Abstract
Despite similar argument structure, the syntax of English need and Korean philyo contrasts, illuminating differences in lexical derivation and insertion of argument-taking elements. Verbs need, require, deserve, want, and bear take gerundive complements that are "understood passively" (Jesperson 1927/1954:112[9.23]) and called concealed passive constructions (CPCs) (Huddleston and Pullum 2002:1429). In this paper, we argue that in English, the gerund CPC object of need is a lexically passivized V that takes a nominalizing derivational -ing affix, whereas in Korean, the CPC object of philyo is a verbal noun, directly inserted as a complement of the verb without derivation.
Highlights
This paper examines the syntax and semantics of need/philyo in English and Korean
While having similar semantic argument structure, their syntactic properties contrast and illuminate differences in lexical derivation and syntactic insertion of argument-taking elements. It will take a closer look at the structure of what Huddleston and Pullum (2002) call concealed passive constructions (CPCs)
Comparing English need and Korean philyo, we find that complements of the former can be either CP, IP, or NP, while complements of the latter are always NPs
Summary
This paper examines the syntax and semantics of need/philyo in English and Korean. While having similar semantic argument structure, their syntactic properties contrast and illuminate differences in lexical derivation and syntactic insertion of argument-taking elements. Unlike need2 in English, which takes an IP complement and involves Raising to Subject out of the embedded clause, clausal complements of philyo, in both meanings, are nominalized with the affix kes. B. Kim1-i [NP [VP pro2 cip-ul chengso-ha]]-nun kes]-i philyoha-y house-ACC clean-do-SUB
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
