DEICTIC AND ANAPHORIC TENSE IN KOREAN: A TWO-TIERED APPROACH

by Kyung-Sook Chung B. A., Pusan National University, 1985 M.A.. Pusan National University, 1987

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTLAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

in the Depamnent of Linguistics

O Kyung-Sook Chung 1999 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY October 1999

All right reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of author. National Library Bibliotque nationale I*I 01 C~~ada du Cana a Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Ssrvices services bibliographiques 305 Wdlingtm Street 395, nre Wellington OnpwaON K1AON4 atawaO(r( K1AW - Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde me licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pennettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, preter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprids reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT

Cross-linguistically the general concept of tense makes use of the deictic center, the speech time or the present moment. Present, past, and future means that a time reference, usually the situation or event time, is simultaneous with. anterior to, or posterior to the deictic center. However, these three temporal relations are not enough to account for the various tense phenomena in the world's languages. In addition to these absolute tenses. we must refer to relative tense (Comrie 1985). which has reference points other than the deictic center. A third time point. the reference point (Reichenbach 1947) or shifted secondary deictic center, is needed to account for relative tense. In this thesis, I show that the notions absolute and relative tcnse can be given a precise semantic and syntactic structure when conceived of as deictic and anaphoric tense respex tivel y. First, I discuss the need for anaphoric tense in addition to deictic tense and show how languages utilize these two concepts. Next, I show how these concepts can be used to provide an analysis of some complex tense phenomena in Korean. There has been a lot of confusion concerning the Korean verbal inflection suffixes since they do not correspond to the inflectional system of western languages. I suggest that the Korean verbal inflection system has two levels. a speaker-addressee-oriented level and a situation (event)-oriented level. The so called

"retrospective marker" -te-, are speaker-addressee-oriented, while other tenses, for example the so called "past tense" or "perfect" -m-,is situation-oriented. ft follows that TE tense is a deictic tense whereas other tenses are anaphoric. I show that TE tense never denotes situation time but rather the speaker's past-shifted viewpoint-the reference point is a past-shifted deictic center, unlike other simple deictic tenses, which denote either a situation time or a reference point.

Using the concepts of deictic and anaphoric tense. I develop a syntactic structure of tense interpretation, following the pndicative theory of tense (Stowell 1995, 1996, and others) in which tense is like a predicate in that it always has a subject-like temporal argument4 deictic center- and an object-like temporal argument -the situation time. Here, anaphoric tense means that its (subject-Like) external argument is linked to the (object-Ue) internal argument of a higher tense yielding a pattern of coreference reminiscent of the coreferential relationship between nominals and their anaphon. I show how the two notions of tense can be translated into a two-tiered syntactic structure and how this structure not only accounts for the

Korean phenomena but also provides a straightforward account of English perfect tense and the mle of sequence of tenses in English.

Recognition of the essential difference between deictic tense and anaphoric tense not only allows for a systematic treatment of complex tense phenomena in Korean and other languages but it also allows for a formal representation of tense structure in terms of familiar syntactic configuration. To the memory of my mother ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply grateful to Donna Gerdts, my senior supervisor, for her hearty, intellectual, and financial support. I am greatly indebted to her for her encouragement and concern. I owe a great deal to Charles Ulrich too. He advised me on the right style of writing, helped me with my infelicitous and inconsistent English, and proofread the rial draft. I would like to express sincere thanks to the members of my thesis committee, Nancy Hedberg and Rejean Canac-Marquis. ! also would like to thank all the professon, staff members, and all my colleague students, who helped and advised me in some ways. My special thanks go to my parents, my brother, my sister, and my in-laws, especially my mother-in-law, for their emotional and practical support. Finally, I cannot thank my husband Sang-Baek and my daughter Chung-Won too much for their encouragement, patience, and steadfast support. Without these all, this thesis could not have been written. All errors in this thesis are mine. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Approval Absuact Dedication Acknowledgments vi Table of Contents vii List of Tables List of Figures List of Abbreviations

CHAPTER 1. DE1CTIC AND ANAPHOWC TENSE 1.1. The grammaticalization of Tense 1.2 Tense and Aspect as a Deictic System 1.3. Deic tic and Anap horic Tense 1.4. The Third Time Point 1.4.1. Reichenbach (1947) 1 A.2. Schopf (1989) 1.4.3. Smith (199 l), Hornstein (1990), and McGilvray (1 99 1) 1.4.4. Klein (1994) 1.4.5. The Reference Point 1.5. Summary

CHAITER 2, THE KOREAN TENSE SYSTEM 2.1. The Korean Predicate System 2.1.1. Situation-Oriented Suffixes and Speaker-Oriented Suffixes 2.1.2. Korean Verb Classification 2.1.2.1. Dik's (1994) and Smith's (199 1) Classifications 2.1.2.2. Suh's (1 994) Korean Verbs Classification 2.1.2.3. Three Parameters: 'Static', 'Agentive', and 'Telic' 2.1.2.3.1. Verbs of State 2.1.2.3.2. Process Verbs 2.1.2.3.3. Verbs of Activity

vii 2.2. Aspects in Korean 2.2.1. The Resultative Marker -E ISS- 2.2.2. The Progressive Marker -KO ISS- 2.3. Korean Tense Markers 2.3.1. The Speaker-Oriented Tense and Shifted Reference Point 2.3.2. Situation-Oriented Tense Markers 2.3.2.1. Anaphoric Resent Tense 2.3.2.2. Anaphoric Past Tense 2.3.2.2.1. -ESS- 2.3.2.2.2, -ESS-ESS- 2.3.2.3. Anaphoric Future Tense 2.3.3. Two-Tiered Tense Structure 2.4. Summary 2.5. Korean in Cross-linguistic Perspective

CHAPTER 3. THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF TEMPORAL REPRESENTATlONS 80 3.1. The Predicative Theory of Tense. 80 3.2. The Structure of Deictic and Anaphoric Tense 84 3.3. The Structure of Korean Tenses 86 3.4. The Perfect Tense 91 3.5. The Rule of Seqwnce of Tenses in English 95 3.6. An Inventory of Possible tenses 101

CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSION 103

REFERENCES 110 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 : Korean Verbal Mection Table 2: Dik's (1994) Typology of States of Affairs Table 3: Smith's (199 1) Typology of Situations Table 4: Suh's (19%) Classification of Korean Verb Table 5: Two Subtypes of Process Verbs in Korean Table 6: Classification of Korean Predicates Table 7: Aspect and Tense Markers and Korean Verb Classes LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 : Paths of Developments to Simple Past and Perfective Figure 2: Paths to Development to Future LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A. Am Anterior Attributive TOP Topic ACC Accusative TRANS Transferentive CAUS Causative CL Classifier COM Comitative COW Complementizer COW Conditional CONN Conective CONS Conjunctive DAT Dative DEC Declarative DEF Deferential Particle FUT Future GEN Genitive H, NOM Honorific Nominative HON Honorific INF Informal Ending IMP Imperative ZMPER Imperfective INCH0 lnc hoative INT Interrogative Lm Locative NEG Negative (Particle) NOM Nominative NOML Norninalizer PASS Passive PAST Past P. Am' Posterior Attributive PRES Present PROG Progressive PROP Roposi tive RESL Resultative S. Am Simultaneous Attributive INTRODUCTION

Tense has been a major topic in linguistics and philosophy. However, it remains theoretically controversial. It has not received a unified account in literature. This mans that there is little agreement on what tense is, how many tenses a language has, or whether tense should be dealt with only in terms of semdntics and pragmatics or also in the syntax. Generally languages make use of the concept of absolute tense, where present, past, and future mean that the situation or event time is simultaneous with, anterior to, or posterior to the deictic center or the speech time. The problem is that, in addition to absolute tense, languages have a different kind of tense, relative tense, which does not have the speech point as its reference point (Comrie 1985). Ln this thesis, instead of the concepts of absolute and relative tense, I make use the concepts of deictic and anaphoric tense, in order to give more explicit temporal interpretation. since the latter terms imply smcturally closer relationships. This thesis has three goals. The first is to defme tense as a relational category that takes two timereferring points or intervals. In other words, tense itself is not a referential category, but rather it relates two referential time points. The second is to redefine tense using the notions of deictic and anaphoric tense, and to give a typology of tense using these definitions. The third is to develop the semantics of tense into syntax. Thus. this thesis considers two levels, the semantics and the syntax of tense. Most of the data in this thesis are drawn from Korean, though several other languages are referred to where relevant

I give an account of several Korean tense suffiies that have been controversial due to their unique characteristics. I also discuss problematic issues such as perfect tense and the Rule of Sequence of Tenses in English. This thesis proposes that every tense has its own inherent semantics whether it is deictic or anaphoric, and this inherent meaning of tense determines which temporal points a given tense takes. Further, I propose that the inherent meaning of a given tense can be modified by the situation type and by its hierarchical position, as represented in the syntactic structure. The organization of this thesis is as follows. Chapter I addresses the differences 1 between tense and aspect and between two types of tense, deictic tense and anaphoric tense, and surveys several definitions of reference point and situation time. I illustrate the redundancy of Reichenbach's (1947) event point and reference point in simple tenses. I show that the reference point has a dual function. It has a simple time reference in deictic tenses. Also, it is a shifted (secondary) deictic center in anaphoric tense. This study mles crucial use of the secondary function of the reference point. Chapter 2 examines the Korean tense markers and the Korean predicate system. I suggest that Korean inflectional suffixes, such as honorific, aspect, tense, and mood suffixes, can be distributed into two levels, situation (event)-oriented and speaker-addressee-

oriented. Hence Korean has two types of tenses, situation-oriented and speaker-addressee- oriented. 1 propose that the so-called "retrospectivr: tense" marker -re- is a speaker-addressee- oriented tense and does not denote a situation time, unlike simple deictic tenses in other languages. I show that this speaker-addressee-oriented property fully accounts for the constraints that have been proposed on TE tense. Further, I show that this speaker- addressee-oriented property leads to the conclusion that TE tense is a deictic tense. while other situation-oriented tenses, for example the so-called past tense marker -rss-,are anaphoric. Using the notions of deictic and anaphoric tense discussed in the previous chapters, Chapter 3 considers the relationship between the semantics and the syntax of tense, that is, how deictic tense and anaphoric tense are represented in syntactic structure. In this thesis, I follow the predicative approach to tense (Zagona 1990,1995, and Stowell 1995, 1996), in order to give a structural representation of deictic and anaphoric tense. Under the predicative theory of tense. tense is analogous to a predicate that takes two arguments, a subject and an object. Tense parallels a predicate in that it has a subject-like external argument denoting the speech time or a reference time and an object-like internal argument denoting a reference time or a situation time. I argue that a f~teclause can have two tense projections, a deictic and an anaphoric tense projdon. In the syntactic structure, anaphoric tenses have an external argument linked to the internal argument of a deictic tense or a higher tense. Perfect tense is 2 an anaphoric tense that always requires a deictic tense. This two-tiered analysis of anaphoric tense not only allows for an account of some complex tense phenomena in Korean but also allows for an analysis of the Rule of Sequence of Tenses in English. I show that the Rule of Sequence of Tenses is a syntactic rule that establishes an anaphoric link within a finite clause, and that, in this respect. anaphoric tense parallels a nominal anaphor in English. Finally, I give a revised inventory of possible tenses. In Chapter 4, 1 give a summary and conclusions of this study. Further. 1 address some implications of the analysis in this thesis and some residual questions. CHAPTER I. DEICTIC AND ANAPHORIC TENSE

In this chapter, I consider the definitions of tense and aspect and the need for a distinction between deictic tense and anaphoric tense in connection with the concept of reference point (Reichenbach 1947). Further, I address the definition of three temporal primitives: speech time, situation time, and reference point. I provide a tense typology based on the concepts of deictic tense and anaphoric tense and the redefmed primitives. First, I discuss the need for the grammaticalization of tense (8 1.1) and deictic properties of tense and aspect (8 1.2). 8 1.3 addresses the need for the recognition of a type of tense other than deictic tense, which I call anaphoric tense, and its characteristics. I suggest that languages make use of these two types of tenses. Having established the difference between the two types of tense-deictic tense and anaphoric tense, I next turn to the concept of reference point and its use as a perspective for the analysis of anaphoric tense. S 1.4 discusses the redundancy of Reichenbach's reference point and event time in simple tenses and the dual function of the reference point, and redefines the notions of reference point and situation time. 1 argue that a tense requires only two time parameters and that only complex tenses such as pluperfect, which I call deictic plus anaphoric tense, can have three time parameters. The concept of reference point has been controversial since Reichenbach (1947) introduced it in the representation of temporal compositions along with speech time and situation time. I illustrate the function of the reference point. the secondary deictic center for anaphoric tense. Also I give a tentative inventory of possible tenses in language under the notion of deictic and anaphoric tense (0 1.3.

Every human being exists in time. One is born as a baby, grows up as an adult, gets older, and tinally dies. Every situation or event has temporal properties. even though some 4 situations have no bounds. In the same way, as Comrie (1985:H) points out, all human languages have ways of locating events in time, even though they may differ from one another. Cross-linguistically. the concept of time is represented by three main classes of expressions: 1) grammatical expressions. 2) lexical expressions, and 3) lexically composite expressions. Lexicalization and grammaticalization are the major ways to express time. Lexicalization includes time adverbials, which have more specific time references and allow for an infinite number of expressions. Grammaticalization encompasses much broader notions such as anteriority, simultaneity, or posteriority usually with respect to the present moment as deictic center. The grammaticalized elements are what generally is called tense in descriptions of languages. Bybee et al. (1994:4) say that grammatical morphemes develop gradually out of lexical morphemes or combinations of lexical morphemes with grammatical morphemes. The originally concrete and specific meanings associated with lexical material become gradually abstract and general, and phonological reduction and dependence on surrounding material eventually lead to affwation. Diachronically, time adverbials are more fundamental than tense and usually have their origin in place adverbials, which are concrete and explicit expressions of deictic systems. As opposed to the concept of place, which has a varying deictic center depending on a speaker, time has the same deictic center shared at the same time by all human beings. This may be a major reason why time has been grammaticalized as tense. Cross-linguistically most languages have both tenses and time adverbials, although languages like Chinese have only time adverbials to express the notion of time, and Mam shows complementary distribution between time adverbials and tense (Comrie 1985:3 1). In languages that have both time adverbials and tense, these are not always used redundantly. When we do not have to specify the particular time of a situation, we simply indicate whether the situation has happened or not by using tense, in other words. by means of bound morphemes or auxiliaries. On the other hand, when we want to give more restrictive, accurate, and subtle time reference, depending on the speaker's intention, we make use of time adverbials, which are extremely rich and various, and infinitely composite.

1.2 Tense and Aspect as a Deictic System

Time is an abstract experience that we have only by being conscious of the present moment This experience consists of a set of our present moments, which makes o ceaseless flow of time. We can say that some event happened (a past event) because we are conscious of the present moment when we are speaking, and see the temporal relation from the standpoint of the present moment. Thus, tense, which is conceptualized in language, has to be deictic. According to Nunberg (1993), the meaning of indexical expressions consists of three components: the deictic component, the relational component., and the classificatory component.' Thus, the meaning of yesterday is 'the calendar day' (classificatory component) that 'precedes' (relational component) 'the time of speaking' (deictic component). Thus, yesterday differs from tomorrow in terms of its relational component, and from last year (yesteryear) in terms of its classificatory component (Nunberg 1993:9). This means that the deictic center is an indispensable element of the interpretation of tense and hence tense is a relational category. It is difficult to capture this relational aspect within the referential theory of tense. In this respect, I will accept the claim that tense is a predicate-like category. In the predicative theory of tense, a tense relates two time points, and it has an external argument referring to the speech point or a reference point, and an internal argument referring to another time, such as situation time (Zagona 1990, Stowell 1996).' Both tense and aspect are, as Comrie (19855) says, closely f0~ecte.dwith time, but

Accading to Nunberg (1993:B-9).he deictic component is a function bmoccurences or utterances of an expression to elements of the context of utterance, rud the medeictic component would be assigned to the forms now, nowaduys, ago. and so forth. And the relationill component of the indexical constrains the conespondence that has to hold between the index and the interptetation. 'Ihe classif~catory component includes features like number and anhyand featus like grammatical and naaual gender, and this component is associated with its interpretation, nther than with its index. 'This will be addRssed in Chapw 3. 6 the difference between them is that tense refers to situation-external time, while aspect refers to situation-internal time. This means that aspect represents the internal temporal construction of a situation, independent of temporal relations. Against a general notion that aspect, in contrast to tense, is not a deictic category, Klein (1994:28) argues that the idea of various possible 'viewpoints' is the very heart of the concept of aspect, and that aspect is not different in terms of a deictic-relational property. As a matter of fact. aspect has a deictic function, but tense and aspect are different in that aspect is not deixis requiring a Axed deictic center in the flow of time, but deixis in which there are various perspective points from which one situation is viewed. In other words, while tense needs one fixed perspective point from which we capture relations such as anteriority, simultaneity, and posteriority, aspect needs one fixed situation with varying viewpoints. excluding time relations.

However, according to Klein ( 1994), while tense provides ways to relate topic time (ITjwhich is the time a claim is made for-and utterance time (TU),' aspect provides ways to relate topic time (TI") and the time of a situation (TSit). Hence tense has deictic time relations, but aspect has anaphoric time relations that comprise miscellaneous relations such as ARER, BEFORE, AT. and INCL, which denotes respectively perfect, prospective, perfective, and imperfective (Klein 1994: 1OS)? Here INCL stands for an inclusive or overlapping relation.

(1) a. IMPERFECMVE: 'IT INCL TSit b. PERFECT'IVE: W AT TSit c. PERFECT: 'IT AFTER TSit d. PROSPECTWE: TI' BEFORE TSit

Klein (1994) analyzes tense as follows: Present: TU INCL 1T PSI: TU AFTER 'IT Future: TU BEFORE TI' ' Kkin (1994) uses imperfective and perfective to ~ferto progressive aspect and past kme respectively. 7 Thus, Klein claims that tense and aspect are alike in that they involve temporal relations between time points. They differ, however, in that tense is a relation between TT and TU, while aspect is a relation between TT and Tsit. This means that tense and aspect are not different kinds of categories. Klein (1 994) also regards perfect and progressive as belonging to the same grammatical category, that is, aspect. As far as their basic definitions are concerned. tense and aspect are different, although it is possible that one form may have two functions. As Comrie (1985) says, the prototypical meaning of a form should be distinguished from the secondary meaning. The confusion of a form's meanings, we assume. arises from terminological problems associated with characteristics of Indo-European languages. Bybee et al. ( 199454) give precise definitions of their terms, based on their cross-linguistic samples.

(2) Anterior (or perfect): signals that the situation occurs prior to reference time and is relevant to the situation at the reference time. (Anterior may occur with past or future tense marking) Resultative: signals that a state exists as a result of a past action. i.e. the state persists at the reference time. Perfective: signals that the situation is viewed as bounded kmpordy. Past: indicates a situation which occurred before the moment of speech. (A simple past resembles a perfective in that it is the tense of narration of sequences of past event)

One thing we can be sure of is that the perfect is not perfective. The perfect, after all, is compatible with the progressive form in English (e.g. She hus been studying Frmch). One important factor that distinguishes perfect from pure aspect is the fact that many scholars call perfat 'anterior' which means 'preceding'--a time relation. What we can tell fiom the perfect is anteriority to some point, whether or not it is the present moment, so that perfect is a kind of tense to be figured out with what is called complex tense, relative tense, or anaphoric tense. To summarize, tense is time deixis requiring one fixed deictic center, that is, one fixed perspective point, from which we capture a relation such as anteriority, posteriority, or simultaneity. On the other hand, aspect has a varying perspective point, from which one situation is viewed independently of time relations. Usually aspect has a close relation to

lexical properties of the verbs, aktionrart. but tense does not.

1.3 Deictic Tense and Anaphoric Tense

Many languages have borderline categories that lie between two different categories

and are sometimes classified as one, and sometimes as the other. Perfect is said to be such a category, but the problem is not with perfect itself but with the definition of tense. In the same way, Korean TE tense, which is called 'retrospective tense', is closely related to mood

but has clear time relations, Thus, it is sometimes classified as a mood, sometimes as tense. The narrow definition that we have had so far cannot encompass all these kinds of tense. It is possible that the more complex tense is, the more additional properties of aspect or mood other than tense it has, because time conceptualized in language usually does not have the metrical and mathematical properties of time in reality. The perfect has characteristics of aspect, but basically it functions as tense. In Korean. TE tense has some properties of mood because it always implies the presence of the speaker and the addressee or the speaker's viewpoint However, one thing common in complex tenses is the existence

of another time point in addition to the present moment and the time of the situation. Funher, what we can assume is that three relations with respect to one deictic center,

i.e. the speech time, are not enough for tense systems. As tenses get more complex, what is needed is secondary deictic centers (presumably, at most two secondary deictic centen), each of which can bring the maximum of three relations (Reichenbach 1947). In other words, the starting point is a purely deictic relation and, on the basis of the deictic relation, anaphoric relations are secondarily established5 Here lies the crucial reason for introducing

Here deiccic and anaphoric tense are interchangeable with Comrie's (1985) absolute and dative tense. However, there are some mismatches. According to Comrie, the English pesent perfect is an aspect. not a tense, and pluperfect is an absolute-relative tense, s opposed to a ~urerelative tense. On the other hand, 9 another time point in addition to the speech time and the situation time. This anaphoric property-the relativity of tense-can also be found in time adverbials. Generally time adverbials come in two types, deictic and anaphoric time adverbials. Harkness (1987:83) gives a more specific division of time adverbials, depending on their anchoring points.

(3) a. ST-anchored TA: Time adverbial that must anchor to the present moment e.g. now, yesterduy, tomorrow. some time ago, etc. b. Non-ST-anchored TA: Time adverbial that cannot anchor to the present moment but requires another anchor. e.g. some time before, the day before, etc. c. T-anchored TA: Time adverbial that simply requires an anchor whether this is the present moment or another time e.g. later, soon. etc.

Yesrerdoy has its anchoring point at the present moment-a deictic time adverb, but the anchoring time of the day bejioore is not the present moment but some other point-an anaphoric time adverb. Since time adverbs play an important role in temporal reference. I assume that the classification of time adverbs also suggests some important properties of tense systems. Fist, tense can have an anchoring time (reference point) other than the present moment. Hence, two kinds of tenses are possible: deictic or absolute tense and anaphoric or relative tense. Second. there can be a third type of tense, which can have deictic relations or anaphoric relations depending on its anchoring point.6 In fact, Comrie (198563) gives an example of this third type of tense in Classical Arabic, where the tense of the main verb can have different anchoring points depending on context. Classical Arabic has what are conventionally called impedect and perfect. While the

Declerk (1995) considers pluperfect to be a pure relative tense. This thesis considers perfect to be an anaphoric tense and plupert'ect to be not a single tense but a composition of two tenses, a deictic tense plus an anaphoric tense. In fact. this type of tense cy, be a kind of @ric tense without a fued reference point. Thus, its ancharing point varies depending on time adverbi;rls. the event time of the higher clause, or sometimes discourse context. 10 perfect has a relative past time reference, the imperfect has a relative non-past time reference. They do not necessarily have the speech time as their deictic center, even though the speech time can be taken to be the reference point when no reference point is given by the context.'

In the same way, the Korean tense marker -as-,whether in main clauses or in embedded clauses, has different anchoring points depending on whether or not -re- is present. On the other hand. the Korean TE tense has the speech time as its anchoring point (a deictic tense). The English perfect tense also can have different anchoring points, depending on which deictic tense it appears with. while the other simple tenses are deictic in terns of basic meaning. In Swahili, while only one tense, the LI tense. is a deictic past, the other tenses have variable reference points (or speech times), according to Contini-Morava (1983:4). These tenses express sequential relationships between an event and some time point that is variable: the NA tense represents relative present, the TA tense relative future. the HU tense relative habitual, and KU tense relative past negative. Therefore, I assume that languages have deictic tense and anaphoric tense mechanisms cross-linguistically. I will examine deictic and anaphoric tense in connection with the third time point in the following section.

1.4 The Third Time Point

In this section, I will point out the dual nature of the concept of reference point. After introducing deictic tense and anaphoric tense. I will propose that the reference point, in fact, just has the function of another deictic center, whether shifted or not. In 8 1.4.1 to 81.4.4, I give a survey of the defmitions of the primitives of tense, temporal points. In 5 1.4.5, I

' Classic Anbic in Koran has imperfective simultaneous tense of participial constructions, which is used interchangeably with finite clauses. This does not requite any contextual marker when it is simultancmus with the present moment. On the other hand, when its reference point is in the past or future, it requires some overt marlring: 1) an auxiliary such as kana 'was*, 2) the indication of the point of reference by the main clause when the participial structure occurs as a subordim clause, 3) time ndvetbids, 4) time-adverbial clauses in initial position. 5) conditional clwses, 6) another ckuse coordinated with the panicipial clause. But there is one consttaint on that: in initial position in the main clause, coUocation of non-present time adverbids with imperfective pankipid structure is ungriunmatical (Kinberg l992:308-3 11). 11 propose an analysis of the function of the reference point and give a tentative inventory of possible tenses in languages.

1.4.1 Reichenbach (1947)

The most influential work on formal approaches to tense is Reichenbach (1947). He posits that there are three points involved in the description of tense: the speech time (S), an event time (E), and a reference time (R).8 According to Reichenbach (1947:288), in past perfect tense (e.g. Peter had gone). there are two temporal poinu: the point of event and the point of reference. These positions are determined with respect to the point of speech, and the point of reference is a time between the time when Peter went and the point of speech. Thus, Reichenbach (1947) claims that the difference among the following three sentences is the point of reference.'

(4) 1 have seen John. E R,S (5) 1 saw John. E,RS (6) I had seen john. E-RS

The difference between examples (4) and (5) is that the reference point of (5) is located in the past time, simultaneous with the point of event, whereas that of (4) is at the point of speech, the present moment. The temporal composition of (4) accounts for the present relevance of the perfect tense. Llewise, the difference between (5) and (6) is the location of the reference point. The reference point of (6) is located between S and E, which indicates that the event, 'my seeing John', occurs prior to the time of the reference point. Thus he claims that the three time points are relevant to every temporal expression and that temporal adverbials modify only the reference point. But the crucial issue here is the position of the point of reference in the simple tense,

------Win (199424-5) says that the idea of a third time parameter did not originate with Reichenbach. Here. S, E. and R are ihc point of speech. Ihe point of went (situpion). and the point of reference respectively. In &lition,I use the terms, 'point', 'time', or 'interval*,interchangeably. 12 not in perfect tense. Reichenbach (L947:288) admits that, in an individual sentence, it is not clear which time point is used as the point of reference. He says that this determination is given rather by the context of speech, and that, in the simple tense. the point of event and the point of reference are simultaneous. This unclear use of the concept of reference point has caused a lot of confusion in theories of tense that have been developed following Reichenbach. Thus, one important clarification is needed before we turn to the analysis of tense phenomena. This is: what is the point of reference, i.e. the exact definition of the reference point? When he systematizes the possible tenses. Reichenbach (1947:296) says, "We choose the point of speech as the starting point; relative to it the point of reference can be in the past, at the same time, or in the future." What is this reference point then' If we are true to the logic of his theory, the reference point of the simple tense can be the same time as the time of an event like a simple time reference. On the other hand, if we follow the logic of his perfect tense, it can be a secondary starting point Wre the point of speech. The question here is whether we need the reference point in addition to the time of event in simple tenses. I assume that the reference point in simple tenses is redundant and unnecessary. I will propose that the reference point is required only for anaphoric tenses.

1.4.2 Schopf (1989)

According to Schopf s ( 1989: 186) interpretation of Reichenbach 's terminology,

speech time is the primary orientation axis (which can be distinguished from secondary speech time in direct and indirect speech). Reference time is the time in relation to which event time is located on the time axis. Event time is the time at which a proposition is realized. In addition, a fourth paramter may be needed for the adverbially specified time. which may or may not be identical with the event time or reference time. Schopf (1 989: 186) says that the past tense introduces the whole span of time anterior to speech time as a reference frame from which the sentence-in-context chooses a specific 13 subinterval as reference time. He describes the function of the past tense as a search instruction to "look out for a co-textually or contextually given specific tim in the past, i.e. anterior to and not including speech time (in some cases reference time) and relate the untensed or temporally unspecified proposition to it as simultaneous." However, Schopf s explanation of past tense raises several questions. First, in the

sentence John lost his watch, for example, what is the time of John's losing his watch- reference time or event time? Second. if the reference time is given LO-textuallyor contextually, is it a purely pragmatic concept without any grammatical basis'! Later Schopf (1989: 187) says that it can be supplied sentence-internally in the form of a time adverbial. Then, is the reference time just a time for the specifcation of the time adverbial'? Third, Schopf says that the past tense relates an untensed or temporally unspecified proposition to reference time, and represents the relationship of inclusion or overlapping between reference time and event time. Then what is the event time that Schopf refers to, the proposition itself (the event notion) or the time at which some event happens'? Does an event time that is meaningful to time representation exist in fact in Schopf s analysis? As for the necessity of Reichenbach's reference point in the simple tenses, Schopf

(1989: 190) argues that it is impossible to temporalize a state without reference time. That is because, in the case of states, the event time is not defined, since it is usually boundless. To relate a state to the time line requires a time point interior to the event. The second argument

is that the reference tirne is needed for the analysis of the difference between present perfect and past. A funher argument is that the reference point is required for relative tense. As for the fitargument, event time is of no use since the event time of states is usually boundless and cannot be defined, and, in most other cases (e.g. non-states in simple tenses), event time is simultaneous with reference time. For the distinction between present perfect and past, as Comrie (198 1) points out, present perfect refen not only to the present moment, but also to the time period begi~ingat the past time and stretching up to the present moment. This reference time is, according to Reichenbach (1947) and Schopf (1989), the time specified by time advabials. Consider the following examples. 14 (7) I have known him since 1988. (8) I have recently met an interesting poet. (9) 1 have never been there before.

These sentences show that the present perfect does not refer only to the present moment since time adverbids can refer not only to present time, but also to past time. This means that the difference between present perfect and pasi cannot be explained sirnpiy by the different position of reference time, that is, that present perfect has the reference time at the present moment but past at the past time. as Reichenbach (1947) claims. Thus, to solve this redundancy between event time and reference time in the simple tenses, we propose that only two time parameters, speech time and reference time, are required. Schopf s event time is needed only for the consideration of aspect, not of tense. However, as Schopf (1989: 190) also points out, Reichenbach's reference time is needed for the secondary or relative tenses. This means that reference time is required for anaphoric tense to have a shifted deictic point. The two concepts of reference point-the time that tense refers to and the time to which another time relates-are different and must be separated from each other. Even though, in fact, one form can have these two functions when it is used in relation to other tenses, this double function is not possible when it is used for just one temporal relation.

1.4.3 Smith (1991), Hornstein (1990), and McGilvray (1991)

Smith (199 1: 140) notes that the point of reference has a dual function. In simple sentences, the point of reference is the temporal standpoint such as past, present, or future, and, in complex sentences, it is the secondary orientation point Smith (1991 :142) compares simple past with perfect the difference is one of perspective, that is, the perfect sentence considers the event from the standpoint of the present, while simple past takes the standpoint

15 of the past. The dual function of the reference point makes it difficult if not impossible to explain both functions with a consistent set of terms. The standpoint of past time is nothing but the time reference to past. It is not the standpoint from which the event is viewed. Besides, past tense has the present moment as a standpoint from which the event is viewed. This means that past tense is relative to the standpoint of the present moment. Thus, as previously mentioned, the two concepts-temporal standpoints (here, simple time references) and a secondary orientation point (reference pointbare totally different and must be separated. If the simple past has a past reference point, it will not be needed for the past tense itself. but for representing its relation to mother time point

Homstein (1990) has revised Reichenbach's claim on the linking of the temporal adverbial. He suggests that the temporal adverbial is mapped not only onto reference time but also onto event time. However, Hornstein keeps Reichenbach's full temporal composition of the three points, even when reference time is superfluous. The point of reference is not merely introduced for the interpretation of complex tenses. but rather it is one term in a syntactic relation that obtains even when not semantically visible. Thus. with the introduction of the reference point, the primary tense relationship is between S and R. E is located through its relationship to R, and this forms a secondary tense relationship (Homstein

1990: 14). Like Reichenbach, Homstein does not give a defmite explanation of the reference point, and applies a somewhat confusing notion of this concept to his tense theory. He further assumes that tense is a linearly ordered complex made up of three points, S, R, and E, and this linear ordering of the primitive tense features is a syntactic characteristic of tenses in natural languages. Therefore. even though R and E are interpreted as contemporaneous within Reichenbach's theory, the different linear orders (e.g. E,R and R,E) do not have the same meaning. Sentences with multiple adverbs, according to Homstein (1990), provide evidence that all tenses have a reference point. Re-sententid adverbs are associated with a reference 16 point while post-verbal advabials are mapped onto event time preferentially. So when both types of adverbs appear in the same sentence, he represents thei temporal orderings as follows:

a. Yesterday, John left for Paris a week ago.''

b. E R- S I I a week ago yesterday

a. *A week ago, John left for Paris yesterday. b. R- E - S I I a week ago yesterday

Hornstein (1990:26) says that the reason sentence (1 I) is unacceptable is that it violates the ordering of the basic structure of past tense (which is E,R-S). In other words. according to his linearity condition, E,R-S and R,E-S are different in tense structure, although the difference between those two compositions is not clear. In fact. the time composition of the derived tense in (10) is exactly the same as that of past perfect (E-R-S), according to Hornstein's inventory of tenses. Does the sentence in

(10) have the same temporal interpretation as the past perfect tense? Besides. if the reference time is yesterday and the event time a week ago in (lo), the sentence in (12), according to his analysis, should be represented as follows:

(12) a. (Today) John left for Paris a week ago. b. E R, S I I a week ago today

This means that, in this past tense sentence (1 2). the reference point and the speech point are simultaneous, which is totally diffmnt from his basic time representation of simple past

lo Several wive speakers hat I have consulled said lhpl a week ago yesterday is mae acceptable. 17 tense, in which R must be prior to S. Most of all, a week ago and yesterday are not separate adverbs but one adverbial phrase that acts together. Within the time adver bid phrase, yesterday can be the reference point of o week ago because a week ago has to be viewed (or counted) with respect to yesterday, not today or the present moment. However, this has nothing to do with the reference point of the whole event of the clause.

Following Reichenbach, McGilvray ( 199 1) says that tense is a relationship between the time of speech (is) and reference point (iR), and the three possible orde~gsof S and R are called past, present, and future, where S stands after, at, and before the same time as R respectively. Also the RE (descriptum) relationship has three possible orderings, called anterior, simple, and posterior. He suggests that each sentence has a single SR relationship and a single RE relationship, and that even simple-tensed sentences like Mary left refer to all three time points, the speech time, situation time, and reference point. In addition, McGilvray (199 1 :20)suggests that Reichenbach's S, R, and E should be identified with more than temporal intervals, and should be huther elaborated with supplementary elements, as in ( 13):

p is a speaker or 'storyteller' t is a token or utterance w is a 'perceiver-describer' c is a class of things or individuals B is a situation is, iR, and iE are intervals of time

With respect to his definition of R, the reference point, McGilvray makes crucial use of the concept of 'c'aspatio-temporally located individual or thing that is referred to, or that the sentence is about-and its location at iR. He uses 'c' to support Reichenbach's concept of reference point in the comparison of tenses. Thus the temporal location of R is determined depending on where c is located (e.g. in present, past, or future). McGilvray (1991:47) says that, in perfect (anterior), c is located at iR and 0 (a situation) before iR. However, this location of c is problematic, as he admits. The following examples cannot have c at the time interval iR, as opposed to the corresponding progressive perfect sentences.

(14) a. Johnhasleft. b. John had left yesterday. c. John will have left by then.

Here c (John) should be located at the speech time in (14a), at some time after the situation time in (14b), and at the time referred to by the adverb then in (14c). Later, McGilvray associates this c with the notion of 'civrent relevance'. Thus. his RE relationship represents a temporal relationship between a referred-to individual or thing and a situation obtained by picture reference. Although the location of c is problematic in R, the distinction between a speaker level and a perceiver-describer level is a significant one.

1.4.4 Klein (1994)

Klein (1994:24-25) makes a rather significant argument about tense and points out the problem with Reichenbach's reference point. He says that, especially in the case of simple past tense, it is unclear what the point of reference is, and that without a specific definition, the notion of reference time is a vacuous one. Instead, he introduces the term "topic time'', giving a similar explanation to Reichenbach's. However, I find that Klein's topic time is not that different from Reichenbach's reference time. According to Klein (1994)- as mentioned before, tense does not express a temporal relation between the he of situation and the time of utterance. Rather, it expresses a relation 19 between the time of utterance and some time for which the speaker wants to make an assertion, i.e. topic time. Thus, there are two types of temporal relationships: one is tense, which is the relationship between topic time and utterance time; the other is aspect, which is the relationship between topic time and the time of situation. Topic ti-the time for which the particular utterance makes an assertion. or the time about which a speaker means to speak-is Linked to the time of utterance on the one hand and to the rime of situation on the other hand.

Klein (1994: 12 1 ) distinguishes a relatum.' ' which is a previously established temporal entity, from the theme, which is then temporally related to the relatum. Hence, he distinguishes a deictically-given relaturn (utterance time) From an anaphorically-given relatum (topic time), which serves as an anchoring point for the time of situation. However, Klein has a problem dealing with anaphoric tense relations. According to him, anaphoric tense relations are represented by aspect, which expresses the time relations between topic time and situation time (see the list (I)), and the English perfect tense and the progressive aspect are the same grammaticalcategory, i.e. aspect? Klein's analysis of perfect cannot consistently account for other perfect tenses such as the French perfect. Another point is that Klein is unable to generalize his anaphoric tense relation because we cannot say that all anaphoric tenses in the world's languages are related to aspect.

According to Klein ( 1994: 164), a time adverbial as well as a tense marker provides topic time (Fin-Specification1' or Modification) or makes the time of situation (Inf- Specification) explicit. A sentence-initial time adverbial, which usually represents topic time, gives Fin-Specification, since it narrows down topic time to a certain time span, and does so in contrast to some other time. In contrast, a post-verbal time adverbial, which selves as focus, gives Inf-Specification. Thus a sentence-initial adverbial, which makes topic time explicit, functions as an anaphoric relaturn, which is a secondly deictic point.

" An example of a relatun is a reference point such as the spcech time. l2 According to Klein (1994). combination of more than one aspect is possible. "'Fin' and 'Inf smd fm fmite and infinite. respectively. 20 (15) a. At three o'clock, he was peacefully sleeping. b. When it was three o'clock sharp, the plane took off. c. Three months ago, he didn't have a penny.

Klein (1994:70) says that the time span of the sentence-initial adverbs (15% b, c) functions as an anaphoric relatum of the subsequent time span-situation time. Thus, the time of topic adverbial differs from the time of situation in (15). However, he does not give a clear explanation of what kind of anaphoric relation holds between the time of the time adverbial and the time of the situation in these sentences. In contrast with focus, which is used for description, topic is used to give a speaker's assertion about the topic material, whether a time, a situation, or an individual. Perhaps, it is possible that a time gap occurs between the time reference of a topic time adverb and the time reference of the event described in (15b). In fact, the time gap between the time of the topic adverb and the time of the situation can be attributed to the characteristics of topic. Thus, it is difficult to say that this kind of temporal relation gives a consistent rneanh~g.'~In the simple tensed sentences, as in (15), the time of topic adverbial is a specification of the situation time as a topic material not as focus, in order to contrast with some other times. Therefore, I argue that in simple tenses as in (15) a topic time and a situation time cannot have an anaphoric time relation, although an anaphoric relation is established in sentences taking complex tenses such as deictic plus anaphoric tense (for example, past perfect). This kind of anaphoric relation results from the composition of the two tenses when

-

" In fact, in Kom,when the subject takes the nominative marker, the present tense usually refers to an on-going situation n the present moment, as in (i), but when the subject lakes the topic marker instead of the nominative marker, the present tense refers to future, as in (ii). John-i h-nun-& John-NOM go-PIES-DEC 'John goes/ is going.'

) John-un ka-nu-@ John-TOP go-PRES- DEC 'John will definitely go.' deictic one of the two potential timedenoting adverbs is realized as a topic. Thus, topic time itself does not yield an anaphoric relation to situation time.

1.4.5 The Reference Point

As Schopf (1989) and Klein (1994) point out, tense is not the relation between a deictic point such as the present moment and the time of a real event. Rather it is the relation between a deictic point and the time to which a speaker refers (reference time) or the time about which a speaker makes an assertion (topic time). In fact, some situations are not temporal, which means they are boundless. Even if some have bounds, in most cases we recognize and talk about some part of the whole time length of situations. We abstract them into points in the flow of time when we express them in language. Thus. when we talk about a situation in language, we do not talk about the situation that exists in real time, or the world. but about our experience, perception, or knowledge of the real situation. As I mentioned before, we only need two time parameters in simple tense, the present moment and reference time (or topic time), which is a grammaticalized situation time. Before we dispense with the time of situation in simple tenses, we need to review the definitions of situation time. Every scholar has a strong attachment to the time of situation, even when they do not give it a significant role. According to Schopf (1989), the time of event (situation) is the time at which the proposition is realized. If we follow the

Reic henbachian approach, the sentence in (1 Cia) is represented as in ( 16b):

(16) a. The book was written in French. b. R,ES

However, in reality, the book probably is still in French unless something really unusual happed. This means the exact event time has to be some time interval stretching up to the present moment In other words, the event time of (1 6) should be located at the present moment-since the situation holds at the present moment-even though the reference time is at the past time, as represented in (17).

Here, the past tense means that the speaker refers to one point in the past when she or he saw the book, even though the situation still hoids at the present moment. This shows that the Reichenbachian approach fails to make a thorough analysis of the relation between event time and reference time, and that the distinction between event time and reference time at least in simple tenses is groundless, that is. it has no relevance to tense at all. Klein (1 994: 139) defines three kinds of situation dm: 1) in the case of fact listing, the time at which the situation really obtained. 2) in the case of fictitious discourse. the time at which a situation is imagined since there is no real situation, and 3) the time at which a speaker obtains information about the situation (as in the case of backchecking, e.g. Sorry, wbt was your nume?). According to Klein's definitions. the time of situation cannot be defined as only the time at which the situation is realized. The time at which the situation is imagined or information is obtained by a speaker can be included into the time that a speaker refers to, or makes an assertion about. This means that his definition of the time of situation (event) does not give a consistent explanation.

What is significant in tense is not the event time that does exist in reality but does not give any specific information about the time point or interval of some event, but the time, whether event time or reference time, which tells us the time relation with respect to an anchoring point such as the speech time. Conside~gthat grammaticalization is a result of how man conceptualizes or abstracts the real world, as I mentioned before, the time of situation (event) is the time that the speaker perceives. believes, or imagines a situation to be at or the time that the speaker refers to.

Tbus, in order to solve this redundancy betwan reference time and situation time, 23 we can consider two options, given that simple tenses require two time parameters. One is that past tense has speech time and reference time. The other is that past tense has spech time and situation time. The former requires another time point other than reference time, such as a perspective point, as some scholars suggest, for tenses like perfect. in order to avoid terminological confusion. The latter can make use of reference point without adding another term, Comrie (1985) also says that the point of reference is unnecessary for simple tenses. while it is needed for complex tenses such as past perfect or future perfect. This is because present perfect and past do not differ primarily in terms of location in time (both locate a situation in the past). but rather in terms of other aspectual ~haracteristics.'~In fact, considering that Reichenbach (1947) originally conceived of reference point in order to accommodate the pluperfect, I propose that reference point is not only a new anchoring point in anaphoric tense, but also can refer to the present moment Now, instead of providing a new named point such as a perspective point, I suggest that the reference point simply functions as a secondary deictic point for anaphoric tense. Keeping the same view that the primary relation of tense is deictic and the secondary relation is anaphoric, simple deictic tense has the speech time as its deictic center, but anaphoric rense has a reference point before, after. or simultaneoui with the speech time. The secondary relations of tense, the anaphoric relations, can make three different time representations such as relative present (simultaneous), relative past (anterior), and relative fume (posterior). However, one important fact is that every tense has its final anchoring point in the present moment, whether directly or indirectly. In other words, every anaphoric tense has some mechanism in which it is finally linked to the present moment. This mechanism seems to follow a parametric variation across languages. The starting point is always a deictic relation, and then, based on that relation, a secondary anaphoric relation is established even though the order of mapping in a sentence is different from language to language. In

Is This may be an important reason why in other languages. for example Gem,the present pedect has become a past tense. In other words, past and mntperfect have the same reference point as the speech time. This will be addressed further in Chapter 3. 24 addition, anaphoric tense can have a default anchoring, in which anaphoric tense can anchor directly on the present moment when it is not given any other ancho~gpoint by other means. such as language-specific mechanisms.

1.5 Summary

First, I have examined the basic definitions of tense and aspect, focusing on their deictic properties. Tense is time deixis that requires one fvted perspective point, from which we capture a temporal relation such as anteriority, simultaneity, or posterity. In contrast, aspect is deixis that has a varying perspective point, from which one situation is viewed independently of the time relation. Second, I have discussed the need for a different type of tense, anaphoric tense, by showing the anaphoric properties of time adverbials. I give examples of tenses different from deictic tense in various languages. Third, I have pointed out some problems, such as the redundant situation time in simple tenses, and the double function of reference point in the analyses of Reichenbach, Klein, and others. Every tense needs two time parameters. I redefined the reference point as a secondary orientation point, and situation time as the time that the speaker refers to or perceives, believes, or imagines a situation to be at. To sutnmarize my discussion of the relationship of reference point to deictic tense and anaphoric tense, I present the following tentative inventory of the possible tenses in languages:

( 18) a. Dcictic tenses: (S,E): PRESENT (Es): PAST (SE): FUTURE b. Anaphoric tenses: (R,E): S[MULTANEOUS/RELATIVE PRESENT (E-R): ANTERIOR/RELATIVE PAST (R-E): POSTERIOR/RELATIVE FUTURE

Here deictic and anaphoric tense refer to the basic meaning of tenses, which means the denotation when they are used in a simple sentence. Deictic tense means that its reference point is always at the speech point, whereas anaphoric tense means that its reference point is variable and may be a time point other than the speech point. CHAPTER 2. THE KOREAN TENSE SYSTEM

This chapter examines the Korean predicate system and the Korean tense and aspect markers. The main questions that are addressed in this chapter are:

What are the substance and grammatical status of the Korean verbal inflectional suffixes'? How many tense and aspect markers does Korean have'! How do the lexical properties of verbs such as situation types affect tense and aspect in Korean'? What is the grammatical status of the so-called retrospective marker -re-'!What

are the constraints on -re-' What is the relationship of -te- to other tense markers?

What is the difference between the so-called past tense marker -ess- and the duplicated form -ess-ess-'? Does Korean have future tense'!

I propose that the Korean verbal inflection has two levels, a situation (event)-oriented level and a speaker-addressee-oriented level. It follows that Korean verbal inflection consists of situation-oriented suffixes and speaker-addressee-oriented suffbces. Thus. TE tense is a speaker-addressee-oriented deictic tense, whereas the other Korean tense markers. such as @/-nun- or -en- are situation-oriented. In addition, I will show that the speaker-addressee- oriented tense is deictic tense and the situation-oriented tense is anaphoric tense. 92.1 addresses the grammatical status of Korean verbal inflectional suffixes, the classification of Korean verbs, and the interaction between the suffixes and the verb types. 02.2 discusses the markers -e iss- and -ko iss-, which I shall call nsultative and progressive respectively. In 92.3,I discuss the characteristics of the spealter-addressee-oriented tense and the situationsrientbd tense and the interaction between them including the duplicated form -ess-ess-. 62.4 gives a summary of Chapter 2. 27 2.1 The Korean Predicate System

Before I analyze Korean tense and aspect markers, I will give a sketch of the grammar of Korean predicates, suggesting a two-leveled inflectional structure and the classification of Korean verbs using three parameters: 'agen tive', 'static ', and 'telic '.

2.1.1 Situation-Oriented Suffixes and Speaker-Addressee-Oriented Suffixes

Korean is a typical agglutinative language, in which various suffixes representing grammatical categories, such as honorific. tense, aspect, and mood, suffix to the verb stem in the form of verbal inflection. S.-0. Sohn (1995) proposes the order of the inflectional category slots given in (20). Parenthesized inflectional categories are optional, while the others are obligatory.

(20) VERB--> STEM + INFLECTIONAL CATEGORIES CNFLECTIONAL-> (SUBJECTHONOR) + (ASPECT) + TENSE CATEGORIES + (MODAL) + (ADDRESSEE HONOR)+ MOOD + CLAUSE-ENDER

CLAUSE-ENDER -> COMPLEMENTIZER S-TYPE

COMPLEMENTIZER--> Conjunctive (-rse.etc.) Adverbial (-key. -c, etc.) Adnominal (-n, etc.) Nominal (-ki, -urn)

ASPECT -> Perfect (-ess) TENSE -> Past (-as,-8) Non-past (-0)

MODAL -> Volitive (-kryss) Presumptive (-keyss) Predictive (-(u)l(i)) MOOD -> indicative (-(n)un/-ni) Retrospective (-tef-ti) Requestive (4,-0)

S.-0. Sohn (1995) does not give a consistent and systematic explanation of the tense forms. saying that the null form (presumably present tense) has two meanings. past and non-past, and -ess- is also sometimes a past tense, but sometimes a perfect marker. She does not admit the temporality of the morpheme -te-, and considers it to be a mood.

Nam (1996) proposes the following structure for verbal inflection:

I Perfect I VERB STEM + { } + (Unconfirmed) + (Retrospective) + Mood ( Progressive

Unconflrrned -> - keyss- Retrospective -> -te-

Denying the existence of tense markers, Nam claims that -as- and -0-are aspect markers. while -keyss-. -tr-, and sentence final endings are markers of mood. Influenced by Chomsky's Transformational Grammar analysis of Auxiliaries, Suh (1 9%) proposes a category of 'Predicate Auxiliary', which includes verbal inflections for tense, aspect, and mood. According to Suh (19%). while -ess- and -0-are tense markers that have aspectual function, -keyss- and -re- are non-final modal markers, and sentential endings such as -fa, -&&a,-cis -kwuna,-(ella,and -ca are markers of mood. He says that

Korean has two kinds of modal expressions, sentence final mood and non-final modality. However. Gim (1980). D.-J. Choi (1994) and Han (1996) share the view that -te- is a tense marker and -kryss- is a modal marker of presumption. D.-J. Choi (1994) proposes the following structure for the verbal inflection:

I-ess- 1 I -te- I (22) VERB STEM + { ) + -&~Yss-+ { } + FINAL ENDING 101 J I &l-nu- l 29 Han (19%) also suggests a similar structure for Korean verbal inflection.

n S COMP

Traditionally, mood, like tense and aspect. has been treated fodyas a morpho- syntactic category of the verb, but modality may be expressed by modal verbs or by particles separate from the verb. According to Palmer (1986). the distinction between mood and modality exactly parallels the distinction hetween tense and time, number and enumeration, or gender and sex-the one being grdmmaticd, the other notional or semantic. The modal system is formally associated, along with tense, aspect, and voice. with the verbal system of the language, even though modality does not relate semantically to the verb alone, but to the whole sentence. Thus Palmer (1986) says that modality is marked in various ways (by modal verbs, by mood, and by particles or clitics) and languages may use one or many of these. Bybee et al. (1 994) define four types of modality: agent-oriented, speaker-oriented. epistemic, and subordinating. The semantic notions of agent-oriented modality are obligation, necessity, ability, and desire, and the commonly expressed epistemic modalities are possibility, probability, and inferred certainty. The common forms of speaker-oriented modality are imperative, optative, prohibitive, admonitive, and permissive. Subordinating moods are used to mark the verbs in certain types of subordinate clauses, such as complement clauses, concessives, and purpose clauses. One of the most common forms of subordinating mood is subjunctive. 30 Strictly speaking, Korean does not have verbal inflection to mark modality, but rather verbal particles in sentence-rial position. Otherwise. modality such as obligation, probability, and possibility is represented lexically, or in the form of higher verbs usually

taking embedded clauses. As for these sentence endings, there have been no unified or consistent grammatical terms among scholars, as seen before. This is because the sentence-

final particles cannot be defined properly with the grammatical concepts developed so far. In sentence-final position, Korean has basically four different particles in plain (neutral) style:

(24) -fa: for statements - nyalni : for questions -(e)lu; for commands -ca: for proposals

Like imperative, these are all markers of speaker-oriented modality. They are associated with the speech acts that the speaker is directing toward the addressee. Thus, I conclude that these forms are moods: declarative, interrogative, imperative, and propositive respectively. As for the ordering of inflectional morphemes, Bybee (1985: 196) posits that there are regularities in morpheme order with respect to the verb stem, based on data found in a fifty- language sample. Aspect occurs closest to the verb stem, followed by tense, and then by mood. This is true of Korean. Aspect relates more closely to the characteristics of the verb itself-the situation type that the verb represents, while mood is more related to the speaker's attitude and is farther from the situation of the verb. In this sense, as Palmer (1985) says, modality is concerned with subjective characteristics of an utterance, and subjectivity is an essential criterion for modality. I suggest that the closer to the verb stem the marker is, the more situation (event). oriented it is, while the farther from the verb stem it is, the more speaker-oriented it is. Further, I propose that the Korean predicate system consists of two levels: a situation (or

l6 In fact, thmare more mood markers than this in intarnal styles. 31 event)-oriented level and a speaker-addressee-orienced level. The former includes the aspectual markers such as -ko iss- and -e iss-, the subject (agent)-honorific suffix -(u)si-, and the situation-oriented tense markers such as -as-. The latter includes the speaker- addressee-oriented honorific marker -(su)p-, the speaker-addresseeoriented tense marker -re-, and the speaker-oriented mood markers. Therefore, Korean verbal inflection has the following structure; the numbering indicates the order of the possible suffixes adjoining a verb stem:

Table I : Korean Verbal Inflection I si tuation-oriented suffixes I speaker-addressee-oriented aspect 1) -r iss-, -ko iss- I honorific 2) -(u)si- 5) -(su)p- tense 3) -as-. -as-ess- 6) -te- mood 4) -keyss- (epistemic) 7) -(ni)ta, -(nu)nyu (-nikka). -(& (-sio), -ca (-situ) J

The controversial suffixes -&eyss-and -(nu)n- will be dealt with more specifically in 8 2.3. It will be argued that -keyss- lies on the borderline between these two levels. With future time reference, it is a situation-oriented and at the same time an epistemic modality, since it usually indicates the speaker's intention or inference.

2.1.2 Korean Verb Classification

In this section, I will examine the aspect of the classification of Korean verbs. In order comctly to identlfy a suffix as tense or aspect, it is necessary to characterize Korean verbs, since lexical properties of the verbs, aktionsan, can affat the basic meaning of the categories. This phenomenon seems to play a part in the previous definitions of the Korean tense and aspect markers. This is because most approaches so far have Pied to define a category, ignoring these lexical properties of event (or situation) types.

2.1.2.1 Dik's (1994) and Smith's (19YI) Classifications

Dk(1994) uses several parameters to make a typology of 'States of Affairs' (SoAs). The most important of his parameters are given in (25).

(25) [fdynatnic]: whether or not the SoA involves any changes [*telic]: whether or not the SoA has a natural end point [* momentaneous]: whether or not the SoA takes place instantaneously [f control]: whether or not the SoA can be initiated/ended by one of the participants

These parameters define the subclassification of SoA types as in Table 2.

Table 2: Dik's (1994) Typology of States of Affairs SoA Type dynamic control telic Situation - Position - + State - - Event + Action 1 + 1 I Accomplishment + + + Activity + + -- I I Process I + I - I Change I + - + Dynamism I + I - I -

This classification docs not fit Korean exactly. However, the pardmeters are useful in the

classification of Korean verbs if we reanalyze the [control] feature to be a feature describing whether the subject is an agent or not. Similarly, Smith (199 1:30) suggests a feature 'durative' instead of 'control', and adds another situation type, emel elf active'.^^

Table 3: Smith's (1991) Typology of Situations Situation Static Durative Tek State + + n.a. 1 Activity - + - I Accomplishment - + + Sernelfactive - - - Achievement - - +

The feature [durative] (or [punctual]) is also an important parameter for the classification of the Korean verb. However. the features, [static] and [telic]. and Dik's (1994) [control] feature are more satisfactory for use here. Thus, these three features will be made use of to classify Korean predicates. This will be addressed in the following section.

2.1.2.2 Suh's (19%) Korean Verb Classification

S uh ( 19%) classifies Korean predicates as follows:

" Here sernelthctives iue instantaneous alic events (e.g. knock cough) and a~hievementsm instantaneous changes of states, with an outcome of a new state (e.g. wit1 a race). 34 pwulkta 'be red', nophtu 'be high'. cohtu 'be good' I Mental Non-verbal sulputa 'be sad', tepta 'be hot', cohta 'be good (like)' Verbal alta 'know', mitta 'believe', nukkita 'feel ', kiekhata 'remember' Active Momentous chata 'kick' Non-momentous ilkta 'read' Process Momentous cwukra 'die', tachira 'get injured' Non-momentous -calata 'grow'

Suh's classification is relatively true to the semantics of predicates. However, his classification does not fully account for the relationship between characteristic Korean verbs and the verbal inflection system, especially tense and aspect. He treats some verbs of mental state as static, although these verbs pattern like actions in Korean in terms of their combination with tense and aspect Verbs expressing mental status, such as alta 'know', ihayhata 'understand', nukkita

'feel', kkaytatta 'realize', mitta 'believe', suyngkukhata 'think'. salunghata ' love', kiekhatu

'remember', and ictu 'forget'. can occur with the progressive form -ko iss- without any restriction.

(26) Na-nun ku-lul salmgha-ko iss-ta. I -TOP he- ACC love-PROG-DEC 'I love him'

These verbs can be regarded as verbs of mental activity rather than states, since one distributional restriction of -ko iss- is that it is incompatible with static verbs, which are adjectival predicates in Korean. Thus, as long as a verb allows the existence of an agent who can control the situation, the verb is an action verb. I will use three parameters, static, agentive, and telic, to classify the Korean verbs. 35 2.I.2.3 Three Parameters: 'Static', 'Agenthe' and 'Telic'

In the Korean predicate system, there are two categories, verbal and adjectival. Usually the former occurs with a sentential ending. -nun-ta, which is called present imperfective, while the latter does not. Verbal predicates correspond to English verbs and adjectival predicates to English adjectives. Thus, the predicates are divided roughly into two types: adjectival predicates, which denote states, and verbal predicates, which denote non- states, An interesting point is that Korean adjectival predicates play the role of verbs independently, without the help of the copula itu. Thus, on the one hand, they have to be treated as verbs, but, on the other hand. they have to be distinguished from verbs in that they have different conjugations, especially in tense and aspect.

2.L2.3.1 Verbs of State

State verbs include the copula ita and issta , most pure adjectival predicates, and some predicates derived from nouns, which usually have the form of noun plus haro 'do'

(e.g., hayngpok-hnra 'be happy', cengcik-hutu 'be honest, chincel-huta 'be kind'). These derived predicates have one thing in common with verbs. As Y.4. Kim (1990:67) points out, they both have an agent as subject and they both take imperative and proposative endings, as in (27), unlike the pure adjectival predicates in (28).'

(27) a. (Ne) corn chincel- ha-elai! (You) a Little kindness-do-IMP '(You) please be kind! '

la For imperative a pmposativc sentences. the derived -e hata fmis used. 36 b. (Wuli) corn (we) a little 'Let's be kind! '

(28) a. *(Ne) corn kippu-ela! (You) atittle be happy-IMP '(You) please be happy! '

b. *(Wuli) corn kippu-ca! (We) a Little be happy-PROP 'Let's be happy! '

The adjectival verb can be divided into two subtypes of adjectives using the feature [agentive]. This feature has a close connection with accusative case as in (29).

(29) Na-nun phyengsayng-dongan-*i /-ul cengcikha-ess-ta. I-TOP whole life-during-*NOM/ACC be honest-ESS-DEC 'I was honest in my whole life.'

(30) Na-nun hyengsayng-tongan-(% /-*ul kippu-ess-ta. [-TOP whole life-during-'hO~*ACC be happy-ESS-DEC 'I was happy in my whole life.'

The example (30), with the non-agentive verb kipputa 'be happy', cannot have accusative case, but (29), with the agentive verb cvngciWtata 'be honest' can have accusative case. Since, in Korean, even duration or frequency adverbs can have grammatical case, and whether it is nominative or accusative is decided by the verb, agentivity seems to be related to the assignment of accusative casd9I will not address this topic further. since it is outside the scope of my study. The usual method by which states are distinguished from non-states is compatibility

l9 Maling (1989:300) says that, while being an accusative Case assigner is very strongly correlated with being non-static in Kaean. the correlation is not absolute. According to Gdts (1991:260), duration a Geqwncy idverbs iue marked accusative if the verb of the chuse is unergative or transitive. 37 with the markers, -run- or -ko iss-, as mentioned before. State verbs take these markers, but non-states do not. Another interesting way to distinguish states from non-states is the meaning difference of the auxiliary verb -e cita when it co-occurs with verbs.

(31) a. Pay-ka (cerncem) kop-e ci-nun-ta. Stomach-NOM (gradually) hungry- UUCHO-PRES- DEC 'I become hungry1 am getting hungry.

b. Ku cip-nun sip nyen-maney cis-e ci-ess-ta. That house-TOP ten year-in build-PASS-ESS-DEC 'The house was built in ten years.'

When -e cita occurs with state verbs. it functions as on inchoative, which denotes a change from a previous state to another state. Further. it turns states into nun-states. which means the derived verbs are compatible with the imperfect or the progressive marker. On the other hand, for non-states. -e cita is compatible only with verbs that require agents, and roughly corresponds to a passive constru~tion.'~ Another interesting difference in verb classification is that two opposite verbs in the same semantic valency, celmta 'young' and nulkta 'old (for animates)' belong to different

verb classes in Korean. While the verb celmta is a state, nulkta is a non-state. Observe their difference in behavior with respect to aspectual marken:

(32) a. Ku-nun ice celrn*-nun-/*-ko iss/-e ci-nun-ta. He-TOP now be young-*PRES/-*PRoG/-INCHO-DEC 'She is getting young now.'

b. Ku-nun ice nulk-nun-/-ko is/-*e ci-nun-ta, He-TOP now be old-PRES/-PROG/-*[NCHO-DEC 'She is getting old now.'

According to K.-D. Lee (19%: 113). when -e cita is used with inmsitive verbs that require an agent (e.g. cam 'sleep*,tkta 'get on*,or bra 'go'), it ¬es potentiality associated with the speaker's expectation or estimation. 38 The verb nulkta 'old (for animates)' only coocurs with aspect markers that are compatible with non-states, which means that it is not a state lexically. More conectly, the meaning is 'get old', but it is never a compound or derived verb. Thus, there is a difference in meaning as encoded in the lexicon, depending on whether or not there is a property of natural transition in an event. Furthermore, this is a way in which languages may differ, since both young and old in English are adjectives.

2.1.2.3.2 Process Verbs

Non-static verbs that involve some dynamic event are divided into process verbs and non-process verbs, depending on whether or not the verb denotes a change of state. Process verbs include accomplishment and achievement verbs, and the events described by these verbs have natural end points (bound events). Further, depending on whether or not they have an agent as the subject, the process verbs have two subgroups, Process I and Rocess 11. Rocess I verbs are compatible with the 'resultative' aspect form, -e iss-, whereas process I1 verbs are not. -Tal Kin Korean A. nok-ta 'vi. melt' nok-i-ta 'melt' cwuk-ta 'die' cwuk-i-ta 'kill' kkuthna-ta 'be over' kkuthna-i-ta 'finish' na-ta 'come into existence, occur' na-i-ta 'take out, bring about' tul-ta 'enter, get in' tul-i-ta 'let in' el-ta 'fteeze' el-li-ta 'freeze' rnalu-ta 'get dry' mal-li-ta 'dry' sal-ta 'stay alive, live' sal-li-ta 'let live, save' ssek-ta 'rot' ssek-hi-ta 'let rot' karaan-ta 'sink' kwdan-hi-ta 'sink' nwup-ta 'tie' nwup-hi-ta 'lay' tha- ta 'burn ' thay-wu-ta 'burn' kkay-ta 'wake' kay-wu-ta 'wake' ttu- ta 'float, rise' ttuy-wu-ta 'float, fly' se-ta 'stand' sey-wu-ta 'stand' tat- hi-ta 'close' tat-ta 'close' eyl-ti-ta 'open' eyl-ta 'open' ttel-li-ta 'tremble, shiver' ttel-ta 'tremble, shiver' Bttel-eci-ta 'fall' ttel-ta 'shake (brush) off' ttd-~WU-U'drop' kkay-eci-ta 'be broken' by-ta 'break' kkunh-eci-ta 'be cut, broken ' kkunh-ta 'to cut, break' kku-eci-ta 'be off Wcu-ta 'turn off' khyeeci-ta 'be on' khye-ta turn on' C.toc hakha-ta 'arrive' machi-ta 'finish, end' ka-ta 'go' ip-ta 'wear, put on (clothes)' o-ta 'come' ssu-ta 'wear, put on' chala-ta 'grow' tul-ta 'raise' nam-ta 'remain ' tha-ta 'get on' sokha-ta 'belong' kaci-ta 'take' concay ha-ta 'exist' cwui-ta 'grasp' ipta 'put on, wear' et-ta 'obtain' iki-ta 'win' chac-ta 'find. look for'

In group A, the two types of process verbs are derivationally related with causative or passive suffixes. Group B verbs are related to each other by a kind of passivization. Group C shows an enumeration with no special relationship. While process I1 verbs can have only one aspect marker, progressive -ko is-, process I verbs can usually have either of two aspect markers, resultative -r iss- and progressive -ko iss-, and those two express distinctive meanings. This will be addressed in section 2.2. 2.1.2.3.3 Verbs of Activity

Non-process verbs, which usually have an agent as subject and can take an imperative ending, are called activity verbs. One interesting point is that they include verbs indicating mental status (such as ihayhata 'understand', minu 'believe', salanghata 'love', kiekhata 'remember'), and some psych-verbs, which are usually called -ehata fonns (such as sulphu-data 'do, wear sadness', musep-rhuta 'be afraid of'). in the former, a change of mental status is considered as a mental activity, and the subject is an agent. The latter psych- verbs, which are derived from adjectival static psych-verbs, imply literally 'to do or to behave one's emotion'. In other words. the subject shows some outward behavior or signs of his or her emotional state (Y .-J. Kim 1990). Activity verbs also can be divided into semelfactive and non-semelfactive verbs, depending on whether the situation is punctual or not (Smith 199 1). When co-occurring with the progressive form, semelfactives usually have iterative aspects, while non-semelfactives have continuous or durative aspects. Korean also shows this aspectual difference too in the meaning, but, since this subf lassification is not significant morphosy ntaaically , I will ignore it.

Therefore, I suggest the following classification of Korean predicates, using three features, [&static], [fagentive] and [ftelic] in connection with tense and aspect

Table 6: Classification of Korean Predicates static agentive telic Adjectival State I + - - State ff + + t verbal Process I - - + Process II - + + Activity - + - b

Korean verbs are divided roughly into two groups, state and nonstate. Nonstate verbs are 41 divided into Process and Activity, depending on the feature [telic]. In addition, depending on the feature [agentive], States are divided into two subgroups: State I and State II. and processes into two subgroups: Process I and Process n.

2.2 Aspects in Korean

In this section, the two Korean peripheral markers, -e iss- and -ko iss-, will be treated as pure aspect markers, resultative and progressive, respectively. Diachronically,

-c iss- has a longer history; -ko iss- is a relatively recent development. According to Bybee and Dahl(1989), the progressive, like the perfect, tends to be expressed periphrastically rather than inflectionally, indicating that the progressive concept is a relatively young gnmmaticization."

2.2.1 The Resultative Marker -E ISS-

In some previous analyses of Korean tense and aspect, there was terminological confusion among perfect (anterior). perfective, and resultative. Byke et al. (199454) define resultative as an aspect that signals that a state exists as a result of a past action. According to Bybee et al. (1994:63-64), resultative is often similar to passive in that it usually takes the patient as the subject of the clause, but different from the passive in that it may apply to intransitive verbs, as in 'he is gone', without a change of subject. Resultative is compatible with the adverb still, and is used only with telic verbs whose situations have an inherent endpoint and involve a change of state. This is exactly the case with -e iss-, which occurs only with intransitive accomplishment and achievement verbs or lexically passive verbs, that is, Process I (cf. Table 5).

According to Bybee & Dahl(1989). two mapr types of gmnmatical muphemes 'baud (or core)' and 'peripheral* expressions. Bound maphemes are more grammacicalized than peripheral ones. 42 (33) a. Ku-nun tochakha-e iss-ta. he-TOP arrive-RESL-DEC 'He has arrived. '

b, Mwun-i yel-li-e iss-ta. door-NOM open-PASS-RESL-DEC 'The door is opened. '

c. *Ku-ka mwun-ul yel-e iss-ta. he-NOM door-ACC open-RESL-DEC 'He has opened the door. '

The transitive verb in (33c), which is the same accomplishment verb as in (33b), cannot cake the resultative marker.

Some scholars say that -e iss- is not an aspect marker because of its rather restrictive usage. It is limited to the Process I verbs (cf. Table 5). However, I claim that this restrictive usage fully reflects the characteristics of resultative aspect. Thus, the Korean resultative form denotes 'a persisting state resulting from a past action'.

2.2.2 The Progressive Marker -KO ISS-

Some scholars argue that -ko iss- has two functions, progressive and resultative. I suggest that it is basically a progressive marker, and that the resultative is a secondary meaning, which is derived from its co-ocumnce with some special telic verbs. I will show that these telic verbs exhibit their uniqueness not only with the progressive marker, but also with other tense aspect markers. The only restriction on -ko id2is that it cannot occur with states, i.e. adjectival

This fom is a combination of a copula iss and a verbal connective, which usually denotes 'and*or 'at the same time'. According to Bybee & Dahl(1989:81), in the process of the development of progressive, its most common sources are locative expressions or copulas. Thus, the typical meaning of progressive is that "a subject X is located in or at an irtivity (i) if that activity has a concrete, physical location, (ii) if X is mobile (and capable of being located elsewhere), and (iii) if X is perhaps even a volitional agent who may at times be involved in other activities,"They say that gradually the meaning of such constructions weakens, giving rise eventually to he aspectual meaning of progressive. 43 predicates. Due to the existence of the resultative form in Korean. -ko iss- denotes more dynamic ongoing actions or developing states, compared with Japanese -tr iru- or English -ing. When used with Process I verbs it has a distinctive meaning, as illustrated below.

John-i se-e iss-ta. John-NOM stand-RESL-DEC 'John is standing.'

John-i se-ko iss-ta. John-NOM stand-PROG-DEC 'John is standing up.'

Elm-i nok-e iss-ta. ice-NOM melt-RESL- DEC 'The ice is melted (lhave the ice melted).'

Elum-i nok-ko iss-ta. ice-NOM melt-PROG-DEC 'The ice is melting.'

The exampk in (34a) denotes that John's standing is a resulted state, whereas the example in

(34b) denotes that John's standing is in motion. Thus the basic meaning of -ko iss- is an ongoing action. The examples in (35) are in same aspect, except that (35b) implies a state that is developing before the speaker's eyes.

However, Like the English progressive. -ko iss- denotes an iterative or repetitive aspect when it occurs with semelfactive verbs, which are punctual activity verbs without a change of state (e.g. chota 'kick'. nuyiita 'hit'). Unlike the present tense, -ko iss- can imply 'a temporary habit', or 'tentative mental state':

(36) a. John-un tambay-lul an-phi-u-nun-ta. John-TOP cigarette-ACC NEG-bum-CAUS-PRES-DEC 'John does not smoke' b. John-un tambay-Id an-phi-u-ko iss-ta. john-TOP cigarette-ACC NEG-bum-CAUS-PROG-DEC 'John is not smoking (these days).'

(37) a. John-un I sasil-ul mit-nun-ta. John-TOP this fact-ACC believe-PRES-DEC 'John believes this fact.'

b. John-un 1 sad-lul mit-ko iss-ta. John-TOP this fact-ACC believe-PROG-DEC 'John believes this fact.'

Example (36a) denotes that John is a person who does not smoke. whereas (36b) implies that he used to smoke but does not at the moment. In a similar fashion, while (37a) has a neutral present meaning, implying that the subject's belief is finn, (37b) indicates that John's belief is temporary or tentative at the moment. Hence. the implication of (37b) is that the speaker assumes that the subject can change his mind at any moment (K.-D. Lee 1993: 197). On the other hand, the following sentences are ambiguous in meaning when hey have the progressive aspect form -ko iss-. The clauses with -ko iss- represent either progressive meaning or resultative meaning, as in (38).

(38) a. Swuni-ka ppalkah-un 0s-ul ip-ko iss-ta. Swuni-NOM red-A.ATT cloth-ACC wear-PROG-DEC 'Swuni wears red./S wuni is putting on red clothes.'

b. Ku-ka cha-ey ta-ko iss-ta. He-NOM car-LOC get on-PROG-DEC 'He is in the car./ He is getting in the car.'

Both rntences in (38) describe not only an ongoing action but also a resultative state. Some verbs that show this ambiguity are:

(39) a. 'open' verbs: yelta 'open (door), mttu 'open (eyes), pellita 'open (mouth) 45 tatta 'close (door)', kmta 'close (eyes)', khyeta 'turn on', kkuta 'turn off', etc. b. 'take' verbs: kacita 'take, have', mlta 'hold', cita 'carry on the back', meyta 'carry on the shoulder', cqpta 'hold, grasp', cwuita 'grip', etc. C. 'wear' verbs: ipta 'wear clothes', sinta 'wear shoes or socks', ssutu 'wear glasses, hats', kkita 'wear gloves, ring', talta 'hang up', &&a 'hang on or around', etc.

d. 'posture' verbs: anfa 'hug, ambrace', Mota 'cross legs'. cipta 'put hand on'. kitayta 'lean on or againstT,tayta 'touch', thata 'get on', etc.

The verbs of this group share certain characteristics. They are punctually telic, but not solely act~ievernents.~~These verbs show a change of state. They are two-state verbs with no notable time gap between the two states, and the two states show opposite situations to each other. For instance, an event 'open' or 'turn on' means that the absence of the particular situation described by the verb turns into the presence of the situation. One thing in common among these verbs is a change in a state, and that one event is usually considered as completed only with the target state. In other words, it is difficultfor the initial state and the final state to be separated in those events. Thus, it is a natural phenomenon that these verbs have a resultative meaning when they appear with the progressive markers. And these verbs exhibit this resultative meaning when they occur with other tense markers such as -as-.

What is significant about these verbs is that the -&aiss- not only has a resultative meaning but also a progressive meaning, depending on where an emphasis is put. This tells us that the basic meaning of -ko iss- is ongoing events. In addition, it can have an iterative or habitual meaning depending on the verb type. However, we do not define it as iterative or habitual aspect since they are secondary or derived meanings. in the same fashion. the resultative meaning is also just secondary. Now we can summarize the occurrence of the aspect and tense markers with different

" 1 assume that these verbs are whievements in Korean. 46 verb classes in Korean. Hen '0' and ' * ' represent 'compatibility' and 'incompatibility' respectively.

Table 7: Aspect- and Tense Markers and Korean Verb Classes -e iss- -ko iss- -en-

(RESuLTAnVE) , (PROGRESSIVE) 1 I State ~lr rir o Activity * o o Process I o o o Process II I o o

In Korean, the progressive form -ko iss- denotes, 'a momentary ongoing event'. Depending on what event type it goes with, it can have a secondary meaning, such as iterative, habitual, or resultative. It is compatible with verbs whose subject is not an agent, as long as they are not states." On the other hand, the resultative form is not compatible with verbs that take an apntive subject, even though they, in fact, can have a resultative meaning. These restrictions follow from the cross-linguistic properties of the resultative suggested by Bybee et al. (199453-67), as mentioned in 32.2.1.

2.3 Korean Tense Markers

This section makes use of the two-level analysis of the Korean verbal suffixes proposed in the previous section to analyze two types of tenses-speaker-addressee-oriented and situation-oriented. The uses of the two types of tense and their interactions are examined from diachronic and synchronic perspectives. I suggest that Korean makes use of the concepts of deictic tense and anaphoric tense. 82.3.1 addresses the characteristics of TE tense, a speaker-addnssee-oricnted tense, and 12.3.2 those of situation-oriented tenses.

According to Bybee et aL (1994: 136). among the progmsive meanings. the requirement that the subject be an agent is gradually expanded, probably at the same time as the notion of activity extends to include developing states. Later. hey say, progressive usually develops into imperfective or pesent tense. 47 82.3.3 shows that Korean has a two-tiered tense structure that is composed of the deictic time relation and anaphoric time relation.

2.3.1 The Speaker-Oriented Tense and Shifted Reference Point

There has been a great deal of controversy concerning the grammatical and semantic status of the so-called retrospective marker -re-. It has been considered to be various categories, such as tense, aspect, mood, tenseaspect, or manner. The most widely-accepted views are to define -te- as tense (H.-B. Choi 1983, Gim 1980, D.-J. Choi 1994, and Han 1096) or to define it as mood.

D.-J. Choi (1994) considers -re- a tense that moves the standpoint to the past time. In other words, it moves the location of the speaker to a point prior to the utterance point. Han

(19%) clairns that Korean has two kinds of tense relations, 'cognition tense' and 'situation tense', depending on the reference time that the tense denotes. He says that -re- denotes cognition time prior to the utterance time. H.-M. Sohn (1994) treats -te- as a retrospective mood, and Suh (1996) treats it as a reportive mood. In fact, many researchers have noted the special contextual properties of -te-,as reflected in the terms they use to refer to it:

Retrospection. reporting, and irresponsibility (Gim 1980) Objective Conveyance (Y u 198 1) Discontinuity of consciousness (Y im 1982) Experience (Huh 1987) Pasmess, report, and perception (S.-0. Sohn 1995) Anteriority of cognition time (Han 19%) Past perception (C.-K. Lee 1996) Reportive (Suh 1996)

D.4. Choi (1994) claims that various contextual meanings (objective reporting, recollection, and recognition) and implicational manings (irresponsibility. psychological 48 distance, nonchalant attitude, vivid explanation, and new realization) are derived from the shift of a reference point. That is, those various meanings are possible because of 'reservation of perception at the utterance time', 'a timelag between cognition time and utterance time', and 'reference to situation at cognition time'. Thus he says that the tenses whose reference point is the speech point, the present moment, are more affirmative and reliable than TE tense. For the latter, since the reference point is shifted to some point together with the speaker's viewpoint, it has some distance from the utterance tirnc.

Similarly, HA. Lee (1991) suggests that the basic function of -re- is locating the speaker's viewpoint at the moment of perceptual experience in the past. However, he says that it is a past imperfective aspect marker, not a tense marker, even though it has the semantic function of tense, In this thesis, I suggest that -te- is a speaker-addressee-oriented tense marker, which leads to a deictic past tense. In fact, the reason why so many scholars have tried to figure out the grammatical category and the semantics of -te- is that there is another past-like tense marker -as-.The two are similar in terms of a temporal relation, anteriority, but are different in terms of function, meaning, and implications. These various terms used to refer to -te- (see (40))result from speaker-addressee orientation. We cannot say that the nuin concepts such as 'retrospection', 'perception', or 'experience' pertain to TE tense only. because those concepts can accompany other tenses, such as simple past. Besides, 'reportive' is presupposed by the speaker-addressee-orientedproperty. TE tense has been said to have many grammatical or pragmatic restrictions, such as 'Non-equi-subject constraint', 'Equi-subject constraint' in the verbs of sensory experience, or 'New information constraint' (Gim 1980. Han 1996). The non-equi-subject constraint is

that the subject of a sentence with -te- cannot be identical with the speaker:

(4 1) a. *Na-La hakicyo-ey ka-te-la. I -NOM school-LOC go-TE-DEC 'I saw (perceived) myself going to school.' b. Ku-ka hakkyo-ey ka-te-la. He-NOM school-LOC go-TE-DEC 'I saw him going to school.'

C. Wa-ka yeyppu- te-la. I -NOM is pretty-TE-DEC 'I noticed (perceived) I was pretty.' d. Kunye-ka yeyppu-te-la. S he-NOM is pretty-TE-DEC 'I noticed she was pretty.'

On the other hand, the equi-subject constraint is that the subject of a sentence with -re- must be identical with the speaker if the verb expresses the speaker's sensory experience:

(42) a. Na-nun ne-ka choh-te-la. I-TOP you-NOM be good-TE-DEC '1 felt (perceived) I liked you.'

b. *Ku-nun ne-ka c hoh- te-la. He-TOP YOU-NOM be good-TE-DEC 'I felt (perceived) he liked you.'

The new information constraint is that -re- must be used in a sentence that gives new information. This means that the speaker must use -tr- under the assumption that the addressee does not know the information to be conveyed by the speaker. Thus, -re- cannot be used in the sentences describing such common knowledge as in (43):

(43) ??Yi Swun-Sin changkun-i yengung-i-te-la. Yi Swun-Sin general-NOM hero-be-TE-DEC 'I noticed (perceived) General Swun-Sin Yi was a hero. '

Sentences (41a) and (41c) describe the action or appearance of the speaker, and the appearance of -te- is unacceptable. Only the speaker's feelings or emotions are compatible with -re-, as in (42a). Sentence (43) is unacceptable because both the speaker and addressee would alnady know the information of the sentence. D.4. Choi (1994:65-68) explains all the above constraints with one constraint, the 'Shifted Reference Point Constraint'. He says that the situations described by data like (41) are things that the perceiver-describer (speaker) can neither perceive nor describe at the past- shifted reference point, since the speaker cannot perceive and describe his or her own actions but only other people's actions. On the other hand, in (42)' the speaker cannot perceive and describe anything other than her or his own feeling or emotion. In (43) there is no need for the speaker to perceive the knowledge she or he already has, and the speaker cannot go back to those days to see the historical scene except in a movie. As a matter of fact, I claim that even Choi's (1994) 'Shifted Reference Point Constraint' is not required, because a discourse situation under the presence of a speaker and an addressee involves those constraints. Depending on the context, sentences like (41a), (41c).and (43)are acceptable:

(41 a)' (Kkwum-eyse) Na-ka hakkyo-ey ka-te-la. drearn-LOC 1 -NOM school-LOC go-TE- DEC '(In my dream) I saw (perceived) myself going to school.'

(4 1 c)' Kusalamtultwungeyse Na-ka ceyil yeppu-te-la. them-among I -NOM best is pretty-TE-DEC 'I noticed (perceived) I was the prettiest among them.'

(43)' Yeksi Yi Swun-Sin cangkwun-i yengung-i-te-la. as expected (still) Yi Swun-Sin general-NOM hero-be-TE-DEC 'I noticed (perceived) General Y i was ;r hero as expected.'

In addition, (42b) is still not fully acceptable without -re-, and (44) is grammatical.

(42 b)' *n?Ku-nun/ka ne-ka c ho h- tit. he-TOP/NOM you-NOM be good-DEC 'He likes you.' (44) Ku-ka ne-ld choh-aha-te-la (ta). he-NOM you-ACC ~OO~-~O-TE-DEC 'He likes you.'

We see that the reason for the ungramrnaticality of (42b) is not the presence of -te-, but the lexical property of the verb. This is because state verbs of sensory experience tend to avoid third person subjects since these verbs usually describe the speaker's subjective feelings (Gim 1980:91. D.4. Choi 1994:67). Thus, all the constraints about -te- can be accounted for in connection with the speaker-addressee-oriented property. that is, all concepts are presupposed by the utterance under the presence of a speaker and an addressee. The new information constraint is closely related to one of Grice's (1975:45-46) four maxims of conversation, 'the Maxim of Quantity'. which requires the speaker to make his or her contribution as informative as is required in the current conver~ation.~~ According to Yu (198 1:226), the semantic definition of -re- is 'the speaker's objective conveyance of the situation that the speaker perceived outside of the utterance scene and that had nothing to do with the speaker's volition'. Although this definition accounts for many uses of -re-, it is problematic when verbs expressing states of sensory experience are involved, as in (42a). We cannot say that the acceptability of examples like (42a) is completely related to the speaker's objective conveyance of the situation of his or her perception. Rather they describe the speaker's subjective emotion. I suggest instead that all the semantic characteristics of -te- are derived from the fact that the speaker of an utterance and the perceiver-describe16 of a situation are the same, and this is a part of the speaker- addresseeoriented property of -tee.

Grice's (1975:45-46) maxims are four different types of conversational implicaturcs as foUows:

(i) The Maxim of Quantity: Make your conmbution as informative as is required for the current pllrposes of the exchange. (ii) The Maxim of Quality: Try to make yow conmbution one that is m. (ii) The Maxim of Relation: Be relevant. (iv) me Maxim of Manner: Be perspicuous. and specifically: avoid ambiguity and obscurity be brief and orderly.

Here Ibwed McGilvray's (1991) concept of the perceiver-describer. 52 Until the fifteenth century, -te- was the only marked past tense morpheme. At that time. it seems that it was used less restrictively than now. Let's compare the current use of

-te- with its use of the fifteenth century.

(45) a. Nay cip ui isilh cekui swuko-i n~n-ta-la.'~ b. ??~a-ka cipcy iss-ul cek-ey swuko-ka man-te-la. I-NOM house-LOC ~~-P.ATTtime-LOC trouble-NOM much-TE-DEC 'When I was at home I had a lot of toil/trouble.'

While (45a) is a sentence from 15th century literature (Huh 1987: 12), (45b) is a version in modem Korean, which is unacceptable. Presumably. it used to function as simple deictic past tense, not only as a speaker-addressee-orientedform as in present usage. In this respect, it can be said that a situation-oriented tense marker has developed into a speaker-oriented tense marker.28 Some interesting evidence for this view is that -re- does not have those speaker-oriented properties, but functions as a simple deictic past tense when it appears in adnominal clauses in modem Korean. According to D.4 Choi (1988. 1989), as cited in H.- S. Lee (1991:317), the late 15th century tense system is retained in the adnominal tense of modem Korean. HA.Lee (1991) says that contemporary -te- is a past imperfective marker. However, this imperfectivity does not hold when it combines with -as-.

(46) a. John-i kongpwu-lul ha-te-la. John-NOM study-ACC do-TE-DEC '(Isaw that) John was studying.'

According to Huh (1987: 1 1). -re- used to have several dlomorphs depending on the subject. With a fiperson subject, it was realized as -la- or -la-, and, wih a second or the lhird person subject. it is realized as -te- or ole-. According to Bybee et al. (L994),cross-linguistically. agentdenled modality develops into speaker-orienled modality. This seems to be the case in rhe development of -re-. This nee& huther march. 53 b. John-i kongpwu-lul ha-ess-te-la. John-NOM study-ACC do-ESS-TE-DEC 'John had studied. '

In sentence (46a). with -tu-, John's studying holds at the past-shifted reference point. In contrast. in (46b), with a combination of -re- and -ess-, the event was prior to and does not hold at the reference point. There is no implication of a progressive or continuous event at the reference point or at some time before the reference point. This is because. unlike normal deictic tenses, -te- does not refer to situation time. but moves the speaker's viewpoint or shifts the reference point into the past from the speech point. The reason -te- seems to have an imperfective meaning in examples like (46a) is due to the null form present tense, which plays an active role in the modem Korean tense system. This issue will be addressed further in the following section. Therefore, I propose that -re- is a speaker-addressee-oriented tense and deictic past tense, denoting that the reference point is at some point in the past. All the constraints that -te- has been said to be subject to are accounted for by the speaker-addressee-orientation that requires the presence of the speaker and the addressee and the identity of the speaker and the perceiver-describer of a given situation. This means that TE tense involves the speaker in a given situation as a perceiver/describer. This property does not pertain to simple deictic tenses. In addition, its function is to set up the fvst deictic time relation. in order for situation times (later anaphoric tenses) to set based on the deictic tense.

2.3.2 Situation-Oriented Tense Markers

In this section, I show that what are called situation-oriented tenses in Korean, which are usually represented by @/-nun-, -as-,and -&eyss-,have either deictic time relations or anaphoric time relations. depending on the context. Hence, they are basically anaphoric tenses. I will call @/-nun-, -as- and -kryss- anaphoric present, anaphoric past, and anaphoric future tense, respectively. I also address the duplicated form -em-ess- in connection with -ess-.

2.3.2.1 Anaphoric Present Tense

-Nun- '9 is controversial as a present tense marker because its distribution is highly restricted. It appears only when a non-static verb refers to non-past time and at the same time takes the plain (neutral) style endings of the declarative and the interrogative (-laand -nya), and appears in an adnominal clause.

(47) a. John -i kongpwu-lul ha-nun-ta. John-NOM study-ACC do-PRES-DEC 'John studiedis studying.'

b. *John -i pucilenha-nun-ta. John-NOM be diligent-PRES-DEC 'John is diligent.'

c. *John -i kongpwu-lul ha-nun-e (yo). John-NOM study-ACC do-PRES-fNF (DEF) 'John studiedis studying.'

-Nun- cannot appear with to static verbs as in (47b). However, even though the verb is non- static, it cannot take -nun- when it occurs with endings other than the plain neutral ending in (47~). H.-B. Choi (1983) considers -nun- a present progressive form with two other allomorphs, -nu- and [email protected] (1980) and Suh (1 996) take it for a meaningless morpheme, but Kim (1990) considers it to be an 'action operator' (Suh l996:235). H.-S. Lee (199 1)

" -Nun- has two allomorphs: -nu- ud -n-. 55 suggests that -nun- is also an imperfective aspect marker and that its non-past meaning is the result of locating the speaker's viewpoint within the event frame of the situation described.

Slightly different analyses are given by D.-J. Choi (1994) and Han ( 1995). They both claim that -nu- is a tense marker and that it is a partner with -te- with respect to cognition tirne because they appear in complementary distribution. According to Han ( 1993, there are two types of -nu-,the true one and the reduced one. As opposed to -en-, which is the marker indicating that the situation tirne precedes before the cognition time. the true -nu- indicates that the situation time is simultaneous with the cognition time. As opposed to -te-, whose meaning is 'cognition time prior to the utterance time'. the reduced -nil- is the marker that indicates 'cognition time at the utterance time'. Historically, it is true that -nu- and -tr- used to be paired in that the one referred to present time and the other to past he.It seems that the use of -nu- was not as restrictive then as it is now, since it used to occur with static verbs. Its old usage still remains as a frozen morpheme in several verbal endings, such as -nits. -ni(kku), and -my (Han 1996. Huh 1987). However, we no longer recognize the -nu- in those morphemes as a (present) tense in modem Korean. Current speakers have the intuition that the -nun- has a relationship with nonstatic verbs synchronically. Moreover, the existence of -nun- has already been threatened by the phonologically null form. In informal use. the most common verbal ending is -e(yo), as H.-S. Lee (1991) shows, and it takes the null form present, regardless of the type of verb. Thus, in modem Korean, -te- has settled down as a speaker-oriented past tense, since it has no restriction in distribution or co-occurrence with any verb type. On the other hand, the meaning and distribution of -nun- have been restricted: in modem Korean, it cannot occur with static verbs. Thus, many scholars doubt that it is really a tense. It is also possible that -nun- will eventually be replaced by the null form, as has happened to similar tense markets in other language^.'^

Accading to Huh (1987). the decline of -nu- is closely related to the rise of the progressive from -b iss-. This means that, Wet, the phonetically-null present fonn may develop into an aspectdly neutral @resent) tense. 56 However, -nun- still has a clear meaning, present imperfective, and in complement clauses it plays a distinctive role as relative present tense. As for Han's (1996) -nu-of cognition tirne simultaneous with utterance time, the situation time is also simultaneous with the utterance time. In fact, modem Korean does not allow the combination of -nu- and -ess-, except in frozen endings like -nits, ni(kka). and -my . Thus, I suggest that the unmarked present tense form is a null form, and -nun- is a marked form for distinguishing a nonstatic verb from a static verb when the situation of the verb is simultaneous with the reference point. One reason for two types of present tense in Korean is that, as Han (1996) says, Korean has two different types of predicates, verbal predicates and adjectival predicates, which both function as verbs without a copula. In other words, they both are the same type of predicate formally, differing only in their semantics. Verbal predicates ofcur with -nun-, which usually denotes an ongoing event, whereas adjectival predicates are incompatible with the concept of an ongoing event.

When the reference point is at the speech point, the Korean anaphoric present tense, 0 or -nun-, is almost the same as the English present tense, since the present tense in both languages satisfy the characteristics of present tense as defined by Comrie (1985). Fist, the event is located at the present moment. Second, present refers to an unrestrictive tirne location that occupies a much longer period of time than the present moment, such as the situation of static verbs or truths that hold at all time as a generic use. Third, the present is used in describing habitual situations, that is, for a habit that holds at the present moment. However, the Korean present tense has slightly different characteristics from the Enghsh present tense, in that it refers exactly to an ongoing situation at the point of reference. while the English present does not denote an ongoing situation. This ongoing property of the present tense is not unique, but common cross-ling~istically.~'In this respect, the English present tense seems unique.

'' The French present. the Italian present, and the Spanish present denote an agoing event at the speech time (Sake 1989, Giorgi & Pianesi 1997. and Zagona 1990). 57 According to Bybee et al. (1994: 126) and Comrie (1976:25), present and imperfective are more general and abstract, whereas progressive, continuous, and habitual are more specific. Hence, present and imperfective include the meanings of progressive, continuous, and habitual, but not vice versa. The grammatical category of -nun- is not a progressive form. since it includes habitual or gnomic situations. Imperfective is usually considered as the contrastive partner of perfective, and can be applicable to either past. present, or future time. An imperfective restricted to the present time is simply a present tense, and, hence, present is a subtype of imperfective (Bybee et a1 1994). Therefore. I suggest that @/-nun- is an anaphoric present tense. This present tense is always simultaneous with a reference point such as the speech time, a shifted deictic point in the past, or the event time of the matrix verb. According to Huddleston (1977:732), present tense in English is used as a 'futurate', in which the present is understood as referring to future time, as in (48a). Korean present tense is also used as a 'futurate*,as in (48b).

(48) a. The sun rises at 6 tomorrow. b. Nayil hay-ka yeses-si-ey ttu-nun-ta. tomorrow sun-NOM six-o'clock-LOC rise-PRES-DEC 'The sun rises at six tomorrow .*

Thus, it seems that present tense inherently does not refer to present but to non-past. However, as Shaer (1991:99- 100) points out, there is also a past-tensed futurate in English. This is the case in Korean too.

(49) a. Ijoinedtomorrow. b. The Game started at Seven. (Quirk et al. 1985:a 14.3 1, cited Shaer 1996:100)

(50) Ne-nun na yd cuk-ess-ta. You-TOP tomorrow die-ESS-DEC. 'You died (wen killed) tomorrow. ' Here, futurate is used to indicate that a future situation is as certain as a present fact or a past situation that has already occurred. The futurate, in contrast to the future, is used to express a statement rather than a prediction (Boyd and Thome 1969, Shaer 1996: 100). Another way of interpreting the futurate is that the speaker moves the reference point to the future time. That is, at the shifted reference point, the speaker sees the situation holding or as having already happened, based on his or her belief or knowledge, in order to derive such certainty as present or past tense provides. Another future use of the Korean present tense is related to the ongoing motion of the present tense. In sentences with nonstatic verbs, the Korean present tense refers to future time with Pitic hhe adverbials. Especially when the present tense combines with telic verbs

(e.g. kata 'go', tocho&hata 'arrive'). it can refer to future time without future time adverbiais (see (5 la)); but this is not the case with atelic verbs (see (5 lb)):

(51) a. John-i hywuka- ka-nun-ta. John-NOM holiday-go-PRES-DEC. 'John is going on a holiday.'

b. John-i kongpwu-ha-nun-ta. lohn-NOM study-do-PWS-DEC 'John is studying now.'

Without future time adverbials, (5 la) can indicate a future event, whereas (5 1b) does not usually refer to future time. In order to refer to future time, (5 1b) needs a future adverb or a future context 'Ihis phenomenon of future reference ;u: in (5 la) is also closely related to the fact that the verb is telic. Due to the relative punctuality of the verb, it is possible that the verb does not occur with the present tense representing an ongoing or unfolding event. Instead, the events they describe usually refer to immediate future. In addition, the future meaning of present tense in coocumnce with tck verbs is not restricted in Korean. In English, the present progressive can refer to future time Telic verbs show this tendency more strongly. One way of making other types of verbs alic in English is to add be going to. In sum, the Korean present tense denotes simultaneity with a reference point and an imperfective aspectual meaning. Its secondary use is future time reference with adverbials denoting future time. According to Bybee et al. (1994:275), it is usual that a general present imperfective can be used for future time reference in a future context, but the presence of the future reference is required. In fact, it is possible to say that the Korean present tense is becoming a more general tense covering present situations and the immediate future, since it refers to the future when there is a future reference.

2.3.2.2 Anaphoric Past Tense

Another tense marker. -as-, basically denotes situation tim prior to a reference point. When the reference point is at the speech point, it refers to past situations and also to more recent past situations with current relevance, especially with telic verbs. Thus, -ess- corresponds to the English perfect tense (Anterior), on the one hand, and to the English past tense on the other. Due to this characteristic of -ess-, Korean has an additional past form, the duplicated past marker, -css-as-.

There are three approaches to -ess-. The first approach, which has been accepted by most traditional Korean grammarians, including H.-B.Choi (1983), Gim (1980, 1985.

1993), and C.-M.Lee (1985), considers -ess- to be past tense. not perfective. The second approach regards -ess- as perfective aspect, not as past tense (Na 197 1, Nam 1978). Under this approach, -ess- represents perfective aspect, while the coven form, -8,represents

According to Huddleiton (1977). the fume use of the present pgnssive is Merent fmcn futurate. 60 progressive aspect. The third approach, taken by Suh (1996), H.-M. Sohn (1994), and

S.-0. Sohn (1995), is that -ess- simultaneously represents tense and aspect, which means that -ess- is a single category temd 'tense aspect' that covers a dual function.13

Korean -us-appears with all types of verbs, without any restriction in simple sentences, as in (52).

(52) a. John-i phyenci-lul ssu-ess-ta. John-NOM letter-ACC write-ESS-DEC 'John wrote a letter.'

b. John-i aphu-ess-ta. John-NOM sick-ESS-DEC 'John was sick.'

c. John-nun haksayng-i-ess-ta. John-TOP student-be-ESS-DEC 'John was a student.'

-ESP co-occurs with static verbs and represents a past state. Usually perfective does not occur with static verbs, and perfective represents a present state when it occurs with static verbs (Bybee et al. 1994. Smith 1997). Consider the following Mandarin Chinese examples (Smith 1997:264-265):

(53) a. Wo zuo ti an xie-le yifeng xin. I yesterday write-LE one-CL letter. 'I wrote a letter yesterday.'

b. Wo bing-le. I sick-LE 'I got sick.'

According to H.-M. Soh (1994) and S.-0. Sohn (1995). -ess- has a dual function. Depending on the context, it serves either as past tense or as perfect and has two different suffix slots. Thus, H.-M.Sohn (1994321) claims that if both slots are filled, as in -ess-ess-, they den- pluperfect. 61 When static verbs occur with the perfective marker -le without a time adverb, as in (52b). they have a derived inchoative reading, representing a present situation. Otherwise. -le does not appear with static verbs (Smith 1997:265). Without -1e, sentence (54) represents a past state, due to the adverb of past time zuotiun 'yesterday'.

(54) Mali zuotian hen gaoxing Mary yesterday very happy. 'Yesterday Mary was (very) happy.'

However, this is not the case in Korean, in which -en-is required for a past state. as in (52b, c). In addition, if -as-is perfective, it should not co-occur with -ko iss-,which indicates progressive aspect However, -as- is completely compatible with -ko iss-.

(55) a. lohn-i (cw) kongpwu-ha-ko iss-ta. John-NOM (now) study-do-PROG-DEC. 'John is studying.'

b. John-i (kunay) kongpwu-ha-ko iss-ess-ta. John-NOM (then) study-do-PROG-ESS-DEC 'John was studying (then).'

According to Bybee et al. (1994:95), differences between perfective and simple past are as follows:

(56) a. Perfective contrasts with non-zero imperfective, while past either co-occurs with imperfective to make a past impafective, or is used alone to signal both perfective and imperfective past. b. Perfective is sometimes zero-marked, but past is not c. Perfective is either not used with static verbs or has the effect of signaling a present state with static verbs. Past signals a past state. d. Perfective is sometimes used for future or with future, but past is not. Another difference they note is that perfective seems to interact with the lexical semantics of verbs more than past does. That is, perfective offers a particular perspective on the action described by the verb and thus interacts with the verb's inherent semantics, while the past has scope over the entire proposition (Bybee et al. 1994:92).

Even though -en- has developed fiom the resultative aspect marker -c is(i)-, synchronically it has settled down as a tense marker, as evidenced by its use with static verbs. HA.Lee ( 199 1 :247) claims that the basic grammatical meaning of -en-is 'antenority', which is neutral between tense and aspect., and should not be confused with the notion of relative past tense. He says that this temporal relativity is implied, but not inherently presumed, and that -as-also has a meaning of completion, which is related to perfective, as below (HA. Lee 199 1 :233-234).

(57) a. Swuni-nun hakkyo-e ka-taka Chelswu-lul po-ess-ta. Swuni-TOP School-LOC go-TRANS Chelswu-ACC see-ESS-DEC 'On her way to school. Swuni saw Chelswu.'

b. Swuni-nun hakkyo-e ka-ess-taka Chelswu-lul po-ess-ta. Swuni-TOP School-LOC go-ESS-TRANS Chelswu-ACC see-ESS-DEC 'When she went to school, Swuni saw Chelswu.'

Hen, -taka is a suffut expressing s shift in action or a transition to another action. The difference between the two sentences is that (57b) takes -ess-, whereas (570) has no overt marking of tense, that is, the null form present tense. In (57b), Swuni got to the school, whereas (57a) indicates that she saw Chelswu on her way, before she got to school. Thus, he says that -ess- indicates a completed action. However, this difference is also accounted for by relative tense. Unlike the English present tense. Korean (anaphoric) present tense denotes an ongoing situation, functioning as a background situation. In (57a), two actions happened at the same time. On the other hand. in (57b), -ess- mans that Swuni's going to school is before her seeing Chelswu. Thus, the completion of an action in (57b) is an 63 implied meaning. By definition, 'anteriorit)" is a temporal property, as mentioned before. Bybee et al. (1994: 105) suggest that cross-linguistically, resultative (or completive) develops into anterior. and eventually leads to simple past or perfective, and provide the following hypothesized path of development.

Figure 1: Paths of Development to Simple Past and Perfective INFERENCE FROM RESULT INDIRECT EVIDENCE 8

'be'l'have' -b RESULTATWE \ 'come' -b ANTERIOR " PERFECTIVE1 SIMPLE PAST (r 'finish' r, COhPLEflVE directionds \ derivational perfective

Further. anterior is divided into two stages, young anterior and old anterior, in terms of the degree of rnorphologicd dependence and addition of other meanings to the basic anterior meaning. In the final stage, anterior leads to simple past or perfective, depending on whether the language in question has past imperfective or not (Bybee et al. 1994).

Korean -as-has taken the same route as in Figure 1. First, the resultative form, -c is(i)- (infinitival plus copula), went through the stage of anterior, and eventually came to function as a tense. According to Bybee et al. (1994:78), the Germanic preterite came to be a simple past tense via the same route. I assume that the difference between the Germanic preterite and -en- is that -ess- cannot become a deictic past tense due to the existence of the speaker-oriented past tense -re- in Korean. Rather, it has settled down as a situation-oriented relative past tense. That is why it can be used for future time reference. There are several arguments that -as-is not just anterior like English perfect. First, it has shifted to a bound suffix from a peripheral form, which is one of the significant criteria for determining whether a marker is anterior or past (or perfective), according to Bybee and Dahl(1989). Second, when anterior combines with stative verbs, it indicates a present state or an inchoative meaning (Bybee et al. 1994).'~However, when -as-co-occurs with static verbs, it denotes a past situation without present relevance. Third, the basic meaning of anterior is cumnt relevance, but current relevance is not the basic concept of -ess-. Rather, it is a derived secondary meaning depending on the verb type. When -em- appears with static verbs or nontelic action verbs, it does not indicate current relevance.

-ESP occurs with the adverb cikum 'now', as well as with adverbials with past time reference.

(58) a. John-i cikum toc h&a-ess-ta. John-NOM now arrive-ESS-DEC 'John has mived now.'

b+ John-i eceY toc hakha-ess-ta. John-NOM yesterday arrive-ESS-DEC 'John anived yesterday.'

This means that -ess- has recent past and simple past uses, without any restriction on whether an event is definite or indefinite. When it co-occurs with telic verbs, it indicates current relevance or resultative.

(59) a. John-i cha-ey tha-ess-ta. John-NOM car-LOC get on-ESS-DEC 'John got on the car (John is in the car).'

b. john-i hakkyo-e y ka-ess- ta. John-NOM school-LOC go-ESS-DEC 'John went to school (John is at school).'

In terms of this criterion, the old form -(ulni-, which functioned as a kind of pttense up until the 15h century, corresponds to anterior. When it occurred with non-static verbs, it ¬ed past time, whereas it ¬ed a ptesent state when it occumd wilh static verbs. The appearance of -em- is closely related to Ihe loss of -(u)ni- as a tense-like marker in simple sentences (Hm 1996). In other words, -ess- presumably inhetired the poperties of -(u)ni- and her developed into past -m-,Meanwhile, -(u)ni- is retained in adnominal clauses in modem Korean. 65 c. John-i skyey-lu1 punsilha-ess-ta. John-NOM watch-ACC lose-ESS-DEC 'John has lost his watch.'

This current relevance or resultative meaning is not always required when a past time adverb is present.

However, -ess- does not have a persistent situation (or anterior continuing) reading.

Instead, for persistent situation, the present tense is used.

(60) a. John-nun 1990-nyen ilay Pusan-ey sal-nun-ta/sal-ko iss-ta. John-TOP 1WO-year since Pusan-LOC ~~v~-PRES-DEC/~~V~-PRW-DEC 'literally, John lives/is living in Pusan since 1990.' 'fohn has lived in Pusan since 1990.'

These uses of -as- so far are ahnost the same as those of the French pas& cornpod and the German perfect, which are taking over the function of the simple past tense in those languages (Salkie 1989).''

Korean has another situation-oriented past vnse marker, -css-as-, which seems to be a doubling of -rss-.There are three main approaches to the duplicated past form. First, it is regarded as a pure aspect. Nam (1978) analyzes it as an aspect of discontinuity. Second, it is considered as a past tense form with an 'experiential-contrastive' aspect (N.-K. Kim 1975)36 or with the meaning of 'discontinuity from the present moment' (C.-M. Lee

1985)." Third, it is treated as a pluperfect tense with the meaning of 'past in the past'

'' According to S&e (1989). the reason the present perfect is used for a persistent situation in English is that the English present tense does not signal an ongoing event. unlike the present tense of French or German. According to N.-K.Kim (1975). while the fust -en- is a past, the second -ess- is an 'experientid- contrastive' aspect. Accading to C.-M. Lee (1985:436). the tnrrh-cMdjtid meaning 01 -es-ess- is that here was an event in the past and the event or the result state of he event discontinued at some time betwem the event theand the speech time. whereas the single lam -ess- has the tmhtonditid meaning of some event 66 (H.-B. Choi 1983, H.-M. Sohn 1994, S.-0. Sohn 1995, Han 1996).jn The problem with the last approach is that, as opposed to English pluperfect, -ess-en- cannot be said to have another reference point besides the point of situation and the point of speech:

(6 1) a. Yesterday, John had left already /the previous day.

b. Ecey-(nun) John-i pelsse/ku chen-nal ttena-ess-te-la(ta). Yesterday Jo hn-~oM dready/the before-day leave-ESS-TE-DEC 'Yesterday (I found) John had left alreadylthe day before.'

c. *Eyce-(nun) John-i pelsse/ku c hen-nal ttena-ess-ess-ta. Yesterday John- NOM already/the before-day leave-ESS-ESS- DEC

Both the English pluperfect and the Korean -te- tense allow another point besides the situation point of John's leaving, but the -ess-en- form does not allow two different time points. In addition, as C.-M.Lee (1985438) points out, the pluperfect meaning of -css-as- is difficult to sustain without the aid of an adverb such asprlsse 'already' as in (62).

(62) a. Swuni-ka yek-ey toc hakha-ess-ul ttaY kicha- ka Swuni-NOM station-LOC ~~~~~~-PAST-P.ATTwhen train- NOM

ttena-ess-ess-ta. leave-ESS-ESS-DEC *'When Swuni arrived at the station, the train had left.'

occurring in the past and lepagmatic implication of the result state of the event continuing until the speech time. Thus, tnrthconditio~y,the single form can replace the reduplicated form but not vice versa. HM (1996) says that -ess-ess- h not pluperfect but a simple duplication 'past of past'. 67 b. Swuni-ka yek-ey tochakha-ess-ul ttay kicha-la pelsse S wuni-NOM station-LOC amve-PAST-P.An when train-NOM already

ttena-ess-ess-ta. leave-ESS-ESS-DEC 'When Swuni arrived at the station, the train had (already) left.'

In fact, without pelsse 'already'. (62a) means that Swuni's arriving and the train's leaving happened at the same time. More comctly. (6%) means that after Swum's Yriving, the edn left. Even sentence (62b), with pelsse 'already', does not seem natural for the reading given in (62b).39 This means that -ess-ess-does not have the time-relational meaning (past in past) that pluperfect has. One more signiticant point is that this duplicate past form is interchangeable with the simple form, -as-on static verbs or sometimes with active verbs.

(63) a. Na-nun kuttay haksayng-i-ess-(ess-)ta. I-TOP that-time student-be-ESS-(ESS-)DEC 'I was a student.'

b. Na-ka ku hakkyo-lul tani-ess-(ess-) ta. I-NOM thatschool-ACC go and come-ESS-(ESS-)DEC 'I went to the school.'

S9 The more natural sentences would be as follows:

ttena-un-twuy-i-a-fa. leave-A.Am-dter-be-ESS-DEC 'When Swuni iurived iu the sation, the main h;d left.' 'litetally, It was after the train kft when Swuni arrived at the station.' ii. Swuni-ka Y&-~Y toctrakhrr-ess-ul ttay lcich-ka @eh) Swuni-NOM station-LOC arrive-PAST-P.ATT when train-NOM (ikdy)

~na-ess-te-la. leave-US-TE-DEC '(I perceived ht)When Swuni anived a! the station, the train had left.' Further, in spoken language, people often use a triple -as- form without adding special linguistically significant meaning.

(64) Ne ku nal hakkyo-ey ka-ess-(ess-)(ess-)nil? You that day school-LOC go-ESS-(ESS-)(ESS-)INT 'Did you go to school on that day'!'

ung, ka-ess-(ess-)(ess-)ta. yes go-ESS-(ESS-)(ESS-)DEC 'Yes, I went.'

However, for process verbs. which have punctual and telic properties, the duplicate form has significance. For those verbs, the -as- form has a pragmatic implication that the resultative state of a past event is continuous, that is, it has current relevance.

(65) a. John-uy apenim-kkey se tolaka-si-ess/*-ess-ess-ta. John-GEN father-H.NOM die-HON-ESS-/*-ESS-ESS-DEC 'John's father died (John's father is dead).'

b. John-i (oen-ey ) cu k-ess-ess- ta. John-NOM (before-LOO die-ESS-ESS-DEC 'John had died (John is alive again now).'

(66) a. John-i ppakah-un 0s-lul ip-ess/*-ess-ess-ta. John-NOM red-A.ATT clothes-ACC put on-ESS/*-ESS-ESS-DEC 'John put on red clothes (John is dressed in red).'

b. John-i ppalkah-un 0s-lul ip-ess-ess-ta. John-NOM red-A.Am clothes-ACC put on-ESS-ESS-DEC 'John put on red clothes/used to wear red clothes. (John is not dressed in red now./John does not wear red clothes any more.)'

This meaning of the duplicate form, absence of the current relevance of the past events, is closely related to the lexical properties of these telic verbs. These verbs rarely combine with 69 the present tense, because the Korean present tense denotes an ongoing event That is, the punctuality of these verbs makes it difficult for it to be an ongoing event. In addition, when they occur with past tense, they imply a resultative meaning or current relevance, due to the short-term length of their events. Funher, in order to have a past time reference without current relevance, they make use of this duplicate form -as-ess-. Thus, as C.-M. Lee (1985) says, the -as-ess- form has past time reference like

-as-, but has a different pragmatic implication of the absence of current relevance. That is why -ess-rss- does not usually co-occur with time adverbs that refer to the present moment, as opposed to the simple form, -ess-. The duplicated -ess represents past experiences, past states, or past habits that are no longer continuing, like English usrd to. In short, both -as- and -as-as- are past tense. But the former refers to recent past, whereas the latter refers to remote past that is no longer relevant to the present moment. This property is related not only to temporal or physical remoteness but also to psychological distance from the present moment.

2.3.2.3. Anap horic Future Tense

-Keyss- and -ul kes i- have future time reference but it is unclear whether they are tense markers or markers of modality. In earlier treatments, they were considered future tense markers. H.-B. Choi (1983) says that -keyss- is a future tense marker and at the same time a modal marker. Gim (1980) and Nam (1996) say that -kyss- is a modal marker that means 'uncenainty ' or 'undecidedness'. Y .-K. Kim (1994) and Suh (1 996) consider -keyss- a modal marker implying 'presumption' or 'inference'. Consider the following examples:

(67) a. Na-ka ka- ke yss-ta. I-NOM go-KEYSS-DEC 'I will go.' b. Pi-ka o-keyss-ta. rain-NOM come-KEYSS-DEC '(Probably) it will rain.'

c. John-i ka- ke yss-ta. John-NOM go-KEYSS-DEC '(Probably) John will go.'

(68) a. Na-ka ka-ul kes i-ta. I-NOM go-FUT-DEC 'I will go.'

b. Pi-ka 0-ul kes i-ta. rain-NOM come-FUT-DEC. '(I predict) it will rain.'

c. John-i ka-ul kes i-ta. John-NOM go-FUT-DEC '(Ipredict) John will go.'

These two forms, -keyss- and -ul krs i-, are alike in that they have basically future time reference, but, in terms of modality, they have different meanings. The former is more closely related to the speaker's subjectivity, that is. the speaker's intention or inference, depending on whether the subject is the same penon as the speaker or not. The latter represents the future event 'being scheduled to be done' based on more external. casual, or objective grounds (C.-M. Lee l985:U 1). However, the problem is that, under a meaning of presumption or prediction, -keyss- and -ul kes i- both can refer to present time or to past lime with the past marker, -rss-.

(69) a. Cikum kuki-nun pi-ka 0-key ss-ta. Now there-TOP rain-NOM- come-KEYSS-DEC '(Probably) it is raining then now.' b. Cikurn kuki-nun pi-ka o-ul kes i-ta. Now t here-TOP rain-NOM come-FUT-DEC '(I predict) it is raining there now.'

(70) a. John-i cikurn-ccum toc hakha-ess-keyss-ta. John-NOM now-around arrive-ESS-KEYSS-DEC 'Probably John arrived by now. '

b. John-i cikwn-ccurn tochakha-ess-ul kes i-ta. John-NOM no w-around arrive-ESS-FUT-DEC 'I predict John anived by now.'

Here -&eyss-and -ul kes i- both lack a temporal property, and convey only modality, such as the speaker's inference or prediction of situations that she cannot (or could not) see before her eyes. As mentioned before, ihe present tense also can be used for future time reference. For these reasons, the existence of future tense has been in dispute.

In almost all languages, the future tense has some characteristic of modality. As Bybee et al. (1994) point out, the central functions of future markers are intention and prediction. It follows from this that future is less a temporal category than a category resembling agent-oriented and episternic modality, with important temporal implications. Intention is a crucial bridge to prediction. and the change from intention to prediction occurs via inference. That is, both the expression of intentions (usually by the speaker) and the offering of predictions are commonly occurring interactive functions that are inferred from what is said. Thus, it is these inferences that create the meaning of future (Bybee et al. 1994:280). Both -keyss- and -ul kes i- have these properties, intention and inference or prediction with future time reference. Having taken over the old form -(u)li-, which had been a future marker covering general future properties, the two usually represent intention when

they apply to the fist person (or the second) subject, and, otherwise, represent the speaker's inference or prediction. Similarly, taking Old Spanish as an example, Bybee et al. (1994: 264) say that future expresses intention of a fist person subject. and that, especially with regard to a third person, a statement of intention implies a prediction. I assume that the path of the development of -keyss-and -ul kes i- is similar to one of the possible paths to future given by Bybee et al. ( 1994: 263).

Figure 2: Paths to Development to Future PREDESrn ATION \ CNTENTION FUTURE #

I assume that the original meaning of -keyss- was related to the use of 'obligation or predestination', since it was derived from the causative suffix -key plus ha-yrs-, which corresponds to the present past form of ha- 'do' (Huh 1987:175). Similarly. -ul kes i- is a combination of an adnominal form -(u)l plus kes 'thing' and the copula i 'be'. Literally, -ul kes means 'thing(s) to do' or 'thing(s) to be done'. In terms of category, -ul kes i- has begun playing a role as a simple future tense, since it represents a more objective prediction?' On the other hand. -keyss- is a future with episternic modality.'" -Keyss- usually expresses the speaker's intention when it co-occurs with a fust (or second) person subject, whereas when it co-occurs with a third person subject, it usually expresses the speaker's inference based on reasons or causes. -Keyss- does not represent a simply groundless presumption, conjecture, or possibility. -Keyss- has future time reference without future time adverbids and has anoler significant function, relative future tense, in combination with -te-, as in (71).

" In spoken Korean. -(u)l kes ii- has turned tiom a paiphd form into a bound form -(u)lkke-. '' Bybee et al. (1994279) suggest that there are four semantic stages fafutures: stage I: Futures with the agent-oriented uses of obligation, desire, and ability stage 2: Futures with the later agent-oriented uses of inrention, mot possibility, srnd the specific use of immediate future stage 3: [grammatical morphemes] with simple future as their only use stage 4: Futures with epistemic, speaker-oriented and subrdhted uses (71) (Ecey-nun) John-i kot ttena-keyss-te-la. (Yesterday-TDP) John-NOM soon leave-KEYSS-TE-DEC '(Yesterday) (I inferred that) John was leaving soon.'

This sentence means that the speaker infed that John's leaving would take place after the reference point in the past.

Therefore, -keyss- is primarily an anaphoric future tense marker, and secondarily a modal marker. In a sense, it is a mixture of tense and modality, which means a future tense with episternic modality. From the viewpoint of modality. -keyss- is a more situation- oriented modal marker. Thus, it is placed closer to the verb stem than the markers of speaker-oriented modality. On the other hand. it can be placed farther from the stem of the verb than the situation-oriented tense markers such as -as-, since it has the property of episternic modality. -Ulkes i- is a simple future tense marker based on the speaker's prediction.

2.3.3 Two-Tiered Tense Structure

In the syntagrnatic structure of verbal inflection. Korean has two levels, the situation- oriented level and the speaker-addressee-orienkd level, as discussed in (12.1.1. In the same way. if -re- is regarded as a tense marker' Korean has two types of tense, speaker-addressee- oriented tense and situation-oriented tense. It follows that the speaker-oriented tenses are deictic tenses. On the other hand, situation-oriented tenses in Korean show temporal relativity. The presence of -te- makes a deictic past time relation first, with respect to which three different situation times are relative-a situation is simultaneous with, before, and after its past-shifted deictic point (reference point). In the absence of -te-, the situation-oriented tenses, @/-nun-, -ess-, and -kryss-, have deictic relations, which means that theu reference point is the speech time. In other words, when -re- docs not appear, Korean has three simple 74 tenses, present, past, and future, but when -te- does appear, those three tenses become relative present, past, and future. Thus, I claim that tense markers, -81-nun-, -em-, and -keyss-, are basically anaphoric tense markers that can have deictic relations at any time when they cannot find an anaphoric anchoring point. This property can also explain their relativity in subordinate clauses, where they can have the time of the situation of the matrix clause as a new reference point. Meanwhile, -te- has a pure deictic time relation in Korean. Therefore, Korean tense has a two-tiered structure that is composed of the deictic time relation and the anaphoric relation. TE tense has the time relations (R-S) instead of (E-S) because it refers not to a situation time, but to a past-shifted reference point, that is, the speaker's shifted viewpoint. The other tenses are called anaphoric present, anaphoric past, and anaphoric future tense. I summarize the Korean tense system as follows:

(72) -te-: (RS) deictic past -ul kes i-: (S-E) deictic future -@/-nun-: (R, E) anaphoric present -as-: (ER) anaphoric past -keyss - : (R-E) anaphoric future

Here the difference between TE tense and simple future tenses -ul kes i- is that while the simple future refers to the time of situation with respect to the deictic point (S-E), TE tense refers to the reference point not to situation time. This is a distinctive characteristic of smer-addressee-oriented tense. Unlike TE tense, simple deictic tenses in languages like English usually have time relations (S,E), (E-S), and (S-E) for their basic meanings. That is because the presence of -re- necessarily requires another relative tense to follow, whereas the simple tenses do not have that requirement, even though they can optionally be followed by another relative tense. Thus, TE tense is a different type of tense than previously documented in the languages of the world. 2.4 Summary

This chapter deals with a number of Korean verbal inflectional suffixes. Ln organizing verbal inflection, I fvst suggest that the Korean system has two levels, a situation-oriented level and a speaker-addressee-oriented level. The two major aspect markers -c iss- and -ko iss-, the honorific -(u)si-,and the tense markers @/-nun-,-as-, -ess-ess-, and -ul kes i- fall under the situation-oriented level. The honorific -(su)p-, the tense marker -te-, and dl the sententid endings fall under the speaker-addressee-oriented level. The suffix -keyss-, an epistemic modality marker with future time reference, lies in between. Second, using the three features, [static], [agentive], and [telic], I classified the Korean predicates into three groups, States, Processes, and Activities. Then, using the feature [agentive], I divided states into two subgroups, State I and State 11, and processes into two subgroups, Process I and Process 11. as seen in Table 5. Further, I showed that

these verb types are closely related to the Korean aspect markers. The marker -ko iss-, which I call progressive, cannot apply to State I and R. and -u iss-. which I call nsultative, is compatible with Process I only. On the other hand, other tense markers do not usually show this kind of restriction.

Finally, I propose two distinctive types of tense, situation-oriented tense and speaker-addressee-orientedtense. -Te- is a speaker-addressee-oriented tense marker indicating that the reference point is prior to the speech point. I demonstrated that this speaker-addressee-orientd property fully accounts for the constraints on TE tense. On the other hand, -as- is a situation-oriented tense marker. It indicates that the situation time is prior to the reference point, and can imply a meaning like that of the English present perfect depending on the types of verbs or the contexts. The difference between -ess- and the duplicated form -ess-ess-,both of which indicate that the situation time is prior to the

reference time, is that the latter has an implicational restriction of no current relevance, but the former has no such restriction. Telic verbs show this characteristic especially strongly. 76 Another related characteristic of telic verbs is that they have a tendency to avoid the present tense denoting an ongoing event and prefer to locate their event in immediate future. suggesting that situation (verb) types can affect time reference.

In sum, along with the aspect markers such as progressive -ku iss- and resultative

-e iss-, Korean has six tense markers, -te-, @/-nun-,-em, -ess-ess-.-keyss-,and -ul kes i-. The aspect markers are more closely related to the lexical properties of the verbs, uktio~uart. The representation of those aspects is placed closer to the stem of the verb, whereas tense is placed farther than aspect and, accordingly, is less influenced by the lexical meaning of the verb. In the same fashion, the Korean situation-oriented suffixes are closer to the verb stem, whereas the speaker-oriented suffixes are farther from the verb stem. In terms of the concept of deictic and anaphoric tense, -re- and -ul krs i- are deictic past and future tenses. while @/-nun-, as-,and -keyss- are anaphoric present, past, and future tense.

2.5 Korean in Cross-linguistic Perspective

In a recent work, Cinque (1999) gives an analysis of functional morphemes as functional heads with adverbs serving as the specifiers of the corresponding functional heads. His analysis suggests further evidence that -re- is speaker-oriented. According to Cirque (1999), morphemes encoding different types of functional notions such as mood, tense, aspect, and voice, have a rigidly fixed order that follows a cross-linguistically invariant hierarchy. These morphemes each have a comsponding matching adverb in the hierarchy. I give a portion of Cinque's (1999: 106) Universal Hierarchy of Clausal

Functional Projections in (73); an element higher on the list appears outside an element lower on the list: In Korean, the morpheme -re- is farther from the verb stem than the epistemic modality morpheme -&cyss-,which is farther from the verb stem than situation-oriented

tense morphemes, as seen in this chapter. This means that -re- is higher in the hierarchy than -keyss-, which is again higher in the hierarchy than the situation-oriented tense morphemes, according to Cinque's ranking. In other words, TE tense is a tense that should go in a position higher than the position of epistemic modality or of simple tenses in other languages. In this respect, TE tense should be treated as a different tense that does not denote a situation time, although it is the same as a simple tense in that both are deictic tense. If my analysis of -te- is correct, then an additional position refemng to speaker-oriented tense should be added to Cinque's hierarchy. This position would appear somewhere before probably and after frankly, since the suffix -re- is followed by mood suffixes marking

speech acts (see example (7 1) above).

Cinque (1999), in fact, regards the Korean suffix -te- as an evidential mood marker following H.-M.Sohn (1 994), who analyzes it as a retrospective mood marker. This analysis predicts the correct ordering of the affixes. However, this suggestion is problematic because -re- Iach the usual properties of an evidential. First, direct evidentials are usually the unmarked default and other indirect evidentials arc marked. The evidential aspect of the meaning of -tenwould suggest that it is a direct evidential, one with no corresponding

indirect form. Second. the usual meaning of direct evidentials 'I seelwitness*,does not necessarily hold in TE tense. Rather, the SenknCes without -re- express more evident situations, as mentioned before. Perhaps further research on Korean tense, aspect, and mood suffixes, and on their corresponding adverbs will help to clarify the exact nature of -re-. In the interim, the fact that

-re- is higher than -keyss-,which is again higher than the situation-oriented tense morphemes on Cinque's hierarchy, lends support to my claim that TE tense is a speaker-addressee- oriented tense. CHAPTER 3. THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF TEMPORAL REPRESENTATIONS

In this chapter I address the relationship between the semantics of tense and syntactic structure and suggest that each tense has a basic temporal structure corresponding to its basic meaning and that the basic meaning of a tense can be affected by its hierarchical position. In order to relate the concept of deictic and anaphoric tense suggested in the previous chapters to a structural notion. I follow the predicative theory of tense (Zagonit 1990.1995, Stowell 1996). in which tense is like a predicate that takes two time denoting arguments, a subject- like external argument and an object-like internal argument In this thesis. I adopt Stowell's time-denoting referential category ZP (Zeit Phrase) to represent the temporal points. In 63.1.1 briefly sketch syntactic analyses under the predicative theory of tense. In $3.2, 1 provide a two-tiered tense structure using the notion of deictic and anaphoric tense. I suggest that a finite clause can have two tense projections, a deictic tense projection and an anaphoric tense projection. In $3.3. I show that this structure accounts for the two types of Korean tenses, spe&er-addressee-oriented tense and situation-oriented tense. and thus a finite clause can have two tense projections. 93.4 argues that perfect tense is an anaphoric tenso-denoting (E-R)-that requires another deictic tense providing a reference point. In 93.5. I show that the Rule of the Sequence of Tenses in English is a syntactic rule that establishes an anaphoric link in a finite clause and, thus, languages like Korean that do not utilize the rule have the anaphoric link in a whole sentence, not in a clause. A revised inventory of possible tenses is given in 83.6.

3. I The Predicative Theory of Tense

The relationship betweem tense and nominative case assignment has been one of the major topics in generative grammar. However, few syntactic analyses of tense have dealt

with the interaction between sentence structure and the interpretation of tense. Bouchard 80 ( l984:89) claimed that tense has hierarchical structure and that the tense structures are projected onto syntactic structures and can, hence, be read off these syntactic structures. Bouchard (1984: 108) does not provide a clear structure of the tense projection, but he suggests that tense structures are projected onto representations that have hierarchical organization with a minimum of two levels and with a dominance relation between two levels. Another syntactic approach is En~'s(1987) Tense Anchoring. Enq assumes that tense is like a referential expression and bears an index, and, thus, is subject to conditions like those of binding theory-Anchoring Conditions, which serve for tense interpretations. In Eng's analysis, the role of Comp in tense is not clear, since Comp optionally takes a temporal index. Pollock's (1989) 'exploded hfl hypothesis' provides inflectional categories with a hierarchical structure. Giorgi and Pianesi (199 1, 1997) make use of this viewpoint to assign tense its own projection in the syntactic structure. Adopting the referential approach to tense, they claim that tense has two time relations, TI and T2, which correspond to SR and RE relations respectively. They provide the following tense structure based on Latin and Italian (Giorgi and Pianesi 1997:38).

(74) nAGR 1-P AGR 1 TI-P

Here the two temporal projections, T1 and T2, lexicalize the tense relations, SR and RE, and, thus. the motivation for two levels of tense is purely based on Hornstein (1990). Their hypothesis is that TI and T2 are lexical items requiring a predicate to assign a T(tempora1)- role to satisfi the Tcriterion and that while T2 discharges a T-role on the 'real' verb (the 8 1 lexical verb), T1 needs an auxiliary verb. Thus, their lexical hypothesis of tense does not allow a null form tense as a null head. For simultaneous relations. (S,R) or (R,E) (e.g. present tense), there is neither a morpheme lexicalizing tense nor the projection of the corresponding category. However, the requirement of an auxiliary verb for the T-criterion is problematic with languages like Korean, in which both two types of tense are represented not by peripheral forms but by bounded suffixes without the aid of a copula or an auxiliary verb. Using the relational and referential properties of tense, Zagona (1 990. 1995) has introduced the predicative theory of tense, in which tense is considered to be a lexical predicate that takes an external and an internal argument. The temporal arguments analogous to nominal arguments constitute a temporal functional complex. or the Temporal Argument Structure (TAS) of a clause (Zagona 1995399).

(75) a. Marysang: b, TP

I t Mary v I sang

Tense takes an external argument Arg0 construed as speech time and an internal argument VPn construed as event time. Zagona (1995:408) suggests that compound tenses like perfect tense are headed by a ditransitive tense analogous to standard diiransitives in a manner proposed in Larson (1988). According to Zagona, construal of the temporal argument follows binding theory, which determines coreference and disjoint reference, and the hierarchical determination of precedence."*

42 Zagona (1995:404) pmpses hat precedence may be determind on the basis of stmctural hierarchy, that is, a temporal expression that is tower in structure will be consmred as preceding any higher 82 Following Zagona's predicative theory, Stowell (1995, 1996) suggests that the semantics of TENSE predicates, PRESENT, PAST, and will, are 'simultaneous with' (or 'overlaps'), 'before', and 'after' respectively, and establish a temporal ordering relation between the two temporal arguments, an internal and an external argument. In addition, he posits a functional category ZP (Zei t-Phrase) that serves as the time-denoting internal and external argument, that is, the event-time ZP and the reference time ZP.Stowell (1Y96:28O) posits that ZP is a referential category analogous to DP, and the structural relation of ZP to VP is analogous to the relation that DP bears to NP. Hence sentence (75a) has the structure

(76) a. John hit the ball. TP b. n R-> ZP T' Tn ZP; I n PAST OPi 2' 'after' A z VP ZP;n VP I n Cel DP V ' -- A & John hlt the ball

Here, the extemal argument ZP of T is the reference time denoting the speech time, and the internal argument ZP denotes the event time. PAST itself establishes an ordering between these two times, construed as 'the speech time is after a time ZPi at which John hit the ball'.

Stowell says that the extemal argument has no fixed indexical denotation, i.e. no necessary connection to the denotation of speech time. It simply refers to a time relative to referent. Thus. that LF movement yields a configurationid difference between past rurd future clauses at LF, and the following sentence with future reference has the LF given in (b): which the event time ZP is ordered. In main clauses, it happens that the reference time ZP denotes the speech time, but in subordinate clauses, it typically denotes the event time of the immediately higher clause. Thus, the null external argument of tense (the Reference time ZP) is a temporal analog of PRO, and its denotation is fixed by Control Theory (Stowell l996:28 1-282). From the deictic and the relational component of the meaning of indexical elements (Nunberg 1993), it follows that tense has the speech time as a given deictic center, as well as another relational temporal point that refers to situation time or reference time. As a predicate

has only one subject (the Extended Projection Principle), a tense always has an external, subject-like, argument and an internal, complement-like, argument. In this paper, I will

adopt Stowell's predicative theory of tense with two temporal argument ZPs. Regarding the semantics of tense, I claim that every tense has an inherent meaning. That is, whether it has a deictic or an anaphoric (absolute or relative) relation is lexically determined in terms of the basic concepts I mentioned above. Thus, the inherent meaning of a tense determines its external argument. This means that if a given tense is inherently deictic, it has the speech time as its external argument, but if a tense is anaphoric it can have a time point other than the speech time a its extemal argument. Further, I assume that this basic concept can be changed under certain circumstances, in some languages, for example, due to hierarchical positions in temporal structure, the presence of time adverbials, or some pragmatic contexr Before we map temporal representations onto the structure, we should examine the basic defmition of a tense morpheme, i.e. whether it is deictic or anaphoric, and, furthermore, under what conditions a deictic tense can become an anaphorir: tense, or vice versa.

3.2 The Structure of Deictic and Anaphoric Tense

Using the concept of deictic tense and anaphoric tense, I propose that the temporal 84 phrase can be either the projection of a deictic time relation or the projection of an anaphoric time relation. I call them @)TP and ATP respectively. Following Pollock's (1989) split Infl hypothesis, we can further split TP into the projection of @)T, (D)TP, and that of AT, ATP, differing in the feature [fanaphoric]. Both (D)TP and ATP are optional. The basic structure of TP is as follows:J3

(77) TP n ZP T' IA to T ZP I/', (SR) Z ATP I /\ ti ZP AT' I /\ ti AT ZP I /\ (RE) Z VP I /\ tj DP V'

* to: S, the point of speech * ti, tj... : Other time relations than S

The external argument ZP of (deictic) TP always refers to the Speech point (lo), whereas the external argument ZP of ATP is anaphoric, since it is bound to the internal argument of the higher TP,that is. both are coindexed (with ti). While the internal argument ZP of ATP takes

" There is a possibility of more chan two knsr projections. According to Bouchard (1984: 106). the pas& surcompos&, where a gmmiltical verb is emM&d under another grammaticJ verb as in (ia), has an extra R and it has the following structure in (ib): (i) a.Qu;urtilaeuenvoy~lalet~,ilaapprislam~v;risenouveUe. b. Level I: S ,R Level 11: R'I Level III: E-I According to Vickner (1985:97), the futm perfect of past in English, as in the subordinate chuse of (a), has the following ternpod representation:

(ii) a. She promised in November that they would have received her letter by rhe fitday of the term. b. (R 13)(-132) (UW 85 VP as its complement, that of (D)TP,optionally or obligatorily, takes ATP as its complement, In absence of ATP, it takes VP as its complement. I will ignore the presence of VP in TP or ATP, since it is dependent on whether the language in question makes use of a copula or an auxiliary verb for a tense or agreement expression. However. one problem with the structure of tense is that in the case of a deictic or anaphoric present tense, the tense forms are not usually realized morphosyntactically. Thus. whether we stipulate these null forms or not is a problematic issue. According to Georgi and Pianesi (1997), tense is a lexical category and in case it is not morphologically realized, there is neither a null form nor the projection of the corresponding category, as mentioned above. However, I assume that tense is not a purely lexical category, since the T-role that tense assigns in predicate theory is not the same as the theta-role that a verb assigns, even though tenses behave like predicates in some ways. Hence I will allow null forms if they are needed. since I assume that the constitution of the null form projections is also different from tense to tense and from language to language.

3.3 The structure of Korean Tenses

Cn this section, I will show the structure of the interpretation of Korean speaker- addressee-oriented tenses and situation-oriented tenses, using the deictic tense and anaphoric tense structure given in (57). As revealed in the previous chapter, the speaker-addressee- oriented tense -te- does not refer to situation time and its presence always requires one of the situation-oriented tenses, since it serves only to shift the deictic point to the past On the other hand, the situation-oriented tenses refer to the situation time directly. Consider the following examples:

(78) a. John-i ka-nun-ta. John-NOM go-PRES-DEC 'John goes (or is going).' b. John-i ka-ess-ta. John-NOM go-ESS-DEC 'John went (or has gone).'

c. John-i ka- keyss- ta. John-NOM go-KEYSS-DEC '(1 infer that) John will go.'

These situation-oriented tense markers. @/-nun-, -as-,and -kryss- have independent characteristics as particles of temporal expression. even though they are basically anaphoric tenses. Thus, sentences (78a) and (78b) would have the structure in (79)?

John-1a ka-

A John-1a ka-

In absence of a higher deictic tense, the external argument ZPs of ATs refer to the speech

* According to SeUs (1995) and Cho and SeUs (1995). all the Korean nominal and verbal suffixes are lexical suffixes not phrasd ones, and hence the tense morphemes cannot be heads of hnctiod categories. On the other hand, in his review of Cho and SeUs (1995). Lapoink (1946) says that at least conjunctive nominal suffixes, the suffmes of tense and mood, and some complementizers are phrasal suffues. while the honorific suffix -(u)si- and some nomind post-suffies are lexical. Rewgthe agglutinating of the v& suffues, Cinque (199958) says chat the bound forms undergo swcessive head casings to build up a word. I will not atdress these issues here. I only fmus on the structure of tmpaal intapelldon, whether it is an LF structure or a cmcepua) structufe. 87 time and with respect to these external arguments, b. ATs have temporal relations. This means that anaphoric tense becomes automatically deictic with no higher tense within a simple sentence (thus, E-s).'" In this respect, the speech time is a default anchoring point for any tense, whether it is deictic or anaphoric. In the present tense, the internal argument of (A)T has a zero relation to the external argument (to), as in (79a). Thus, the Korean situation-oriented tenses basically have anaphoric relations (RE relations), but can also have deictic relations (SE relations). Now consider the example sentences with the speaker-addressee-orientedtense marker -te-.

(80) a. John-i ka-te-la. John-NOM go-TE-DEC '(1 perceived that) John was going.'

b. John-i ka-ess- te-la. John-NOM go-ESS-TE-DEC '(I perceived that) John had gone.'

c. John-i ka-keyss- te-la. John-NOM go-KEYSS-TE-DEC '(I inferred then that) John would go.'

As opposed to the situation-oriented tenses, the speaker-addnssee-orienvdtenses require an anaphoric tense in order to refer to situation time. Thus, the sentences in (80) would have the structures in (8 1).

'' As Stowell (1996) says, this extemal argument is similar to PRO, since PRO has an ubiouy interpretation as well as an suraphotic interptetation. 88 A A John-i ka-

Jo4 n-i ka-

In (8 l), the Ts have the speech point as their external argument ZPs, and the external argument ZPs of the ATPs are bound to the internal argument ZPs of the Ts. TE tense has a deictic past relation, and under this tense (80a) and (80b) show an anaphoric present and an anaphonc past relation, respectively. Here, -re- does not take a copula or an auxiliary verb to realize its value, as in Indo-European languages. According to Giorgi and Pianesi (1997), auxiliary verbs are required for Tense 1 because every tense must have a VP complement, in order to assign a T-role? However. -re- is a bound particle, which itself is neither a copula nor an auxiliary. The reason why (80a) represents a situation that is past ongoing (or imperfective, since it can have a habitual meaning) is that the Korean anaphoric present can represent an ongoing situation. As mentioned before, the other situations described in (80b) and (80c) do not have this ongoing meaning, and (80b) implies rather a perfective situation. This means that TE tense is aspectually neutral and refers only to the past-shifted viewpoint of the speaker. Thus, it has special meaning, unlike other simple deictic tenses.

Therefore. we can make the following formula of Korean tense application in simple sentences.

(82) Tense Application in the Simple sentence: i) If there is -re-, R of E precedes S (R-S); Otherwise, R is simultaneous with S (R,S). ii) If there is -en-,E precedes R (E-R); Otherwise, E is simultaneous with or follows R (R,E or R-E).

Hen, the meaning of 'simultaneous' includes an inclusive or a habitual relation. This is a general interpretation of Korean tense application in simple sentences and, I assume, this interpretation can be modified in complex sentences, which will be discussed more in 53.5.

a Giagi and Pionesi (1991.1997) analyze the tense system in Italian and Latin into two projections of T1 and T2, and the tense morphemes of the former represent the relations between S and R while those of the latter represent those between R and E. According UJthem. T(tempora1)-role is meant to caplure the observation thd T must have a VP complement. and T1 and 12 are kxical categories that assign a T-role and are subject to the following T-criterion (Giorgi and Phesi 1997:29):

T-criterion: Every T-role must be uniquely assigned to an evmposition, and every event position can receive at most one T-role.

They say that a T-role, analogously to a theta-role, is a formal device that permits the identification of the event argument ofa verb, with an empty argument pbin the T-grid of Ihe temporal predicate. assigning it a specific ternpod interpretation. Thus, their concept of T-role does not correspond to that of the pedimtive theory of tense. 90 3.4 The Perfect Tense

Perfect tenses in Indo-European languages have ken controversial in tern of their grammatical status. They are similar since they have the same origin historically. but contemporarily they show slightly different semantic properties. However. one thing common among them is anteriority (Bybee et d. 1994), which means 'relative pastness'. Thus, when the reference point of perfect tenses is the same as the speech time. theu meaning and function are almost the same as those of the deictic past tense. Ln terms of time reference. simple tense and perfect tense are the same when perfect tense takes the speech time as its reference point. Thus, the ways in which these two tenses are adopted and used in different languages an various. In English, the present perfect is used mainly for past situations with cumnt relevance, while the simple past is used for past situations without current relevance. In French and German, the present perfect. is almost the same as the simple past?' In Portuguese. the present perfect is used for a continuing past habit: otherwise, the simple past is used. In some Romance languages. such as Spanish and Limouzi, an Occitanian dialect, the present perfect is used for situations that hold today without any necessary additional meaning of current relevance, serving to denote as recent past (Comrie 1985:85). Thus, in order to account for these various uses of the present perfect, what is needed is not different temporal representations but different aspectual or semantic features. That means that for the English perfect, its temporal composition 'E-R' has the features, [+current relevance]. In the case of the French perfect. the 'E-R' has no such feature restrictions. Concerning the morphological form of the English perfexx, I assume that 'the bare infinitive form huve plus past participle' is perfect tense since the English perfect has a

" In fact. the French present perkt has replaced the simple pau form. and now the simple past is an obsolete form (Smith 1997). It is usually said that ihe German perfect tense is the normal form for past reference, and the simple past is a stylistic variant. However. Klein (1994: 128) says that in some contexts the German perfect tense has the function of the English perfect tense. 91 peripheral expression, not just one bound suffk4*Lf the perfect tense is represented by a past participle as in several works. including Bouchard (1987), the past participle in a perfect construction should be distinguished from one in a passive constructions that has no temporal property. In fact, a sentence like John has been forgotten by them has perfect tense and a passive construction at the same time. In addition, in infinitive or participial constructions, the presence of the auxiliary verb have cannot be accounted for, since have does not take a tense form of its own. Thus, the relative pastness of the bare infinitive have plus past participle can account for the pluperfect, the future perfect, and the perfeft tense in infinitives and panifiple constructions. The perfect (anterior) tense is basically an anaphoric: tense, which denotes only an anterior relation to a reference point (E-R). On the other hand, the simple past tense is basically a deictic tense that denotes a deictic past relation to the speech point (E-S). In the present perfect, the perfect tense takes the deictic present and hence the auxiliary have is realized as a present tense form. We can compare the present perfect tense and the simple past tense as follows:

(83) a. John left. b. TP ZP T' I /\ t(J t(J T ZP ' /\ (E-S) ZIn VP ti DP V' AA John leave

* Another way m swntfor this is hat the perfect tense is represented by the auxiliary verb have and this have must take a past participle in its complement VP. However, his account can be problematic when beis deleted rrs in the participial construction. 92 (84) a. John has left.

b. TP A ZP Ti I /\ b T ZP I /\ (S.R) Z ATP I /\ b ZP AT'

relevance] ti DP V' AA John has left

In (83), the extemal argument ZP of T refers to the speech time, and thus, the internal argument has a past relation. In (84). the higher deictic T has a zero relation (a simultaneous relation) and has no temporal movement. Hence. the external argument ZP of the AT refers to the same speech time and the AT has a past relation. As a result, the temporal composition of the present perfect is (S,R)plus (E-R). We can find some evidence for the anaphoric property of perfect tense from its adverbial restrictions on adverbials. Resent perfect is unacceptable with past time adverbials. unlike future or past perfect:

(85) *Chris has left York yesterdayllast yearhome ten years ago.

Klein (1992) calls this the 'present perfect puzzle*. He (1992546) accounts for this restriction with a constraint on definiteness, under which an utterance avoids two distinctive definite time references. Thus he says that present perfect cannot have a definite time reference since the speech point is a def~tetime. However, we see that the following examples are acceptable even though the adverbs refer to past time.

(86) a. Chris has been in Pontefract before. b. Chris has just left. (Klein i 99Z:W) c. John has left the house at five o'clock. (Shaer 1996: 120)

The problem is not past time denoting adverbials but whether the adverbs an dektic or nondeictic, as Shaer (1996) also notes. I propose that the restriction has something to do with anaphoric and deictic properties of tense. Future perfect and past perfect have a distinctive deictic tense relation as well as anaphoric perfect tense and hence take a deictic time reference as well as a time point referred to by perfect. Crucially, the two time points are related to each other in some way and this temporal relationship makes one definite and the other less definite or indefinite, since deictic time reference is more definite than maphoric reference. Present perfect does not yield a distinctive deictic time reference other than the speech point and hence takes non-deictic time adverbials. However, this restriction is a preference not a constraint. In other words, although two time references of adverbs are deictic and defmite, they can appear together in a sentence if they can have a temporal relationship implied in a given context. Besides, I assume that the features that present perfect has in different languages also decide the acceptability of time adverbials. The anaphoric property of perfat can explain the tense of participle and infinitive constructions. In other words, the presence of anaphoric tense morphemes (have plus 'past participle' in English) represents only an 'E-R' relation, whether in finite or non-finite clauses. In connection with perfect tense. another significant point is that simple deictic tenses have two functions. That is, when simple tenses have no immediately following tense such as anaphoric tense, they normally relate to the situation time (SE relation), whereas when they have an immediately following tense, they denote a reference point (a shifteddeiftic

94 center, thus, SR relation) like the Korean speaker-addressee-oriented tense. As mentioned before, the difference is that while simple deictic tenses have either the SE relation or the SR relation, Korean TE tense has only the SR relation.

3.5 The Rule of Sequence of Tenses in English

in this section, I will consider the problem of sequence of tenses in English, comparing English with Korean in terms of the tense structure of complement clauses. I will show that the Rule of Sequence of Tenses is a syntactic mechanism that establishes an anaphoric link in a finite clause, in order to make it easy to track down the temporal antecedent (Chung to In many languages, such as Russian, Korean, and Japanese, a subordinate clause has a temporal relation relative to the situation time of the matrix clause. English shows this property in complement clauses.

(87) a. John will say that Mary left/has left. b. John will say that Mary will leave. c. John will say that Mary is happy. (Giorgi and Pianesi 1997)

The subordinate tenses in (87)- present perfeft (or past), future, and present, are interpreted as anterior (87a), posterior (87b), and simultaneous (87c), with respect to the time of saying, which is in the future. However, English takes past tense morphemes in the complement clause when the main clause has a past tense, as in (88), unlike Korean, Japanese, or Russian.

(88) a. John said that Mary would leave. b. John said that Mary had left.

* Shaer (1998) also claims that the SOT nrle is a temporal tracking device, which makes temporal relations transparent. 95 c. John said that Mary left. d. John said that Mary was sick.

Here, the tense interpretation is that Mary's leaving is after John's saying in (Ma) and before in (88b), which mans that the situation time of the complement clause is relative to the past situation time of the matrix clause, not to the speech time. On the other hand, the complement clauses in (88c) and (88d) are ambiguous. Their situation times are past-shifted from or simultaneous with those of the matrix clause^.'^ Now consider the Korean data."

(89) a. John-i Mary-ka aphu-0- ta- ko John-NOM Mary-NOM be sic k-PRES-DEC-COW 'John said that Miuy was sick.'

a'. John-i Mary- ka aphu-ess-ta-ko malha-ess- ta. John-NOM May-NOM be sick-ESS-DEC-COW say-ESS-DEC 'John said that Mary had been sick.'

b. John-i Mary-ka ttena-nun-ta-ko malha-ess-ta. John-NOM Mary-NOM leave-PRES-DEC-COMP say-ESS-DEC 'John said that Mary was leaving. '

Mimy scholm. including Stowell, say that a past eventive verb in the complement clause under past tense has only r pau-shifted reading. However. some native speakers say that in ihe sentence like 'John said thut Mary 1& then.' the dverb then can refer to both times. the time of John's saying and that of Mary's laving. According to Giorgi and Pianesi (1997:286-7). in British English, a back-shifted meaning is blocked mi only the simultaneous meaning is allowed when the matrix verb is believe, whether the complement verb is static or not. For non-static verbs, the English present tense usually does not imply an ongoing event but a slightly bounded one at the speech time, which is different from the popeny of present tenses in languages like Korean, where the pesent tense means precisely an ongoing event. This fact is related to the back-shifted meaning of pttense when it is embedded under pist tense. h fact, the past tense of complements is a reflect of simple present tense because it denotes 'present in the past'. That is why, in French or Italian, the complement clauses make use of imperfect tense, since their present tense means an ongoing event. " In fact, TE tense is used commonly in ma& clauses. For the sake of convenience. I use -en- be. 96 c. John-i Mary-ka ttena-ess-ta-ko malha-ess-ta. John-NOM Mary-NOM leave-ESS-DEC-COW say-ESS-DEC 'John said that Mary had left,'

d. John-i Mary -ka ttena-ul kes i-ta-ko malha-ess- ta. John-NOM Mary-NOM leave-FUT-DEC-COMP say-ESS-DEC 'John said that Mary would leave.'

The complement clauses in (Wa, b) take present forms, whereas the complement ciauses in (88c, d) take past forms when their situation time is simultaneous with those of the matrix clauses. Only when its situation time is anterior to that of the matrix clause, as in (89a8,c), does the complement clause take the past form. The complement clause in (89d) also takes the future form, unlike the complement clause in (88a), where the verb of the complement clause represents 'future in the past'. This relative tense realization in complement clauses seems to have something to do with relative tenses in Korean, but, in fict, deictic tenses also serve as relative tenses in complement clauses. In (88d). the simple deictic future form -ul &us i-, which does not exhibit temporal relativity in simple sentences, denotes 'future in the past' here. Moreover, the speaker-adkessee-oriented tense form -re- does not have a deictic time relation in complement clauses.

(90) John- i Mary- ka ttena-te-la- ko John-NOM Mary-NOM leave-TE-DECCOMP 'John said that he had perceived Mary leaving.'

In (90), the deictic center of TE tense is past-shifted not from the speech time but from the time of John's saying (the situation time of the matrix clause), and hence TE tense denotes 'past in the past' here.

In Chung (to appear), I assume that, cross-linguistically. subordinate clauses show temporal dependency on the matrix clause, since tense interpretation is closely related to 97 hierarchical structure. I suggest that the temporal dependence interpretation is the default interpretation for complement clauses. However, how this temporal dependency in the interpretation is formalized can vary from language to language? The Sequence-of-Tenses Rule (henceforth SOT) is a formal arrangement of the tenses of sequential clauses in a sentence. Korean does not have that mechanism. English. in contrast. does make use of the SOT rule and it is defied as follows (Chung to appear):

(91) The Rule of Sequence of Tenses: where a,p are finite clauses, and a is in the past tense. i) copy the TP of a into P if and only if the external argument of the tense of P is linked to the internal argument of the tense of a,and ii) the external argument of ATP of P is linked to the internal argument of the higher tense in B.

The SOT rule copies the deictic tense projection of the main clause, in order to give the reference time of the subordinate tense an anaphoric link to the situation time of the main clause within the same clause. Jn fact, tense in English can be divided into two domains. One is a SOT domain where the main clause is in past tense, and the other is a non-SOT domain where the main clause is in non-past. This asymmetry reflects the asymmetry of the inflectional morphology of English tense between past forms and non-past forms. Thus the sentences in (88c), represented in (92), and (89c), represented in (93), would show the following structural difference.

According to Cod(1985:61). in lmhhQuechua main clause verbs receive absolute time reference, while most subo~cbuse verbs receive relative time reference, but the suffixes for absolute and relative tense are distinct. 98 An John V CP

I /\ (E-S) Z ATP ....*.....*.t... ATP A AT' ZP

A I VP Z -ess- I RE) DP' V' ti A A' Mary-ka ttena-

In (92). the TP of the complement clause is copied from the main clause by the SOT rule. Hence. the external argument ZP of the ATP is directly linked to the intemal ZP of the adjoining higher TP in the same clause. and the ATP has a past relation. In other words. the external argument is Linked to an antecedent via the copied TP. On the other hand. in (93) the external argument ZP is Linked to the internal argument of the matrix tense itself. The syntactic effect of the SOT rule is that anaphoric Linking is possible within one finite clause, as I suggest in Chung (to appear). In other words, the external argument of ATP and its antecedent are in the same clause, paralleling nominal anaphors. Thus, in case the rule applies, the domain of the anaphoric link is a finite clause. In case the rule does not apply, the domain is a whole sentence. as illustrated in Korean or the non-SOT domain in ~nglish." The optional application of the SOT rule accounts for the ambiguity of (a&) and

One interesting point is that in Kacan the ;maphh caki 'self' is usually bound within a whole sentence, even though it m be bound within a finite clause. 100 (88d) ?' According to Contini-Morava (1983), the Swahili NA tense, which is a relative simultaneous tense, can have its reference point in a previous sentence containing an overt temporal marker. But also it can have its reference point in discourse. which does not have a specific temporal form. Thus, she claims that the role of inference is important in the assignment of a reference point to a relative tense. and that the use of relative tense is not fully subject to syntactic rules, and can be explained by a combination of semantic and pragmatic factors. In this respect, I assume that there is parametric variation from language to language. English is a more clause-oriented language. whereas Swahili is more discourse- oriented. Languages like Korean are in-between: they are sentence-oriented. Therefore, complement clauses have a temporal dependency cross-linguistically, and even tenses that are basically deictic can be anaphoric due to hierarchical position. The SOT rule is a syntactic rule that establishes an anaphoric link in a finite clause. At the same time. it prevents the ambiguity between an independent reading and a dependent reading that exists in non-SOT languages (Chung to appear).

3.6 An Inventory uf Possible Tenses

To summarize my position on deictic and anaphoric time relations, the combinations of basic meaning yield the following possible tenses:

For the optional application of the SOT rule in a SOT domain and the relationship between the SOT rule iuul a 'Double Access Rerding', refer to Chung (to appear). I assume that the atam why languages like English have the SOT rule is that perfect tense or future tense are peripheral forms that make use of a copula or an auxiliary, which can carry lheu own tenses. In Korean, all the tense funns am bounded particles that have no copula or auxiliary verb to bear mother tense. 101 b. ANAPHORIC TENSE: (R, E) (EN RE)

In simple sentences, Korean TE tense denotes (S, R) only, whereas the simple tenses in English denote either SE relations or SR relations. even though they basically represat SE relations. The Korean situation-oriented past tense and perfect tense denote (E-R), and the corresponding null forms and Swahili NA tense are (R,E). The Latin future participle -urw denotes the temporal relation (R-E), and also the future use of the English progressive form exemplifies (R-E).

In sum, although tense systems and the characteristics of tense can differ from language to language, languages show similarities in tense interpretation and the way they utilize deictic and anaphoric tense. Every tense has an inherent meaning. This basic meaning can be modified by several factors: hierarchical position, the situation type of a verb, or contextual elements. CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSION

The goal of this thesis has been to provide an analysis of some complex tense phenomena in Korean, bringing in data from other languages where relevant The main concern of this thesis has been the semantics and syntax of tense. that is, what the basic denotation of a tense morpheme is and how the tense morpheme is interpreted in a sentence. I have shown how the notion of deictic tense versus anaphoric tense can help answer these questions. The fust finding is that every tense. whether it is deictic or anaphoric, has an inherent denotation that determines its referential time points or intervals. The basic denotation can be modified by the situation type of the verb. The starting point for this perspective is an assumption that tense is a deixis that should be understood as a relational concept-that is, tense is a relation between a deictic center and another time point-and from this deictic relation an anaphoric relation can be established. The next step is to test this claim against empirical evidence. Korean tense phenomena, as well as data from other languages, show the need to distinguish two types of tense. The last step is to prove the adequacy of the proposition of this thesis by giving a syntactic analysis of the two types of tense. I have proposed a two-tiered syntactic structure, following the predicative theory of tense. Under this proposal, I have accounted for the temporal dependency of complement clauses on their matrix clauses with the syntactic definition of anaphoric tense. In Chapter 1, I have considered deictic and anaphoric properties of tense as a departure for this analysis, based on the different types of time adverbials and some problematic tenses that are not accounted for by conventional definitions of tense. Second, I have examined several analyses taking the Reichenbachian approach, in which tense is represented as the composition of three time points-the speech time, the event time, and the reference time. I found these analyses mamd by the redundancy of event time in simple tenses and the inconsistent use and definition of reference time due to its dual function. Instead of reference time, Klein proposes 'topic time', the time for which the speaker wants to make an assertion, but I found that this revision still does not handle problems associated 103 with the relationship between topic time and situation time. My argument is that the time that the speaker refers to, the time for which the speaker makes an assertion, and the time at which a situation is imagined or information is obtained by the speaker should all fall within situation time. Thus, we can take the Reichenbachian reference point to be a perspective point, which is a shifted secondary deictic center for anaphoric tense. I have suggested a tentative typology of tense, making use of the notions of deictic and anaphoric tense. h chapter 2, I have made some observations about Korean aspect, tense, and mood and give them a unified account Addressing major controversial issues regarding Korean tense, I have suggested further evidence for the necessity of a distinction between deictic tense and anaphoric tense. First, I have revealed that Korean generally has two distinctive levels of verbal suffixes, situation-oriented suffixes and speaker-addressee-orientedsuffixes, and, accordingly, two distinctive types of tenses. Therefore. I have argued that, -te- is not a mood or an aspect marker but a speaker-addressee-orientedtense marker, which has a past- shifted reference time. Thus, -te- differs from other tense markers, which I defined as situation-oriented tense except -keys- (an epistemic future marker). I show that the reason

for my claim is that -re- can obviously take another time point:

(95) Ecey John-i philsi nayil-nun ttena-keyss-te-la. yesterday lohn-NOM probably tomorrow-TOP leave-KEY SS-TE- DEC

'Yesterday, (I inferred) John will probably leave tomorrow. '

Here -re- refers to some time point in the past (yesterday), and -keyss- refers to a probable

future situation. As seen in Chapter 2, the morpheme -te- is farther from the verb stem than

the epistemic modality morpheme -&uyss-, which is farther from the verb stem than situation- oriented tense morphemes. In other words, -re- is higher than -keyss-, which is again higher than the situation-oriented tense morphemes, in terms of Cinque's (1999) Hierarchy of Functional Projections. In this respect, it is reasonable that TE tense beyond the situation level does not denote a situation time. Thus, I have posited another type of deictic tense, 104 which denotes only the SR relations, as opposed to simple deictic tenses, which basically denote the SE relations and secondly the SR when followed by an anaphoric tense. TE tense and simple tense are both deictic. The difference is that TE tense is optional, but simple tense is obligatory in terms of morphology. This finding leads to the possibility of two different kinds of deictic tenses. In Chapter 3.1 turn to the task of giving my semantic typology of tense a parallel syntactic analysis. I have used structural notions to account for the cross-linguistic temporal dependencies between matrix clauses and complement clauses by applying the temporal arguments of the pndicative theory of tense to temporal primitives. What I have suggested first is that, in syntactic terms, deictic tense takes an external argument denoting the speech time and an internal argument denoting situation time or reference time, whereas anaphoric tense takes an extemal argument denoting the reference time and an internal argument denoting situation time. I have analyzed various perfect tenses in several languages, including Korean -m-,as anaphoric tense. and have distinguished them by different features. One significant characteristic of anaphoric tenses is that the external argument of an anaphoric tense is linked to the internal argument of a deictic tense or a higher tense. Thus my analysis gives a syntactic explanation for the Rule of Sequence of Tenses (SOT), using the concept of domain of an anaphoric link. 1 have proposed that the SOT rule makes anaphoric Linking possible within a finite clause, as below: (96) a. John said that Mary had left.

A/", John V CP

TP A ZP T' ~n to T ZP I/\ (E-S) Z ATP I/", ti ZP AT I /\ ti AT ZP I /\ (E-R) Z VP I /\ t, DP V' AA Mary leave

Here the external argument ZP of the ATP of the complement clause is directly linked to the internal ZP of the adjoining TP in the same clause. As defined in Chapter 3, SOT is a syntactic rule that copies the TP of the matrix clause into the complement clause in order for the ATP of the complement clause to have an anaphoric Link in the same clause. On the other hand, I have shown that complement clauses in Korean, which do not utilize this mle, have only the ATP, which means that the anaphoric link is formed in a whole sentence, not in a finite clause. My conclusion is that when the rule applies, the domain of the anaphoric link is

a finite clause. whereas when the rule does not apply, the domain is a whole sentence. In conclusion, I give a revised typology of tense (94) by splitting deictic tenses into two 106 subtypes. It is interesting to note that my findings regarding anaphoric tense parallel the analysis of nominal anaphors. The SOT rule requires that both the external argument of ATP and its antecedent appear in the same clause. In the same way, English nominal anaphors are usually bound in a finite clause (97a), while Korean nominal anaphors can be bound within a sentence rather than a clause (97b).

(97) a. John said that Mary loves herself/*himself.

b. Cheiii-nun Yengij-ka cakiij-lul salangha-nun-ta-ko malha-~SS-ta. Cheli-MP Yengi-NOM self-ACC love-PRES-DEC-COW say-ESS- DEC 'Cheli said that Yengi loves himself/ herself.'

Here caki, which is a reflexive in Korean. can be bound not only to the subject of the complement clause, Yengi, but also to the topic (or subject) of the matrix clause. Cheli. Moreover, caki prefers Chdi to Yengi as its binder (S.-Y. Kim 1993:495). It is possible that the domains in which a nominal anaphor and an anaphoric tense are linked (or bound) to their antecedents are similar in a given language. In connection with this, I suggest the possibility of a typology of languages in terms of the domain of anaphoric elements, clause- oriented languages, sentence-oriented languages, and discourse-oriented languages (where the anaphoric Link can be formed outside a sentence). Further research is needed in order to see if the analysis proposed here is valid cross-linguistically. In the course of this study, I have left several issues unresolved. One is the relationship between tense and temporal adverbials. I do not discuss how temporal adverbs affect tense in a sentence, whether time adverbs play a more active role than tense docs and so overrule tense, or whether tense is underspecifid, as Shaer (1996) argues. My position on these questions is that tense has a specified basic meaning. What makes the basic denotation change is not usually the temporal adverbs, but rather other factors, such as situation types or pragmatic matters, as in the historical present or the futurate. Thus, I assume that the syntax cannot fully account for tense interpretation, though this topic needs funher research. A second question is about the role of topic time adverbs and focus adverbs in time reference, that is, whether tense and topic time adverbs have anaphoric time relations. as Klein ( 1994) says. I give a negative answer to this for simple tenses (51.4.4). In simple tenses, the time of topic adverbial is a specification of the situation time as a topic material. in order to contrast with some other times. However, I have suggested that an anaphoric relation is established in con~plextenses, such as deictic plus anaphoric tense, which have two distinctive tense projections. The anaphoric relation results from the composition of the two tenses when deictic one of the two potential time denoting adverbs is realized as topic. I assume that this topicalization of the deictic time adverb can be accounted for by the tense structure of my analysis, because, by the time of an anaphoric tense projection, the higher deictic tense becomes a given information, i.e. a topic material. That is why deictic time- denoting adverbs are usually realized as a topic that appears sentence-initially, Again this needs further research. Korean is a language that has a long history. Modem Korean shows dynamics of old tense and aspect markers and recently formed ones. The analysis of Korean tense in this thesis has several implications. One implication is that Korean has a unique type of tense. the speaker-addressee-oriented tense denoting (R-S) only. Thus this study shows that languages can have this type of tense in addition to simple deictic tenses. Another implication is that simple tenses can develop into speaker-addressee-oriented tenses. As a result, the situation- oriented tense -ess-, which has become a tense, not a peripheral perfect (anterior) form, functions as anaphoric tense. My study has not dealt with tense in relative clauses and temporal adverbial clauses, which display some interesting tense phenomena. I reserve this topic for further research.

The recognition of the difference between deictic tense and anaphoric tense allows for a systematic treatment of tense phenomena in Korean and other languages. The analysis using the distinction between deictic tense and anaphoric tense provides a unified account for 108 complex tense phenomena in Korean. In future research, I hope to use this analysis to account for the interaction between tense and temporal adverbials. REFERENCES

Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Valentina Bianchi, James Higginbotham, and Mario Squartini, eds. 1995.Tmporaf Rtfierence, Aspect and Actio~lity,Vol I:Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.

Bouchard, Denis. 1984. 'Having a Tense Time in Grammar.' Cuhiers Linguistiqws d'Ottuwa 12,98- 1 13.

Boyd, Julian and I. P. Thorne. 1969. 'The Semantics of Modal Verbs.' Journal of Linguistics 5, 57-74.

Bybee, Joan, and dsten Dahl. 1989. 'The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World.' Studies in Language 1 3:1,5 1- 103. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cho, Young-Mee Yu, and Peter Sells. 1995. 'A Lexical Account of Inflectional Suffixes in Korean.' Journul of East Asim Lingiristics 4, 1 19- 174.

Choi, Hyon-Bae. 1983. Wuli Malbon (Our Grammar). 10th edition. Seoul: Chungumasa.

Choi, Dong-Ju. 1994. 'On the Meaning of the Re-Final {-te- in Modern Korean-In the Case of Sentence-Final Position.' Lunguge Research 30: 1.4 1-74. Language Research Institute. Seoul National University. Chung. Kyung-Sook. to appear. 'A Two-Tiered Analysis of Sequence of Tenses in English.' Proceedings of the 15th Northwest Linguistics Conference. University of Victoria.

Cinque, Gug lielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 198 1. 'On Reic hen bac h' s Approach to Tense.' Chicago Linguistic Society 17, 24-30.

Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tenre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Contini-Morava . 1983. 'Relative Tense in Discourse: The Inference of Time Orientation in Swahili.' In Flora Klein-Andreu, ed., Discourse Perspective on Syntar, 1-2 1. New York: London. 110 Declerk, Renaat. 1995. 'Is There a Relative Tense in English?' Lingua 97, 1-36. Dik, Simon C. 1994. 'Verbal Semantics in Functional Grammar.' In Carl Bache, Hans Basbll, and Carl-Erik Lindberg, eds., Tense, Aspect and Action: Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Languuge Typology. 23-42. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Eq. Miirvet. 1987. 'Anchoring Conditions for Tense.' Linguistic Inquiry 18:4,633-657. Gerdts, Donna B. 199 1. 'Case, Chamage, and Multipredicate Domains in Korean.' Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics I V, 249-268.

Gim, Cha-Gyun. 1980. 'A Study on the Meaning of Korean Tense Morphemes-Laying Stress on Retrospective Morpheme -Te-.'Hun-Geul 169.45- 1 16. Girn, Cha-Gyun. 1985. 'On the Meaning of Tense Morphemes, (assJ and {ess);and the Relations between Tense and Aspect.' Hun-Geul 188,3-63.

Gim. Cha-Gyun. 1993. '(Ass} kwa (essluy uymiwa sang (The Meaning of -ass- and -ess- and Aspect).' Wulimal sicewa sattguy yenkwu (A Study on Korean Tense and Aspect). Seoul: Taehaksa. Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Pianesi. 199 1. 'Toward a Syntax of Temporal Representations.' Probus 312, 187-213.

Giogi, Alessandra, and Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Trwand Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntux. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grice, Paul. 1975. 'Logic and Conversation.' In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, eds.. Syntux and Semantics Volume 3-43-58. New York: Academic Press.

Han, Dong-Wan. 1996. Kwukrui Sicey Yenkwu (A Study on Korecm Tenrr). Kwukehakhoi, Seoul: Taehaksa. Harkness, Janet. 1987. 'Time Adverbials in English and Reference Time.' In Alfred Schopf. ed., Studies on Teming in English. Volume 1,71- 110. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As Time Goes by: Tettse and Universal Grammar. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, Huddleston, Rodney. 1977. 'The Futurate Construction.' Linguistic Inquiry 8,730-736. Huh, Wung. 1987. Kwuke ttaymaykimpepui pyrncherrso (The History of Temporal Systems in Korean). Seoul: Saem Munhwasa. Kim, Narn-Kil. 1975. 'The Double Past in Korean.' Foundations of Langunge 12,529-536. Kim, Soo-Yeon. 1993. 'The Domains of Syntax and Pragmatics for Caki Binding.' Ward Studies in Korean Linguistics 111,495:508.

Kim, Yong-Kyung. 1994. Kwukeuy ttaymuykimpep yenkwu (A Study of the Tense- Aspect-Moduli@ System in Korean ). Seoul: Sekwanghakswulcalyosa. Kim, Youngloo. 1990. The Syntax and Semantics of Korean Case: The Interaction Between Ltxical and Semantic kvels of Representation. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University.

Kinberg, Naphtali. 1992. 'Semi-Imperfectives and Imperfectives: A Case Study of Aspect and Tense in Arabic Participial Clauses.' Lingua 86.30 1-330. Klein, Wolfgang. 1992. 'The Present Perfect Puzzle.' Language 68.525-552.

Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge. Lapointe, Steven G. 19%. 'Comments on Cho and Sells, "A Lcxical Account of Inflectional Suffles in Korean".' Journul of East Asia11 Linguistics 5: 1,73-100.

Larson, Richard. 1988. 'On Double Object Constructions'. Linguistic Inquiry 19.335-39 1. Lee, Chung-Min. 1985. 'Temporal Expressions in Korean.' In Jeff Verchueren and Marcellar krtuccelli, eds., Selected Papersfrom the First InterMIio~IPrugmatics Conference, 405-447. Amsterdam: John Benjarnins. Lee, Chun-Kyung. 1996. 'The Syntactic Constraints and the Semantics of -Ten-: Centering around the Relation to -Te-.' In Ki-Shim Nam, ed.. Kwuke mwunpep tlmmku 111: kwuke thongsalonuy mwunceywa cemang (A Quest for Korean Grammar 111: Problems and Perspectives in Korean Syntax), 567-596. Seoul: Taehaksa.

Lee, Hyo-Sang. 1991. Tense, Aspect, and Moddig: A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of Verbal Ames in Korean from a Typological Perspective. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles. Lee, Kee-Dong . 1993. A Korean Grummar on Semantic-Pragmatic Principles. Seoul: Hankuk Munhwasa.

Maling, Joan. 1989. 'Adverbids and Structural Case in Korean.' Harvord Studies in Korean Linguistics Ill, 297-308. McGilvray, James A. 1991. Tense, Reference, and Worldmaking. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Na, Jin-Sulr. 197 1. Wulimaluy nay-muykim yenkwu (A Study of Tenres in Korean). Seoul: Kwahaksa. 112 Nam, Ki-S him. 1978. Kwukmwunpepuy sicemwuceey kwonhan yenkwu (A Study of Korean TmePhenomena in Korean Grammar). Seoul: Top Ress. Nam, Ki-Shim. 1996. Kwuke mwunpepui tamkwu I: kwuke thongsalonuy rnwuncry (A Quest for Korean Grammar I: Problems in Korean Syntax). Seoul: Taehaksa. Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1993. 'Indexicality and Deixis. ' Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 1-43. Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989 'Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP.' Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424.

Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press. Salkie, Raphael. 1989. 'Perfect and Pluperfect: What is the Relationship'?' Journal of Linguistics 25, 1-34.

Schopf, Alfred. 1989. 'The Past Tense in English.' In Alfred Schopf, ed., Studies on Tensing in English Volume 2, 1 77-220. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Sells. Peter. 1995. 'Korean and Japanese Morphology from a Lexical Perspective.' Linguistic Inquiry 262,277-325.

Shaer, Benjamin. 1996. Making Sense of Tense: Tm,Time Rejierence, and Linking Theory. Ph. D. Dissertation. Montreal: McGill University Ress. Shaer, Benjamin. 1998. 'Universal Grammar and the Parametrization of Temporal Marking. ' Chicago Linguistics Sociefy 33. Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Second edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. Third edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sohn, Ho-Min. 1994. Korean. London: Routledge. Sohn, Sung-Ock S. 1995. Tenre and Aspect in Korean. Center for Korean Studies. Honolulu, Hawaii: University Hawaii Press. Suh, Cheong-Soo. 1996. Kwuke Mwunpep (Korean Grammar). Seoul: Hanyang University Ress. StoweU, Tim. 1995. 'What Do the Resent and Past Tense Mean?' In Pier Marco Bertinetto, Valentina Bianchi, James Higginbotharn, Mario Squartini, eds., 38 1-396. Stowell, Tim. 1996. 'The Phrase Structure of Tense.' In Lauric Zaring and Johan Rooryck, 113 eds.. Phrare Structure and Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Vikner, Sten. 1985. 'Reichenbach Revisited: One, Two, or Three Temporal Relations?' Actu Linguistics Hafnienria 19:2,8 1-98.

Y im, Hong-Bin. 1982. 'Senemal -te-wa tanceluy yangsang (The Pre-final -te- and the Modality of Discontinuity).' Kwanuk Emwun Yenkwu 7.433-475. Seoul National University. Yu. Dong-Suk. 198 1. '-Te-uy uyrniey tayhan kwankyen (A View on the Semantics of -te-).* Kwanuk Emwun Yenkwu 6. 205-226. Seoul National University. Zagona. Karen. 1990. 'Times as Temporal Argument Structure.' Ms., University of Washington. Seattle. Zagona, Karen. 1995. 'Temporal Argument Structure: Conf@rational Elements of Construal.' In Pier Marco Bertinetto. Valentina Bianchi., James Higginbotham, Mario Squartini. eds.. 397-4 10.