earticle

영어

Wechsler (1997, 2005) argues that the DOR is not real by citing some counter-examples to it. In contrary to Wechsler (1997, 2005), this paper argues that the DOR stands as a viable standard condition on the resultative construction. Wechsler’s first case of the counter- examples, which concern the manner of motion verbs, can be successfully explained under the DOR through the conflation analysis of McIntyre (2004) and Mateu (2005). Wechsler’s second case of the counter-examples, which are on the subject-oriented resultatives in transitive constructions, is not the target of the DOR because the putative subject-oriented resultatives are in fact directional adjuncts. While the DOR is a fine regulative constraint for English, it does not hold in Korean. This paper argues that this difference between the two languages attributes to the syntactic status of resultatives. To be more specific, resultatives serve as an argument of the verb in English while those in Korean function as an adjunct. This view is also supported by the Japanese data. The DOR does not hold in Japanese because Japanese resultatives are adjuncts.