In accounting for the so-called copy raising (CR) in English, the movement perspective has assumed that the embedded subject of the CR verb's sentential complement is raised to the matrix subject, leaving behind its pronominal copy. This kind of movement-based analysis raises both empirical and analytical issues, when considering variations in the pronominal copy constraint. This paper investigates the actual uses of the construction, using online-available corpora. Based on this corpus search, we classify two different types of copy raising predicates (genuine and perception), and discuss their grammatical properties in detail. We suggest that the simple copying rule couched upon movement operations is not enough to capture great variations in the uses of the construction, and show that interpretive constraints, e.g., perceptual characterization condition, play an important role in licensing the construction.

The issues of compositionality, materialized ever since Frege (1982), are critically re-examined in language first mainly and then in all other possible representational systems such as thoughts, concept combination, computing, gesture, music, and animal cognition. The notion is regarded as necessary and suggested as neurologically correlated in humans, even if a weakened version is applicable because of non-articulated constituents and contextuality. Compositionality is crucially involved in all linguistically or non-linguistically meaningful expressions, dealing with at-issue content, default content, and even not-at-issue meanings such as implicatures and presuppositions in discourse. It is a constantly guiding principle to show the relation between representation and mind, still posing tantalizing research issues.

In this paper, I attempt to define the semantics of cikum 'now' in Korean. To define it precisely, we need to look at how it interacts with different aspectual classes of verbs and with the semantics of tenses and aspects. In doing this we need to define the semantics of tenses and aspects. Here we run into the question of whether ess is a tense marker or an aspect marker. I assume that it is ambiguous. There are still cases where it is not clear whether ess is used as a tense marker or an aspect marker in an actual sentence. I discuss two such cases: one in which it is used with verbs like tochakha 'arrive' which have no salient resulting states, and one in which a state verb is used with cikum-kkaci 'until now'. The semantics of cikum can be defined differently depending on whether ess is a tense or an aspect. By discussing ko iss, which is an imperfect marker, I conclude that cikum means ${\lambda}P{\lambda}i[u{\subseteq}i{\wedge}P(i)]$, that is, a relation between a set of times which include an utterance time and a set of properties of times.