• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• pp.127-139
• /
• 2005

In this paper I investigate whether Korean-speaking children know the basic meaning of reciprocal anaphors like each other. I further examine whether they have knowledge of subtle differences in the interpretations of such anaphors depending on the two types of verbs. Fiengo and Lasnik (1973) pointed out a contrast between reciprocal sentences with active verbs and stative verbs. For example, a sentence with an active verb like The men in the room are hitting each other, has both a strong reciprocal reading (i.e., everyone of them in the room is hitting every other one) and a weak reciprocal reading (i.e., certain pairs of men are not engaged in the action of hitting each other). In contrast, a sentence with a stative verb like The men in the room know each other allows only a strong reciprocal reading (i.e., everyone of them know every other one). 16 Korean children and 15 Korean adults were tested using the Truth Value Judgment Task methodology. The results of the present study show that like English children, Korean children know the meaning of reciprocal anaphor, and that they also know the semantic difference of reciprocal sentences with active and stative verbs. Therefore, the present study strongly supports the claim that the semantic distinction of reciprocal sentences with active and stative verbs may be universal, and that children's ability of this semantic distinction might be innately given.

• 한국영어학회지:영어학
• /
• 제1권2호
• /
• pp.331-347
• /
• 2001

In this study I investigate two implicit arguments in English middles: discharged argument and event argument. I argue that in middle formation external argument is discharged and event argument is suppressed. The proposal can account for the problems with the previous studies (Williams 1981; Keyser and Reoper 1984: Roberts 1987: Fagan 1988, 1992: Chung 2000). When a middle derives from the corresponding transitive verb, the subject argument is discharged, being an implicit argument. Argument discharge is different from argument suppression in the passives and argument deletion in the ergatives. I also argue that event argument is suppressed in middle formation. Event argument suppression is supported by the following: (i) The transitive verbs are always eventive but the corresponding middles are stative, and (ii) the middles are underlyingly eventive, (iii) the middles are “adorned” by certain manner adverbials.