본고는 동일한 통사적 양상으로 실현되는 RVC구문이 서로 다른 의미구조를 표상하고 있 음을 밝히고, 이들의 의미적 범주화를 시도하였다. 현대중국어에서 능격동사, 비대격동사로 분류되는 RVC는 논항구조와 의미역에 따라 ‘자동’과 ‘타동’, ‘사동’이라는 서로 다른 의미구조 를 형성한다. 특히 타동문과 사동문은 통사적으로도 동일한 결합가를 가지기 때문에 그 의미 적 차이를 판단하기가 어렵다. RVC 타동구조는 <AGENT, THEME>의 논항구조를 통해 단 일 사건 내에서 동작의 행위자와 대상의 역학 관계를 바탕으로 이루어진 의미구조이다. 반면, RVC 사동구조는 <CAUSER, CAUSEE>라는 두 논항을 취하여 복합사건 내에서 원인을 유 발하는 사동주와 이로 인해 결과사건을 필연적으로 발생시키는 피사동주의 작용 관계를 중심 으로 의미구조를 형성한다. 이에 본고에서는 두 구문의 논항관계와 의미역, 사건구조를 통해 RVC 타동문과 사동문의 의미적 구분 문제와 RVC 사동문의 의미적 특징을 조명하였다.

Sungshim Hong and Jaekeun Lee. 2017. Let’s Talk about Let+Us: English Hortative and Causative Constructions. Studies in Modern Grammar 96, 67-88. This paper deals with the two seemingly alike constructions in the English language, LET’S construction and LET+US construction. The foci of the current research include (i) whether or not LET’S is a mere phonological contraction of LET+US, (ii) how they are different in their distribution, as well as their interactions with negation/Tag questions, and (iii) why they are different; their asymmetries are attributed to the internal structures of the two. That is, in this paper, their internal structures are distinctively proposed within the Minimalist syntax (Chomsky 1995, 2004, 2005, 2007). On the basis of a garden variety of the already known asymmetries between the two (Seppänen 1977, Fries 1964, Davies 1986, Palmer 1988, Potsdam 1998, Huddleston and Pullum 2002, Quirk et al 1972, 1985), we support the idea that in spite of some of their superficial similarities and looks, the two constructions, both of which contain an identical lexeme LET, need to be analyzed independently from each other. Following the insight of Alcazar and Saltarelli (2014), the light verb, v, is poised for Hortative LET’S in a mono-clausal configuration. The occurrence of Causative LET+US may contract into the isomorphic LET’S, the Hortative LET’S as well. Nonetheless, the Causative LET+US occurs in a bi-clausal configuration with a Tdef intervening, whose Spec is US or any other DP. This paper presents the internal structures of the Hortatives and Causatives differently so that their morpho-syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic disparities can be easily accounted for. It is suggested that the Hortative LET’S underwent syncretism (Radford 2004, Gelderen 2004, 2008), whereas the lexical LET survives as a main verb.

This paper investigates the Korean causative constructions divided into the short-form and long-form causatives and predicts the change in the usage of these two causatives. The two types of causative constructions are examined from the medieval Korean to the modern Korean diachronically. We point out the decrease of the use of the short-form causatives, and the expansion of the use of the long-form causatives conversely. Based on this phenomenon, it is predicted that the frequency of use of causative constructions is gradually shifting from the short-form causatives to the long-form causatives. We prove the prediction on the phenomenon through analyzing the survey questionnaires. Statistical program SPSS 23.0. is used in analyzing the questionaries.

This paper discusses two metaphorical extensions of the Caused-Motion (CM) Construction, the Intocausative and Out-of-causative constructions. The two constructions inherit the causative meaning from the CM, but employs several key different grammatical properties. The paper reviews some key properties of the constructions and investigate their authentic usages with the help of the corpora, COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English) and COHA (Corpus of Historical American English). The paper also sketches a Construction Grammar view that may account for the shared as well as idiosyncratic properties of the two constructions in investigation.

The purpose of this paper is to show that the syntactic structures of long-from causative constructions should be derived within the same clause projected by ‘-ke ha-.’ The previous studies suggest that the syntactic structures of long-from causative constructions be divided into two types: one is that the causees are positioned in the main clause and the other is that the causees are positioned in the embedded clause. However, in this paper it is pointed out that there are some problems with the studies and the causees in the constructions should be placed in the embedded clause.