• English Language & Literature Teaching
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.99-122
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this paper is to explain the meanings and uses of the English auxiliaries SHALL/WILL. The complexity of modern usage of SHALL/WILL has been one of the most disputable themes of traditional English grammar. The paper purported to address the study and analysis of diachronic and synchronic approach to the two auxiliaries. A general view of the figures of Fries'(1925) survey was added for further investigation. The results of the study showed that these auxiliaries express some of various modal meanings associated with the volitional or emotional attitude of the speaker without implying futurity. The findings also suggested that the use of SHALL in present-day English is restricted to non-volitional future with the first person but the practice of this use is also diminished by the expansion of the use of WILL, and the original meaning of WILL, 'to desire or wish', has generally been replaced by other verbs or modal forms. But sentences which seem to indicate futurity are often tinged with modal senses. Therefore, WILL/SHALL should be considered to act either as tense auxiliary or as modal auxiliary depending on situational contexts in which it occurs.

• Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics
• /
• v.2 no.3
• /
• pp.329-372
• /
• 2002

Tobin (1993) argues that verbs can be classified according to the process/result distinction. He further claims that the grammatical development of the lexical verbs into auxiliary/aspectual verbs is motivated by the distinction. In this paper, first, I reconsider Tobin's (1993) claim in the viewpoint of the principle of persistence (Hopper 1991) or the source determination hypothesis (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994), which states that the meaning of the source construction determines the path of grammaticalization. I then classified tense/aspect/ modality markers according to Tobin's (1993) process/result distinction. Finally, I argue that Tobin's (1993) process/result distinction constrains the distribution of grammaticalized verbs among tense/aspect/modality markers not only in English and but also in Korean.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.451-474
• /
• 2016

Analysis of the syntactic structure of the modern Chinese adverbs for time 'Cengjing (曾經)' and 'Yijing (已經)' was performed to examine the tenses and aspects of the terms. The corresponding Korean words were examined and the terms in both languages were compared. The syntactic structures used in China and South Korea were found to be different. We hope the study of the Chinese language will help Korean students. 'Cengjing (曾經)' specific projects with 'aspect' of, 'Past experience aspect', 'Past continuous aspect', 'Past continuous aspect' in the past tense. [ED: unclear, please reword] These correspond to '_었 (았)_', '_었었_' in the Korean language. 'Yijing (已經)' has 'finished phase' of concrete projects, 'Past experience aspect', 'Past continuous aspect', also has a specific project tense, the 'past tense', 'present tense', 'future tense', and so tense. [ED: unclear, please reword] Adjectives can also be modified with a 'change of status'. These correspond to '_었 (았)_', '_고_', '_었었_', '곧' etc. in Korean. 'Cengjing (曾經)' and the dynamic auxiliary 'Guo (過)' were compared to determine whether they have the aspect and tense features. However, 'Guo (過)' can only modify the predicate verb, so it possesses only aspect characteristics. 'Cengjing (曾經)' modifies the range more widely. 'Yijing (已經)' may be modified by the adverb 'Zai (在)' whereas 'Cengjing (曾經)' may not. Additionally, 'Yijing (已經)' can be modified by predicate adjectives and noun predicates, while 'Cengjing (曾經)' cannot.

• English Language & Literature Teaching
• /
• no.6
• /
• pp.143-157
• /
• 2000

It has been one of the puzzles in the English syntax that so called the rule of subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI) is not allowed in subject wh-movement while it is not obligatory in non-subject wh-movement in a root sentence. This asymmetry has been a puzzle since SAI itself was thought to be a part of question construction as we can observe from yes/no questions. The asymmetry gets more complicated in terms of sentence embedding, i.e no SAI is permitted in the embedded context in question. The goal of this paper is to suggest an unified analysis for this unsolved grammatical phenomena on the basis of Rizzi (1997)'s recent work. The main idea is that SAI is not a I-to-C movement but one of I-to-Focus where Focus is a functional category and its phrase is located between CP and IP. The other proposal is that Wh-movement is no more homogeneous in terms of landing site between a root and an embedded sentence: the target for a wh-phrase in the former is the Spec of FocP (Focus Phrase) but the one in the latter is the Spec of CP as the standard theory assumes. Pesetsky (l999)'s analysis is discussed and its theoretical and empirical shortages are pointed out. Its rather radical proposals such as the one that the nominative case is just an uninterpretable tense feature of DP and the other that 'that' is no longer a complementizer but an element of I(nflection) make it less acceptable in spite of the possibility that it can get rid of Case theory entirely, which would be ideal in the spirit of minimalism.

• English Language & Literature Teaching
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.19-40
• /
• 2006

This paper deals with a part-specific analysis of grammatical errors in the production of the English passive in writing. The purpose of the study is dual: to explore common error types in forming the passive; and to provide plausible sources of the errors, with special attention to the role of the native language. To this end, this study obtained a large amount of data from Korean EFL university students using an essay writing task. The results show that in forming the passive sentence, errors were made in various ways and that the most common problem was the formation of the be-auxiliary, in particular, the proper use of tense and S-V agreement. Another important finding was that the global errors found in this study were not necessarily those with the greatest frequency. Also corroborated was the general claim that many factors work together to account for errors. In many cases, interlingual and intralingual factors were shown to interact with each other to explain the passive errors made by Korean students. On the basis of the results, suggestions are made for effective and well-formed use of the passive sentence.

• Korean Linguistics
• /
• v.74
• /
• pp.1-24
• /
• 2017

This paper investigated -eullanjira sentence as a kind of construction of the Southwestern dialect in Korea. Five informants were selected to form the main corpus of -eullanjira. Through analyzing the corpus, its semantic, syntactic and morphological characteristics were figured out. Firstly, a view of construction grammar was adopted to capture the semantic and syntactic characteristics of -eullanjira. The construction of -eullanjira was established as "Xdo Yeullanjira Z". Syntactically, -do was found to be a common auxiliary particle, which allowed nouns, adverbs, verbs and adjectives to appear at the position of X, while only verbs and adjectives could appear at the position of Y. Subject-honorific, causative and passive prefinal endings could coexist with Y, while tense and modal prefinal endings could not. Z was an embedded clause, which had the semantic feature of [-DOUBT], meaning 'it should be done undoubtedly'. The formation of -eullanjira was next examined both diachronically and synchronically. It was found there was a conjuntive ending of Middle Korean, corresponding -eullanjira, namely, -landai. Finally, -eullanjira was newly analyzed as [[-eulla-]+[-n-ji-ra]].

• Language and Information
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2014

This paper proposes a unified structural account of some instances of the English Modals and Semi-auxiliaries. The classification and the syntactic/structural description of the English Modal auxiliary verbs and verb-related elements have long been the center for many proposals in the history of generative syntax. According to van Gelderen (1993) and Lightfoot (2002), it was sometime around 1380 that the Tense-node (T) appeared in the phrasal structures of the English language, and the T-node is under which the English Modal auxiliaries occupy. Closely related is the existing evidence that English Modals were used as main verbs up to the early sixteenth century (Lightfoot 1991, Han 2000). This paper argues for a bi-clausal approach to English Modal auxiliaries with the infinitival particle 'to' such as 'ought to' 'used to' and 'dare (to)' 'need (to)', etc. and Semi-auxiliaries including 'be to' and 'have to'. More specifically, 'ought' in 'ought to' constructions, for instance, undergoes V-to-T movement within the matrix clause, just like 'HAVEAux' and all instances of 'BE', whereas 'to' occupies the T position of the embedded complement clause. By proposing the bi-clausal account, Radford's (2004, 2009) problems can be solved. Further, the historical motivation for the account takes a stance along with Norde (2009) and Brinton & Traugott (2005) in that Radford's (2004, 2009) syncretization of the two positions of the infinitival particle 'to' is no different from the 'boundary loss' in the process of Grammariticalization. This line of argument supports Krug's (2011), and in turn Bolinger's(1980) generalization on Auxiliaryhood, while providing a novel insight into Head movement of V-to-T in Present Day English.

• English Language & Literature Teaching
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.175-190
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this article is to explain the meanings and uses of the English auxiliaries will morpho-syntactically, and answer the question of whether will is a tense auxiliary or a modal one. Some writers even exclude will completely from the semantics of the modal auxiliaries. They argue that the semantics of will is fundamentally non-modal and has only a few modal-like uses. There are some people who treat will to be semantically separate from the other modal auxiliaries. In the light of modal will, the semantics of will basically remains anchored in volition because the lack of required speaker subjectivity, but has undergone so much semantic bleaching that it may also express future time without volition. On the other hand, the semantics of will in the exclusionist view is erroneous and that its semantics is in fact closely related to the semantics of the other modals. This view reinforces the argument that the morpho-syntactic kinship of will, can, may and must also reflects semantic kinship. It is suggested that all the modal auxiliaries show that the correspondence relation is non-verified but potential. And the specific place that will holds is that the correspondence is unverified at the time of utterance but will turn out to become verified. The overall conclusion is that idiosyncratic morpho-syntax shared by the modals reflects the semantics and pragmatics of the English modal auxiliaries and is forced also to include will.

• Korean Business Review
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.241-274
• /
• 1992

General American English(=A.E.) has conservative elements as well as progressive elements. A.E. and B.E. are languages which have more similarities than differances. In this paper. I studied the process of English progress before the A.E. had come into being, and the historical background and the cahristics of A.E. coming into being. Considering the differences between A.E. and B.E. from spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar, I can give the outline as follows. A spelling 1. B.E. : au, ou $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : a, o 2. B.E. : e $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : i 3. B.E. : $${\ae}$$ oe $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : e 4. B.E. : our $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : or 5. B.E. : re $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : er B. pronunciation 1. B.E. : [e] $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : [i], [e], $$[\partial]$$ 2. B.E. : [a] $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : 3. B.E. : [i(:)] $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : [ai], $$[\partial]$$, $$[{\varepsilon}]$$ 4. B.E. : $$[{\ae}]$$ $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : [e], [c] 5. B.E. : [ai] $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : $$[{\ae}]$$, [e] 6. B.E. : [c] $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : [e], [a], [o] 7. In case of "Vowel+[t]+Vowel", [t] is pronounced into [d] or [r] 8. In case of "-nt", [t] becomes a mute. 9. [t]+[j, l, m, n, r, u, or, w] $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : [?] (=glottal stop) 10. B.E. : [w] $${\rightarrow}$$A.E. : [hw] 11. B.E. : [Voiceless consonants], [Voiced consonants] $${\leftarrow}$$A.E. : [Voiced consonants], [Voiceless consonants] C. Vocabulary The historical background and geographical conditions of those days caused lots of new compounds and neologies. D. Grammar Though we use "of" to indicate the possessive case of inanimate object, -s genitive is used in A.E. In the perfect tense, "have" is often omitted and also auxiliary verb "will" is used in any case

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.25
• /
• pp.483-527
• /
• 2011

The main focus of this dissertation is the comparative research of Korean and Chinese adjectives. With the comparison and contrast of the concepts, features and usages of Korean and Chinese adjectives, we have concluded some similarities and differences. The aim is to help Chinese learners who study Korean better understand the features of Korean adjectives and use them more easily. Korean belongs to 阿?泰?族 and expresses meanings with pronunciation; however, Chinese belongs to ?藏?族 and expresses meanings with characters. There are many similarities between those two languages that look completely different, such as pronunciation and grammar at some extent. Even the Chinese words in Korean are quite similar to Chinese. However, the two languages are very different from each other, from the detailed grammatical view. For instance, the auxiliary word in Korean and Chinese is completely different. Then, Korean has a concept: ?尾that does not exist in Chinese at all. Especially, about categories of words, it is very important and difficult to distinguish adjective and verb for the Chinese Korean-learners. One reason of the challenge is that some Korean adjectives are categorized as verbs in Chinese. For example, "like", "dislike", "fear" in Korean are "psychological adjective" however, they are "psychological verb" in Chinese. The differences in categorization always mislead learners in understanding whole articles. At the same time, they cause more problems and difficulties in learning other grammatical items for Chinese Korean-learners. Based on that, the dissertation is helpful for Chinese learners who are studying Korean. Starting from the most basic concepts, the second chapter focuses on analyzing the similarities and differences between Korean and Chinese adjectives. The correct understanding of adjective is the basis of accurate learning of it. With the comparison of concepts and primary comprehension of adjective, the third chapter analyzes in detail about the features of Korean and Chinese adjective from grammar and meaning. Based on those features, we analyze the detailed usages of Korean and Chinese adjective in articles; especially we provide the detailed explanations of adjective changes in different tense and ?尾 changes in using with noun and verb. The fourth chapter emphasizes the similarities and differences of adjective meanings in Korean and Chinese. We have provided the comparative analyses from six different views, which could be helpful for Chinese Korean-learners. Until now, there are few comparative studies of Korean and Chinese adjectives. About this dissertation, some limitations also exist in such an area. However, we hope it could provide some help for Chinese Korean-learners, and more profound research will be developed in the future.