The existential verb HABER and the locative verb ESTAR can be used to indicate the presence of a person or thing. But they are seldom interchangeable in Spanish. The subtle differences between these two words can completely change the meaning of a sentence. In concrete, the difference mentioned is that the verb HABER is used to indicate the mere existence of the person or thing. On the other hand, ESTAR is introduced to indicate the location of the person or thing. As a general rule, the locative verb ESTAR is permitted when a specific person or thing is referred to, however the existential verb HABER is used with nouns that can’t have a location. As a result, a noun preceded by a definite article, a demonstrative adjective or a possessive adjective normally would be introduced with the verb ESTAR. The locative verb ESTAR y the existential verb HABER can be used in situations where “to be” is used in English. So they’re usually confusing for students. In this paper, we have argued that the existential verb HABER is derived from the copulative structure. In this point of view, the locative verb ESTAR is defined by the spell-out of the event feature.

Ess-under-ess sentences, where the so-called past tense marker -ess in the complement clause of propositional attitude verbs occurs under -ess in the matrix clause, can be interpreted differently in some contexts. To take account of the semantic difference between the ess-under-ess sentences, I argue in this paper that the semantic contrast is due to types of predicates associated with -ess. After pointing out some problems with the previous treatments of -ess, I claim that -ess shows duality in the sense that it is parallel to the past tense in some contexts and to the present perfect in other contexts. As a way of disambiguating --ess, this paper comes up with certain types of predicates. That is, the exact meaning of -ess in a given context is dependent upon the types of predicates it is combined with. The predicate types, together with the duality of -ess, bring out semantically different interpretations of ess-under-ess sentences.

Chung In-Soo. 1999. A Semantic Study of Korean Adjective Comparative Constructions. Studies in Modern Grammar 18, 147-166. Korean comparative constructions can be divided into two groups: one with positive adjectives and verbs, the other with comparative adjectives and verbs. The primary aim of this study is to show the semantic differences among comparative constructions with `-mankem`, `-cherem`. We`ll show how the adjectives like "keda(tall)", "chakda(small)" comprise a open scale and how the meanings of those adjectives are distributed when they appear in comparative constructions. "kkekkethada(clean)" and "terepda(dirty)" appear on a asymmetric scale and they make some differences in `-mankem` and `-cherem` comparative constructions. "pida(empty)" and "chada(full)" comprise a limited scale and they also show some differences when they appear in comparative constructions. The adjectives like "pulkda(red)" appear on a single term scale and they don`t show any positive correlation with comparative constructions.

Im Che-Gyong. 1996. The Thematic Structure of Ergative Construction. Studies in Modern Grammatical Theories 9: 77-96. Ergative sentences in English and Korean show some asymmetries with their accusative counterparts in such constructions as imperatives, prenominal -ing forms, and dative or double object construction. The primary purpose of this paper is to show that these asymmetries can be explained by assuming VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis, Thematic Hierarchy in VP-Shell Structure and Minimal Link Condition. I also found that causatives cannot co-occur with ergatives and this can be explained by the principles suggested by the Minimalists. The results from the study are the following: (i) Asymmetries in imperatives, prenominal -ing forms can be explained by the difference in argument structure between ergatives and accusatives: the former have only one argument with Theme role but the latter have two arguments, Agent and Theme. (ii) Case theory alone cannot solve the ungrammaticality of ergative sentences in which the goal is the surface subject. We need the following thernatic hierarchy: Agent > Theme > Goal plus MLC suggested in Chomsky(1993). (iii) MLC also explains the non co-occurrence of Korean ergatives with causatives; a supporting evidence that MLC comprises the Specified Subject Condition as well as the notion of government in barrierhood.

In order to understand the characteristics of a middle construction and explain its formation, we should inspect the lexical stucture, the syntactic structure and the logical form of it synthetically. A middle construction is derived by the diathesis alternation that causes the object of a transitive verb to realize as the subject of syntactic structure. This change implies the cognitive process from the description of an individual event to the statement of a general state. A middle construction has two argument. The one is the understood but unexpressed implicit argument which has generic agent θ-role at the lexical category. The other is the explicit argument of subject at the syntactic structure which was the object with theme/patient. or with affected θ-role at the lexical structure. The middle verb of activity or accomplishment doesn`t describe a specific event but a noneventive state. A transitive verb changes into a middle verb which incorporates with the abstract morpheme. of an aspectual delimitedness feature in course of undergoing a `change of state` in the syntactic derivation. If a transitive verb becomes a middle verb, it should select the argument with theme or patient θ-role as its new subject suppressing old one. Accordingly a middle verb usually combines with a manner adverbial or prototypical tense aspect. The formation of a middle construction can be explained principlely through the morphological checking theory that attracts the formal feature of lexical items to the functional category at the syntactic structure or at the level of logical form.