Im Seohyun

Lee Chungmin

English

Im, Seohyun

49617

Lee, Chungmin

49618

Waseda University Repository

Type Construction of Nouns with the Verb ha- 'do'Seohyun Im	 Chungmin LeeDept. of Linguistics, Seoul National University	 Dept. of Linguistics, Seoul National UniversitySeoul, Korea	 Seoul, Koreaish97@snu.ac.kr	 clee@snu.ac.krAbstractThis paper aims to give an explanation of the combination of certain nouns and the verb ha- 'do'.Although the verb ha- 'do' normally takes an event type argument, it takes some substantival nounssuch as paiolin 'violin', umsikcem 'restaurant', and so on. A substantival noun undergoes type shifting,because the governing verb ha- 'do' coerces an entity type noun to an event reading, taking missinginformation from the qualia of the entity type noun. In addition, some nouns like ppallay 'launch-3e aredot objects. The verb taking a dot object selects a proper type between multiple subtypes of the dotobject. Type pumping operation makes that selection possible.1. IntroductionMuch of the current research on sure 'do' in Japanese and ha- 'do' in Korean has been focused on itslight verb function when it combines with verbal nouns since Grimshaw & Mester (1988). Althoughmany papers have tried to uncover the nature of the Korean verb ha- 'do', they still have difficulty indefining the lexical semantic property of this verb. Recent studies of the verb ha- including Jun (2001),Im & Lee (2001) touch on the issues of substantival nouns with ha- 'do'. In this paper, we account forhow the verb ha- ' do' is directly combined with substnatival nouns or complex type nouns.Specifically, we first list the nouns used together with the verb ha- 'do' in chapter 2. Thenouns are classified into verbal nouns, substantival nouns, and dot objects. In chapter 4, we accountedfor the combination of the verb ha-`do' with substantival nouns or complex type nouns. A substantivalnoun undergoes a type shifting operation by type coercion of the governing verb ha- 'do'. Typepumping operation makes possible that ha- selects a proper type out of multiple types of a dot object.Our explanation is based on the Generative Lexicon (GL) Theory (Pustejovsky, 1995, 2001).2. DataIn Chapter 2, we classify the kinds of nouns that combine with the verb ha- 'do'. Verbal nounsconstitute the light verb construction with ha- 'do'. A verbal noun, basically, assigns thematic roles toits arguments. The words in (1) are typical verbal nouns.103(1) kensel `construction', phagoy 'destruction', ceycak 'production' ,Secondly, a substantival noun such as paiolin 'violin' can be a complement of the verb ha- 'do' as in(2):(2) John-un paiolin-ul	 ha-n-taJ-TOP violin-ACC do-PRES`John plays the violin'Although ha- 'do' normally takes an event type noun as its argument, some kinds of substantivalnouns combine with ha- 'do' naturally. We present a part of group of substantival nouns combiningwith the verb ha- do' in (3):(3) a. yencwu 'play': cheyllo 'cello', phiano 'piano', tulem `drum',...b. chakyong 'wearing': mokkeli 'necklace', phalcci 'bracelet', meylppang suspenders',...c. wunyeng 'management': pyengwon 'hospital', kakey `store', kongcang `factory',d. wuncen driving' : thayksi	 ,...e. hupyen smoking': tampay cigarette', aphyen ' opium' ,...f. umyong drinking' : khephi coffee', swul alcoholic drink', kholla `coke',...In the above, we listed two kinds of nouns combining with the verb ha- 'do'. But there arenouns belonging to neither verbal nouns nor substantival ones. It is not easy to explain the propertiesof those nouns, because of their ambiguities'. The sentences in (4) show the polysemy of the nounppallay 'laundry' with different predicates.(4) a. onul-un	 ppallay-ka	 nemwu manh-tatoday-TOP laundry-NOM too	much-DEC`Today, I have too much laundry'b. na-nun ppallay-lul 	 imi	 kkutnay-ss-taI-TOP washing-ACC already finish-PAST-DEC`I have already finished washing'In (4a), ppallay 'laundry' is an entity type noun denoting the clothes that need washing. But ppallay`washing clothes' is an event type noun meaning a washing activity. We give an explanation of howthose nouns combine with ha- 'do' and what the meaning of those is. The words in (5) haveambiguities because those belong to multiple types on ontology.1 These nouns are different from the nouns such as paiolin violin'. Paiolin 'violin' has no ambiguityintrinsically. The types of the nouns are coerced by the governing verb only when governed by it. While, thenoun such as ppallay 'laundry' is ambiguous in itself.104(5) ppallay 'laundry', swukcey 'homework' , sayngkak 'thought', mal 'language', iyaki `talk',hakmwun 'science', poko 'report', . • •In this paper, we confine our research to an analysis of the nouns in (3) and (5). Inconsequence, our argument will be a trial to explain why and how the nouns combine with the verbha- 'do'. We show the frame of GL theory as an introduction to our argument.3. Generative Lexicon Theory3.1 Lexical Semantic StructureThe idea of GL is that polysemy comes by the logical inference from a basic meaning of a word. Thelexical semantic structure designed by Pustejovsky (1995) consists of event structure, argumentstructure and qualia structure. For example, the lexical semantic structure of the English verb build islike the following in (6)2:(6) buildEVENT STR = El = el : processE2 = e2: stateHEAD = elARGSTR = ARG1 = x = animate_indARG2 = y = artifactD-ARG1 = z = materialFORMAL = massQUALIA = createicpFORMAL = exist (e2, y)AGENTIVE = build_act (el, x, z)Qualia structure represents semantic or conceptual information of words. In other words, qualiastructure of a word is the mode of explaining that and gives the relational force of a lexical item. Thatincludes formal, constitutive, telic and agentive quale.2 Event structure characterizes basic event type of a lexical item and internal, subeventual structure. Argumentstructure specifies the number and type of arguments that a lexical item carries. Default arguments allow us toconsider conceptual participants of an event represented by a verb.105(7) Qualia Structurea. CONSTITUTIVE: the relation between an object and its constituent parts;b. FORMAL: that which distinguishes it witin a larger domain;c. TELIC: its purpose and functiond. AGENTIVE: factors involved in it origin or "bringing it about" (Pustejovsky, 1995)In the next section, we argue about the ontology and types of words based on Pustejovsky (2000).3.2 Ontology and Types of NounsPustejovsky (2000) suggests a ranking of types, pointing out the defect of Montague's flat typingmodel. He distinguishes between natural (simple) types and functional types, and then motivates theuse of complex types (dot objects) to model objects with multiple and interdependent denotations.(8) a. NATURAL TYPES: Predication from the domain of substance,e.g., the qualia FORMAL or CONST.b. FUNCTIONAL TYPES: Predication includes reference to either AGENTIVE or TELIC qualiac. COMPLEX TYPES: Cartesian type formed by Dot Object Construction.According to him, the upper concept lattice is structured into three domains: entities, qualities, andevents. Each domain is itself structured by a type ordering relation, from simpler to more complextypes. Natural types are grounded types and Functional types combine qualia-based information fromAGENTIVE and TELIC modes of explanation with a ground type. Book is a typical complex typenoun. Book is a physical object but includes information. Pustejovsky (1995, 2000) call this noun a dotobject.(9) a. John stole every book in that library.b. John read every book in that library. 	 (Asher & Pustejovsky, 2000)In (9), the verb steal selects the physical object type of the noun book and read selects the informationinterpretation. In the next chapter, we will discuss about dependent type nouns such as paiolin `violn'and dot objects such as ppallay 'laundry', based on these theoritical concepts.4. The Generative Mechanism of PolysemyAsher & Pustejovsky (2000) introduces two different operations in order to explain polysemy. Theyexplain a dot object by type pumping operation. On the other hand, a dependent type noun which doesnot have a proper type required by its governing verb undergoes type shifting by type coercion. Wesuggest that these operations allow the nouns in (3) and (5) to combine with the verb ha- 'do'.1064.1 Argument Type of the Verb ha-The nouns in (3) are entity type ones. Is it possible for entity type nouns to combine with the verb ha-`do'? The transitive verb ha- takes an event type argument as its complement as in (10):(10) a. *John-un son-ul	 ha-ye	 na-lul pwulu-ess-taJ-TOP	 hand-ACC do-ending I-ACC call-PAST-DEC`John called me doing the hand (literally)'b. John-un soncis-ul 	 ha-ye	 na-lul	 pwulu-ess-taJ-TOP hand signal-ACC do-ending I-ACC call-PAST-DEC`John beckoned to me'In the above examples, the verb ha- cannot combine with an entity type noun son 'hand'. ha- cancombine with only soncis 'hand signal' meaning an act. The following question and answers show thatthe verb ha- takes only event type arguments.(11) Q: ne mwue-ha-ni?You what-do-INTR`what are you doing?A: a. na, pap	 mek-eI boiled rice eat-DEC`I'm eating a meal'b. na, pang chengso ha-eI room cleaning do-DEC`I'm cleaning the room'c. *na, chayksang ha-eI desk	 do-DEC`I'm doing a desk'In (11), only expressions denoting events can be an answer to the question. In conclusion, the verb ha-takes an event type noun as its complement argument. In 4.2, we explain the compound of thedependent type noun like paiolin 'violin' and ha-.4.2 Dependent Type Nouns and Type CoercionIm & Lee (2001) notes a superficial type conflict in the construction of SNs plus the verb ha- 'do'.Substantival nouns are entity type nouns but ha- 'do' takes an event type noun as its complementargument. But the verb ha- `do' takes an entity type complement in (12a):107(12) a. John-un	 paiolin-ul	 ha-n-ta.J-NOM violin-ACC do-PRES-DEC`John plays the violin'b. Who's doing the food for your party?Both paiolin 'violin' and food in (12) are entity type nouns but combine with the verb taking an eventtype argument such as ha- 'do' in Korean and do in English. Then, the meaning of paiolin 'violin is anactivity 'playing the violin' in (12a). While, in other light verb constructions, ha- 'do' does notcombine directly with a substantival noun as in (13).(13) a. *cekkwun-i tosi-lul ha-ess-tathe army-NOM city-ACC do-PAST-DEC`*The army did a city'b. cekkwun-i tosi-lul phagoy-lul ha-ess-tathe army-NOM city-ACC destruction-ACC do-PAST-DEC`The army destructed a city'The verbal noun phagoy 'destruction' in (13b) is a verbal noun in the light verb construction. tosi`city' is an argument of the verbal noun phagoy 'destruction'. In (13a), the entity type noun tosi 'city'cannot combine directly with the light verb ha- 'do' without the verbal noun phagoy 'destruction'. Ifso, how is it possible that a substantival noun like paiolin 'violin' combine with ha- 'do' as in (12)?Pustejovsky (1995, 2000) explain the combination of the entity type noun with the verb begin by typecoercion.(14) a. Mary began reading a book.b. Mary began a book.The verb begin coerces type of the argument book to an event function introducing the event readingof the NP a book because, otherwise, there is a type error in that combination. In this way, the verb ha-`do' in Korean and do in English coerces the type of their arguments to an event type, when they arecombined with special entity type nouns. The type coercion is based on the qualia structure of thearguments. The verb ha- 'do' coerces its argument to event type, taking missing information for thecorrect interpretation from the qualia structure. The noun paiolin 'violin' in (12a) is interpreted aspaiolin yencwu 'playing the violin'. This interpretation is from the telic quale of the noun paiolin`violin' in its qualia structure as in (15).108(15) paiolin 'violin'QUALIA = musical_instrument_lcpFORMAL = x: physobjTELIC	 = play (e, w, x)AGENTIVE = make_act (e', v, x)In sum, we can represent the type coercion to event description on the noun paiolin 'violin' from thegoverning verb ha- 'do' in (12a), as follows:(16) S[human]John	 coercion[event] •	 VXxXe[play(e, x, violin)]Ipaiolin(-0	 ha-There are limited kinds of nouns whose type changes by type coercion based on their telic quale.These nouns must get specification on ha-combinability in the lexicon to block overgenration ofsubstantive N plus ha-.The [SN + ha- 'do] construction constitutes an individual-level predicate for business orprofession, as major or habit (in a secondary telic quale) when type shifting is based on the telic qualeof the substantive nominal. Observe:(17) ce-nun	 swul-un	 mot-ha-pnitaI -TOP alcohoic drink-TOP cannot-do-DEC`I cannot/don't drink'The substantive nominals involved in this construction are necessarily nonspecific generic (Note that anominal involved in such a stage-level aspectual predicate as in (14b) is necessarily specific). But theconstruction can be changed into the stage-level predication by quantizing the nominal or adding timeadverbials, as follows:109(18) wuli maykcwu	 han-can	 ha-ca.we	 beer	 one-glass do`Let's drink a glass of beer'Nouns such as pap 'boiled rice' are coerced into an event type of such agentive quale as`cook act' instead of their telic quale as 'eat'.(19) ecey-nun	 nay-ka pap-ul	 ha-ess-ta.Yesterday-TOP I-NOM boiled rice-ACC do-PAST-DEC`Yesterday, I cooked rice'Type coercion on substantive nouns based on an agentive quale introduces a stage-level predication ofmaking/preparing, not an individual-level one. This exactly applies to (12b) in English. Their eventreadings are dependent on their unique qualia roles.In sum, a dependent type noun undergoes type shifting from an entity type to an event typeby type coercion of governing verb ha- 'do'. Type coercion is based on the qualia structure of thenoun. If it requires telic quale information, the combination of the noun and ha- is an individual-levelpredicate. Otherwise, it is likely to be a stage-level predicate. If so, how can we explain thecombination of the complex type noun such as ppallay 'laundry' with ha-? In the next secion, weshow disambiguation of a complex type noun.4.3 Complex Type Nouns and Type PumpingA noun such as ppallay 'laundry' is a dot object with multiple meanings. Dot objects have complextypes and the two subtypes of a dot object are mutually interdependent. So, we cannot have onewithout the other. This mutual dependency makes copredication possible. Let's see sentences in thefollowing;(20) ppallay-ka acwu manh-ass-ciman, seythakki tekpwun-ey lsikan-maney kkutnay-ss-talaundry-NOM very much-PAST-but washing machine help lhour-in	 finish-PAST-DEC`the laundry was very much, but I finished washing in one hour thanks to a washer'The verbal noun ppallay in Korean is able to be copredicated corresponding to both laundry andwashing in English. We cannot imagine laundering without laundry. ppallay as laundry is an entitytype noun and one denoting laundering is an event type noun.(21) a. ppallay-ka	 cec-ese	 nemwu mwukep-ess-talaundry-NOM wet-ending too	 heavy-PAST-DEC1 10`Laundry was too heavy, for it was wet'b. Yumi-nun halwucongil ppallay-lul	 ha-ess-ta.Yumi-TOP all day	 washing-ACC do-PAST-DEC`Yumi did washing all day long'The noun ppallay in (21a) is an entity type noun but ppallay in (21b) is an event type noun. Thesecomplex type nouns get their process and result/pre-act nominal readings through the type pumping(projection) process as in (22)3:(22) a. Yumi-nun halwucongil cipan ppallay-lul ha-ess-ta`Yumi did her family laundry all day long'b. ha-` do'(0(E i (ppallay: process -physobj)))(Yumi)ha--` do'(e(ppallay: process))(Yumi)ha-` do' (ppallay: event)(Yumi)(0: subtype coercion operator, E: type pumping operator)Because the verb ha- 'do' takes an event type argument, ha- selects an event reading out of the twotypes; entity type and event type. But ppallay is interpreted as an entity when it combines with theverb cec- 'be wet, for cec- takes only an entity type noun as its argument as in (23):(23) a. ppallay-ka	 cec-ese	 mwukep-talaundry-NOM wet-ending heavy-DEC`laundry is heavy, because it is wet'b. cec-'wet'(0(E2 (ppallay: process •hysobj)))cec-'weV(0(ppallay: phsyobj))cec-'wet'(ppallay: entity)Let's consider the noun mal 'speech'. mal `speech' is a kind of dot object.(24) a. John-un han-sikan naynay	 swi-ci anh-ko	 mal-ul ha-ess-taJ-TOP one-hour throughout rest-ending not-ending speech-ACC do-PAST-DEC`John continued to say something throughout one hour without stopping'3 Pustejovsky (1995) suggests subtype coercion operation and use 0 as that operator.(1) John drives a benz.In (1), benz is one of kinds of cars made by a company in Germany. When the verb drive combines with benz,benz is interpreted as a car. It is possible through subtype coercion operation.(2) 0 [benz S car]: benz 14 carThanks to subtype coercion, we have no difficulty in interpreting proper meaning of the sentence in (1).111b. kukes-un cham cinpwuhan mal-ita.That-TOP very stereotyped expression-DEC`That is a very stereotyped expression'In (24a) mal 'saying' means an activity expressing or conveying someone's thought or feeling etc.And its type is an event. But mal in (24b) is an abstract entity type noun similar to phyohyen`expression'. The noun mal in Korean is a complex type noun4. In sum, nouns such as ppallay`laundry' and mal 'speech' are dot objects having a complex type. The verb combining with thoseselects a proper type out of multiple types by type pumping operation.5. ConclusionWe can thus solve the puzzle of why certain substantival nouns take ha- 'do' as their main verb andthis direction will shed new light on the same crosslinguistic phenomenon. This is possible by meansof the systematic lexical semantic specification of their qualia structures and a generative operationdevice – type coercion – provided by the Generative Lexicon Theory. Also, we gave an account of thecombination of nouns such as ppallay 'laundry' and the verb ha- 'do'. Based on Asher & Pustejovsky(2000), we treat nouns such as ppallay 'laundry' as a kind of dot object, because those have multipletypes in themselves. The verb ha- selects an event type interpretation between two subtypes of a dotobject through type pumping operation.BibliographyAsher, N & Pustejovsky, J. 2000. The Metaphysics of Words in Context. In Journal of Logic,Language, andInformation.Chae, Hee-Rak. 1996. The property of ha- and the light verb construction. Language Research 32-3.Buitelaar, P. 1998. CORELEX• Systematic Polysemy and UNderspecification, Ph.D. Dissertation. Brandeis Univ.Grimshaw, J. & Mester, A. 1988. Light Verbs and Theta-Marking, Linguistic Inquiry 19-2.Jun, J. S. 2001. Semantic Co-composition of the Korean Substantival Nouns-ha (ta) Construction: Evidencefor the Generative Lexicon, Akatsuka et al (eds) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10. CSLI.Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Pustejovsky, J. 2000. Syntagmatic Process. In A. Cruse (ed.), Handbook of Lexicography. Berlin: Mouton.Pustejovsky, J. 2000. Type Construction and the Logic of Concepts. In P. Bouillon the Logic of Concepts. InP.Bouillon and F. Busa (eds.), The Grammar of Word Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Seohyun Im & Chungmin Lee. 2001. Type Shifting of the Korean Substantival Nouns with the Verb ha-in Korean. Proceed's of the 3rd International Conference on Cognitive Science. Peking, China.4 mal in Korean can be translated to several words - speech, language, expression, word, statement, etc. on inEnglish.112

Type Construction of Nouns with the Verb ha- 'do'

DSpace at Waseda University

Type Construction of Nouns with the Verb ha- \u27do\u27

https://waseda.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=28726&item_no=1&attribute_id=101&file_no=1

Type Construction of Nouns with the Verb ha- \u27do\u27

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Waseda University Repository

DSpace at Waseda University