Earticle

본 연구는 한국어와 중국어에서 중간태(middle voice)의 특징을 지니는 중간 구문(middle construction)을 대조하는 데 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 한국어 속성 피동 구문과 중국어 ‘NP+ 好+VP’ 구문을 목표 구문으로 선정하여 형태·통사적 제약과 의미·화용적 특징을 중심으로 비교하였다. 대조 결과, 두 언어의 해당 구문은 주어의 내재적 속성을 총칭적으로 서술하고 양태 표현을 필수적으로 수반한다는 공통점을 보였다. 그러나 한국어는 {-이-}계 피동 접미 사로 파생된 서술어를 사용하는 반면, 중국어는 원형 타동사를 그대로 활용하여 특별한 태 표지 없이 중간 의미를 실현한다는 점에서 차이를 보인다. 또한 한국어는 문맥에 따라 과거 시제 표지의 결합이 가능하다는 점에서도 상이하다. 본 연구는 한국어와 중국어의 중간 구문 의 특징을 조명함으로써 대조 언어학적 차원에서 구문을 비교·분석할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라, 중국인 한국어 학습자의 속성 피동 구문 이해와 한국인 중국어 학습자의 중간 구문 습득에 있어서도 이론적 토대를 제공할 수 있다.

This study conducts a comparative analysis of middle constructions in Korean and Chinese that convey attributive meaning and exhibit properties of the middle voice, with a particular focus on Korean attributive passive constructions and the Chinese ‘NP+hǎo+VP’ structure. By comparing their morpho-syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features, the study aims to reveal how middle voice is encoded in each language. The findings indicate that both languages display core properties of middle constructions, including genericity, implicit agents, and the use of modal adverbs and modality structures. However, the two languages differ in their morphological and syntactic realizations. While Korean primarily forms middle constructions through passive verbs derived through suffixes like {-i-, -hi-, -li-, -gi-}, Chinese middle constructions typically retain the base transitive verb and incorporate the modal element ‘hǎo’. Further differences are observed in the subject’s theta-role, tense-aspect, and the evaluative nature expressed within the clause. This contrastive analysis not only deepens our understanding of the voice system in Korean and Chinese, but also provides a theoretical foundation and pedagogical implications for grammar instruction in the context of second language acquisition.

The ultimate goal of this paper is to provide an in-depth analysis of the frequency of eight major middle verbs (photograph(s), wash(es), handle(s), cut(s), break(s), translate(s), frighten(s), and read(s)) and adverbs within the Corpus of Contemporary American English and the British National Corpus. The major characteristics of middle constructions are that the subject of middle constructions must be a definite NP and that an intransitive verb can occur in the middle construction only when a definite NP has an event which is an intrinsic characteristic or property of the definite NP. The major point of middle constructions is that the adverb well is the most widely used collocation along with the middle verbs photograph(s), wash(es), handle(s), translate(s), and read(s) in American English, whereas the adverb well is the most commonly used collocation along with the middle verbs photograph(s), wash(es), handle(s), and read(s) in British English. When it comes to the middle verb break(s), break(s) even is the most widely used collocation in both American English and British English. As for the middle verb cut(s), cut(s) deeply is the most frequently used collocation in American English, whereas cut(s) sharply is the most commonly used collocation in British English.

This study proposes that the genericity of English middle constructions comes from the speaker's indirect judgement about implicit comparisons of the inherent properties of subjects to function as causers. It is widely agreed that middles typically involve an implicit agent argument, which is interpreted as arbitrary in reference and usually appear in the present tense with a generic reading. Despite the general tendency of middles to favor the present tense, some middles do appear in the past tense and with progressive aspect. This study aims to show that only if we suppose the genericity of English middle constructions comes from the speaker's indirect judgement about implicit comparisons of the inherent properties of subjects to function as causes, the generic reading from English middles can be explained not only in the present tense but also in the past tense, progressive aspect, and future tense.

This paper aims to study on a phenomenon where adverbials are strongly needed for Korean middle constructions in light of semantics and pragmatics. First, in light of pragmatics, it was found that middle construction is a universal phenomenon in typology, in which case adverbial is also strongly required in many languages. In the process, the prototypical features of middle constructions were discovered, which leads to the notion that they describe the general properties of generic subject ultimately. It was found in this study that the attributes of generic subject in the middle constructions can be applied to anyone, and these universal features originate from implicit argument. In addition, the attributes of subject cannot be explained enough only with semantic information of middle verbs so the middle construction itself lacks in information regardless of valency. This lack of informativeness is complemented by the role of “adverbial,” and this paper, with a focus on pragmatics, described that adverbial has a function of relational new information. Meanwhile, with regard to the informatively domain by adverbial, some cases were explored where several verbal elements were simultaneously involved to provide informativeness for the middle constructions, which resulted in the finding that the informative role of adverbial relatively decreases when the focus markers “i/ka” are added to the subject, but still remains larger than when combined with demonstrative and subject.

This study examined the syntactic and semantic functions of the ‘[object of comparison]－이 [criterion of comparison]－이  다 ’ and ‘[object of comparison] －이 [criterion of comparison]－과  다 ’ constructions through the analysis of specific examples in Middle Korean and discussed the form differences between the two comparison constructions derived from the perceptions of people using the language to distinguish the degree of equality linguistically. The study first demonstrated that the ‘[object of comparison]－이 [criterion of comparison]－이  다 ’ construction unique to Middle Korean was a linguistic form to show the partial(conditional) agreement of comparison criteria for the object of comparison. The semantic function of "figure of speech" is a subordinate concept of "comparison," expressing an object of comparison by alluding to the partial attributes of comparison criteria. The study thus estimated that the ‘[object of comparison]－이 [criterion of comparison]－이  다 ’ construction settled down as the most proper form for figure of speech. The study also demonstrated through the analysis of various examples that the ‘[object of comparison]－이 [criterion of comparison]－과  다 ’ construction showed the typical characteristics of complete agreement between on object of comparison and a criterion of comparison.

The purpose of this study is to analyze movement verb structures observed in Middle French(MF)(14-15c) and compare them with Modern French(ModF) counterparts with regard to structural differences and their functional characteristics. First of all, we will outline unique constraints in the ModF structural operations in movement verb constructions, excluding their general restrictions. Second, we will verify how these operations can be observed in the MF structures, allegedly considered as forming the keynote of ModF. This study deals with the following three parts: First, the analysis of word ordering in the MF constructions will be conducted. The next step will be observing the presence/absence of the subject of the principle clause, the presence/absence of the subject in the infinitival clause, and the distribution or operation of infinitival verbs. Finally, this study will analyze the difference /similarity of the cliticization from the syntactic point of view. The texts utilized in this paper are Vie de Saint Louis: Roi de France(14c) and Les Quinze Joies du Mariage(15c)

본고는 중세국어와 근대국어의 인용 구문과 관련된 주요 쟁점을 논의하고 앞으로의 과제를 제시하였다. 인용 구문의 주요 쟁점으로 인용 구문의 유형과 변화 양상, 인용 동사의 문제, 인용 표지의 문제를 살펴보았다. 이 과정에서 인용 구문의 유형과 변화 양상이 한국어의 무표적 어순 유형과의 관련성뿐만 아니라 의사소통적 관점에서도 고찰될 필요가 있음을 지적하였으며, 인용 동사와 인용 표지에 대한 논의가 여러 각도에서 정밀하게 다루어질 필요가 있음을 지적하였다. 마지막으로 향후 연구가 진행되어야 할 과제의 사례로, 역사적 연구와 공시적 연구에서 통용될 수 있을 정도로 설명력을 가지는 인용 개념의 규정과 인용 동사 ‘ᄒᆞ-’의 성격에 대한 이해, 인용 구문의 특성과 융합형 어미의 발달 과정 간의 관련성을 제시하면서 이들에 대한 좀 더 심도 있는 고찰이 필요함을 지적하였다.

This paper discussed the issues of the historical studies on the quotative construction in Middle Korean and Modern Korean and suggested some research tasks. In this paper, three issues were discussed: the types and the change process of the quotative constructions in Middle Korean and Modern Korean (chapter 2), the characteristics of quotative verbs (chapter 3) and the characteristics of quotative markers (chapter 4). We also suggested some research tasks of the quotative constructions focused on the future: the explanatory definition on the concept of quotative construction applied to the historical studies and the contemporary studies, the strict understanding of characteristics of quotative verb hʌ-, the further discussion on the relationship of fusional endings and the quotative constructions.

This study is to analyze the Usage & Meaning on the English Passive Construction in Middle School English Textbooks. The basic form of the English Passive Construction is the <Subject + be + pp + by Actor> in English Structures. Many students understand and use this form the basic form of the English Passive Construction. In the English Passive Construction, there are many kinds of structures. For example, they are Actional Passive, Statal Passive, be-Passive, get-Passive, etc. Firstly, we should understand these Passive Structures. It is the first step to understand the Passive Constructions. There are many constraints in English Passive Constructions. They are Verbal Constraint, Prepositional Constraint, Objective Constraint, and Meaning Constraint. First, most students have to know and understand these constraints. Second, after understanding these Passive Constructions and Constraints, we are able to use and speak English Passive Constructions clearly. In the Middle School English Textbooks, Passive Constructions are appeared a few sentences. But the number of passive construction Sentence is limited in the Textbooks. Because Korean people don’t use and speak Passive Construction frequently, many middle school students are not easy to understand and speak Passive Constructions clearly. Step by step, students have to learn, understand and use Passive Construction Sentences. In conclusion, the Passive Construction is just a kind of many English sentence structures, so Middle School students should use them easily and clearly. In learning English Passive Construction, the Middle School English Textbooks should be written easily and clearly.

Middle constructions such as “Sports cars sell quickly,” “The car drives smoothly” are different from those of ergatives even though they are common in that both have one argument on the syntactic surface. And they are not identical with the corresponding passives even if they both have non-agent subjects. This research examines some factors which contribute to the acceptability of such middle constructions. Rejecting a syntactic approach that middle construction is generated by a syntactic rule “Move- 􎤉” from transitive construction, I argue the middle construction should be dealt with in a lexical approach related to semantic explanation for universal characterization. The stative nature of middles can explain the inability to be subjected to lexical processes like “Out Prefixation” and “Preposition Stranding” that are used for supporting a syntactic approach to middle construction. Explaining the verbal intransitivity which is derived lexically or syntactically will help understand the different types of intransitive verbs (Jeonju University)

This paper examines why middle constructions require adverbs and why voice mismatches in VP ellipsis are ungrammatical with middles. It argues that the necessity of adverbs arises from a structural requirement tied to VoicemiddleP, a projection that hosts adverbials and ensures grammaticality through a rescuing effect. VoicemiddleP also explains why voice mismatches in VP ellipsis fail in middles?while ellipsis generally permits active-passive mismatches, the obligatory presence of VoicemiddleP disrupts this mechanism. By identifying VoicemiddleP as crucial for both adverb licensing and ellipsis restrictions, this analysis refines our understanding of middle constructions. More broadly, it contributes to syntactic theory by clarifying how clause structure interacts with ellipsis, shedding light on movement and deletion constraints in natural language.

Previously, various approaches dealt with middle constructions with insightful observations. However, none of them could address the fundamental property of middle constructions represented by the notion of recursiveness which can further be translated into plurality. Focusing on this semantic property of middle constructions, this paper claims that middle constructions can be viewed as constructions of distributivity. In proposing so, this paper divides middle constructions into three classes and shows that each class can be analyzed by the same pluralization operator that explains constructions of distributivity. One of the advantages of this paper is to explain why an adverb is, most of the time, necessary in forming middle constructions. The adverb functions as the Distributed Share, which is one of the essential arguments of distributivity. Another advantage is to account for why the middle constructions often evoke the modality interpretation by the fact that the pluralization operator comes with a Cover variable.

Given that the middle construction in English is neither active nor passive in voice, this paper investigates its discrete and continuous features from the perspective of cognitive grammar. It then proposes a cognitive model for the middle construction that accounts for its dubious nature of grammatical voice category. In terms of discrete features, it is argued that only one non-agent nominal participant shows up at the syntactic level, which is profiled in the interaction and becomes partially responsible for the action, whereas the agent is mostly implicit and demoted to a much lower position unavailable in the clause. The middle verbs are also said to be always congruent with present tense, most likely to be activity process verbs, and transitive before they enter the middle construction. It is also shown that the middle construction is generic in meaning and indicates the modality of capability and probability. As for its continuous features, it is held that the middle construction shows the degree of prototypicality within the category and carries overlapping features with the active, the passive, and the anticausative.

This paper aims to suggest Middle and Medio-passive categories in Korean with cross-linguistic data. K. Kim(2009) argues that there are three kinds of non-active Voice categories in Korean: I-inchoatives, Zero inchoatives and Passives. I, however, argue that I-inchoative and Zero inchoative show morphological, distributional and semantic differences, and thus they should be respectively categorized into Middle and Anticausative. The so-called ?i morpheme is regarded traditionally as passive morpheme, but I show that it is not just a passive but Non-active Voice morpheme in Korean. I have also argued that Medio-passive constructions should be assumed in Korean, because cross-linguistically they show distributional and semantic differences from middles and passives. An Instrumental phrase and an Agent phrase or an Agent phrase and‘by itself’can appear together in the medio-passives, and semantically they can have middle interpretation too.

This study examines the differences between middle constructions and unergative constructions with a focus on memory functions. It highlights that childhood amnesia, which relates to early memory capabilities, affects middle constructions but not unergative constructions. The study also reveals that unergative constructions actively engage the two-store memory model, aiding in short-term memory encoding. In contrast, middle constructions do not easily trigger this mechanism and are primarily encoded into long-term memory. Although both types of constructions involve episodic memory, middle constructions are based on the observer's memories, while unergative constructions stem from memories formed in the visual field. Additionally, middle constructions are characterized by complex network structures that link multiple events, making them easily become explicit memories; unergative constructions, on the other hand, only become explicit voluntarily. Metamemory strategies, such as rehearsal, categorization, and retrieval tactics, play an active role in middle constructions but rarely apply to unergative constructions. In terms of daily memory competence, children's memory skills are selectively associated with unergative constructions. In contrast, middle constructions are linked to the advanced brain functions developed in adults, which involve sustained activation of the phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, central executive, and complex network formation. This promotes long-term, explicit, and metamemory encoding. Consequently, the concept of memory transformation is less relevant to middle constructions.

Lee, Choon-Hee. “A Study on the Middle Constructions in English.” Studies on English Language & Literature. 33.2(2007): 231-252. Middle constructions such as “Sports cars sell quickly,” “The car drives smoothly” are different from those of ergatives even though they are common in that both have one argument on the syntactic surface. And they are not identical with the corresponding passives even if they both have non-agent subjects. This research examines some factors which contribute to the acceptability of such middle constructions. Rejecting a syntactic approach that middle construction is generated by a syntactic rule “Move-?” from transitive construction, I argue the middle construction should be dealt with in a lexical approach related to semantic explanation for universal characterization. The stative nature of middles can explain the inability to be subjected to lexical processes like “Out Prefixation” and “Preposition Stranding” that are used for supporting a syntactic approach to middle construction. Explaining the verbal intransitivity which is derived lexically or syntactically will help understand the different types of intransitive verbs (Jeonju University)