup Jun & Soowon Kim (2001). "Case-marking
on duration adverbials revisited", in Hee-Don Ahn & Namkil
Kim (eds.), Selected Papers from the Twelfth International
Conference on Korean Linguistics, 323-335. Seoul: Kyungjin
Munhwasa.
Masica, Colin P. (1991). The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Matsumoto, Yo (1992a). On the Wordhood of Complex Predicates in
Japanese. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford Univ.
Matsumoto, Yo (1992b). "A syntactic account of light verb constructions
in Japanese", ms., Tokyo Christian Univ.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989). "Light verbs and the ergative hypothesis",
Linguistic Inquiry 20-4, 659-668.
Mohanan, Tara (1990). Arguments in Hindi. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford
Univ. (Published in 1994 as Argument Structure in Hindi.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.)
Mohanan, Tara (1997). "Multidimensionality of representation: NV
complex predicates in Hindi", in Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan &
Peter Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates, 431-471. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
O'Grady, William (1995). "On the status of Ha-ta in multiple complement
structures", Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3, 531-544. Seoul:
Hanshin Publishing Company.
Rosen, Sara T. (1989a). "Two types of noun incorporation: a lexical
analysis", Language 65-2, 294-317.
Rosen, Sara T. (1989b). Argument Structure and Complex Predicates.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Brandeis Univ.
Sato, Yutaka (1993). Complex Predicate Formation with Verbal Nouns
in Japanese and Korean: Argument Transfer at LF. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Univ. of Hawaii.
 232 언어와 언어학 제37집

Schütze, Carson (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality

Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press.
Sells, Peter (1990). "Properties of verbal nouns and category status
in Japanese", ms., Stanford Univ.
Suh, Cheong-Soo (1996). Kuke Mumpep. Seoul: Hanyang Univ. Press.
Terada, Michiko (1990). Incorporation and Argument Structure in
Japanese. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Massachusetts.
Uchida, Yoshiko & Mineharu Nakayama (1993). "Japanese verbal noun
constructions", Linguistics 31, 623-666.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & Randy J. LaPolla (1997). Syntax: Structure,
Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Yamamoto, Hiromi (1992). "On the so-called 'light' verb suru in
Japanese", Working Papers of Linguistics, 324-339. Univ. of
Washington, Seattle.
Yip, Moira, Joan Maling & Ray Jackendoff (1987). "Case in tiers",
Language 63-2, 217-250.
Yoon, James Hye Suk (1991). "Theta operations and the syntax of
multiple complement constructions in Korean", in Susumu Kuno,
et al. (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics IV, 433-445.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.

[449-791] 경기도 용인시 모현면 왕산리 산 89 한국외국어대학교 언어인지과학전공

E-mail: jongsupjun@korea.com

논문접수 : 2006년 1월 15일

게재확정 : 2006년 2월 12일

View publication stats