A Computational Treatment of Korean Temporal Markers, 
OE and DONGAN 
Hyunjung Son 
EHESS 
54, Boulevard Raspail 
75006 Paris France 
hyunjung_son@hotmail.com 
 
Abstract  
In this paper, we elucidate how Korean 
temporal markers, OE and DONGAN 
contribute to specifying the event time 
and formalize it in terms of typed lambda 
calculus. We also present a computational 
method for constructing temporal 
representation of Korean sentences on the 
basis of G grammar proposed by [Renaud, 
1992;1996]. 
1 Introduction 
Associated to a NP, Korean temporal markers OE 
and DONGAN build time adverbials.  
 
(1) ach’im ilgopshiOE 
morning/seven o’clock-OE 
at seven o’clock in the morning 
 
(2) han shigan DONGAN 
one/hour/DONGAN 
for an hour 
 
As it is widely known, time adverbials play 
important roles in sentence meaning processing. 
Meanwhile, there is a significant divergence in 
opinions whether time adverbials or tense/aspect is 
a more efficient indicator leading to a correct 
temporal representation of sentences. To some 
[Kim, 1981], [Jo, 2000], [Vet, 1980], [Verkyul, 
1989], tense or aspect is the only credible index to 
consult in establishing temporal interpretation, and 
the time adverbials are complementary. To others 
[Renaud, 1996], [Vlach, 1993], time adverbials are 
regarded as much more reliable than tense/aspect 
which is too ambiguous to provide coherent 
instructions about how to locate the event in time. 
We agree with the second point of view, as we 
observed that Korean tense markers fail to provide 
a solid and coherent way to capture the relevant 
time span. For example, the verbal infix ‘-at-’, 
generally considered as a typical past tense marker 
in Korean, brings about several time interpretation 
possibilities such as simple past (3), completion 
(4), resultant state (5) and progressiveness (6).  
 
(3) shiwidaega ôje hanshiOE shich’ôngul 
dulrôssatta  
demonstrators-NOM / yesterday /one o’clock-OE / 
the city hall-ACC/ surround-PA-DEC1 
The demonstrators surrounded the city hall at one 
o’clock yesterday. 
 
(4) shiwidaega mach’imnae shich’ôngul 
dulrôssatta 
demonstrators-NOM / at last / the city hall-ACC 
/surround-PA-DEC 
At last, the demonstrators surrounded (succeeded 
in surrounding) the city hall. 
 
(5) shiwidaega harudongan shich’ôngul 
dulrôssatta 
demonstrators-NOM/one day-DUR/the city hall-
ACC/surround-PA-DEC 
The demonstrators have surrounded the city hall 
for one day. 
 
                                                 
1 We used the McCune-Reischauer system to transcribe 
the Korean data. For glossing grammatical morphemes, 
we use the following abbreviations: 
ACC: accusative, AS: attributive suffix, CIRCUM: 
circumstantial, CL: classifier, DEC: declarative, DUR: 
durative, INT: interrogative, LOC: locative, NOM: 
nominative, NS: nominal suffix, PA: past, TOP:topic. 
(6) ônjebutô shiwidaega shich’ôngul 
dulrôssatssumnikka? 
since when/ demonstrators-NOM/ the city hall-
ACC/ surround-PA-INT 
Since when have the demonstrators been 
surrounding the city hall? 
 
Moreover, what triggers these interpretation 
possibilities is still being discussed among Korean 
linguists2.  
 
In the following, we attempt to show how time 
adverbials can remedy this shortcoming and 
specify the event time.  
 
2 Semantic description 
The assumption underlying our temporal 
description is that the linguistic time is ordered, 
discrete, infinite and consisting of instants 
corresponding to the natural numbers. The 
linguistic time can be expressed with one of these 
three notions: instant, extended interval and 
duration. Instants are unitary constituents of 
linguistic time and noted by a quintuplet of natural 
numbers [x1,x2,x3,x4,x5] of which x1 stands for 
year, x2 for month, x3 for day, x4 for hour and x5 
for minute.  
 
(ex) at 3 o’clock on April 5th 2003: instant 
   [2003,4,5,3,0] 
 
An extended interval is a set of consecutive 
instants determined by a beginning instant and an 
ending instant. 
 
(ex) on April 5th, 2003: interval 
 [[2003, 4,5,0,0], [2003,4,5,23,59]] 
 
A duration refers to a temporal distance between 
two distinct instants.  
 
(ex) for 5 years: duration [5,_,_,_,_] 
 
For the purpose of temporal description of a 
sentential event, we defined the following types 
and functional terms on the basis of typed lambda 
                                                 
2 See [Jo, 2000], [Lee, Ch., 1987], [Lee, H., 1993] and 
[Lee, J., 1982] for more detailed discussion.    
calculus3. The symbol λ stands for abstraction and 
• stands for application4.  
 
Definitions of types 
i : type symbol denoting the type of individuals  
p : type symbol denoting the type of propositions  
e : type symbol denoting the type of events 
ent: type symbol denoting the type of natural  
numbers 
inst : type symbol denoting the type of instants  
inter : type symbol denoting the type of extended  
intervals 
dur: type symbol denoting the type of durations 
 
Type symbols may be omitted when no ambiguity 
is introduced.  
 
Definitions of functional terms 
(λe. moment•e): e→inst 
   Applying this function to any argument of type e, 
we obtain the moment of e of type inst. 
 
(λe. interv•e): e→inter 
   Applying this function to any argument of type e, 
we obtain the interval of e of type inter. 
 
(λx. beginning•x): e→inst  
(λx. ending•x): e→inst 
   Applying these functions to any argument x of 
type e, we obtain the beginning/ending instant of x 
of type inst. 
 
(λx. duration•x): e→dur 
   Applying this function to any argument x of type 
e, we obtain the duration of x of type dur. 
 
(λx. beg•x): inter→inst  
(λx. end•x):inter→inst 
   Applying this function to any argument x of type 
inter, we obtain the beginning/ending instant of x 
of type inst. By definition, beg•[A,B] = A and 
end•[A,B] = B 
 
 
 
                                                 
3 [Andrews, 1986 ; 2002], [Hindley et al., 1986] and  
[Renaud, 1996]. 
4 If M and N are lambda-terms, then M•N is a lambda-
term. 
(λx. length•x): inter→dur 
   Applying this function to any argument x of type 
inter, we obtain the length of x of type dur. By 
definition, length•[A,B]= |B-A| 
 
(λxλy. x <«t» y): inst→inst→p 
   It denotes that x of type inst is anterior to y of the 
same type. When no ambiguity is introduced, «t» 
will be omitted.  
 
(λxλy. x =«t» y): inst→inst→p 
   It denotes that x and y of type inst are 
simultaneous. 
 
(λxλy. x ≤«t» y): inst→inst→p 
   It denotes that λxλy. (x <«t»y ∨ x =«t»y).  
 
(λxλy. x ∈«t» y): inst→inter→p   
   It denotes that x of type inst is a member of y of 
type inter. By definition, λxλy. (beg•y ≤ x ≤ 
end•y) 
 
(λxλy. x ⊂«t » y): inter→inter→p 
   It denotes that x of type inter is included by y of 
the same type. By definition, λxλy. (beg•y < beg•x 
∧ end•x < end•y). 
 
(λxλy. x =«t » y): inter→inter→p 
   x and y of type inter are simultaneous. By 
definition, λxλy. (beg•x=beg•y  ∧ end•x=end•y). 
 
(λxλy. a0 ⊆«t » y): inter→inter→p   
   It denotes that λxλy. (beg•y ≤ beg•x ∧ end•x ≤ 
end•y). 
 
The temporal adverbials with OE or DONGAN 
do not bring the same semantic constraints in all 
the sentences. It can be illustrated by the following 
examples of OE (7-10) and DONGAN (11-14). 
 
(7) ach’im ilgopshiOE nurôngoiga chugôtta.  
the morning /seven o’clock-OE / Nurôngoi-NOM 
/die-PA-DEC 
At seven o’clock in the morning, Nurôngoi died. 
  
The OE adverbial of this example indicates the 
moment when the event described by the nuclear 
sentence5 happened.  
 
(sr 7) ∃e∃I die•e•nurôngoi6 ∧ 
 moment•e<pt_speech ∧  
I=(7 o’clock) ∧ moment•e=I 
 
But in (8) and (9), OE adverbials indicate an 
interval of which an instant is identified with the 
moment of the event. 
 
(8) samwol shiboirOE nurôngoiga chugôtta.  
March/the fifteenth-OE /Nurôngoi-NOM/die-PA-
DEC 
On the fifteenth of March, Nurôngoi died. 
 
(sr 8) ∃e∃I die•e•nurôngi ∧ moment•e<pt_speech 
∧ I=(the 15th of March) ∧ moment•e∈I 
 
(9) chinan yôrumOE nurôngoiga chugôtta  
the last summer-OE/ Nurôngoi-NOM/die-PA-DEC 
Last summer, Nurôngoi died. 
 
(sr 9) ∃e∃I die•e•nurôngi ∧ moment•e<pt_speech 
∧ interval•I ∧ summer•I ∧ moment•e∈I 
 
Moreover, OE adverbials can introduce a period of 
recurrent events as in (10). 
 
(10) iljuirOE so dasôt mariga chugôtta  
a week-OE/cow/five/classifier-NOM/die-PA-DEC 
Five cows died every week. 
 
(sr 10) ∃I interval•I ∧ length•I=(7 days) ∧ ∃J 
interval•J ∧ ∃P (equi-partition•I•P•J ∧∀K (P•K 
→ |λx. cow•x ∧ ∃e die•e•x ∧ 
moment•e<pt_speech ∧ interv•e⊆K|=5))7 
 
                                                 
5 We call the independent sentences without modifiers 
such as temporal adverbials ‘nuclear sentence’. 
6 ‘die•e•nurôngoi’ is equivalent to die(e, nurôngoi) in 
predicate logic.  
7[Renaud, 2002] defines the equi-partition function as: 
equi-partition•D•P•N ≡ (N=(∪•P) ∧ | P |>2 ∧ ∀K1 K2 
((P•K1 ∧ P•K2 ∧ K1≠K2) →  
(length•K1=length•K2=D ∧ K1∩K2=∅))) 
where ∪•R ≡ λx. ∃R (R•P ∧ P•x) 
As for DONGAN adverbials, they present the 
maximal duration of the described event as in (11). 
 
(11) hanshigan DONGAN kwanghoe bihaenggiga 
naratta   
an hour /DONGAN /of Kwangho /airplane-NOM 
/fly-PA-DEC 
Kwangho’s airplane flew for an hour. 
 
(sr 11) ∃x∃e airplane•x ∧ of•kwangho•x ∧  
fly•e•x ∧ ending•e<pt_speech ∧ 
duration•e=(1 hour) 
 
In (12), the interval denoted by the DONGAN 
adverbial is included by that of the sentential event. 
In other words, it is not clear, for the moment, 
whether the described event reached its end or not. 
  
(12) kyôul banghak DONGAN ukyunun 
mokgongsoesô ilhaetta   
winter vacation /DONGAN /Ukyu-TOP/carpenter’s 
shop-LOC/work-PA-DEC 
During the winter vacation, Ukyu worked at the 
carpenter’s shop. 
 
(sr 12) ∃e∃I work•e•ukyu ∧ at•e•carpenter’s_shop 
∧ beginning•e<pt_speech  ∧ interval•I ∧ 
winter_vacation•I ∧ I⊆interv•e  
 
DONGAN adverbials also indicate the interval to 
which the moment of the event belongs, as (13) 
shows. 
 
(13) kyôul banghak DONGAN nanun shine daehae 
saenggak’agi chijak’aetta  
winter vacation / DONGAN / I-TOP/ about  God/ 
think /begin-PA-DEC 
During the winter vacation, I began to think 
about God. 
 
(sr 13) ∃I∃e interval•I ∧ winter_vacation•I ∧ 
begin•e•(λe1λx. think_about•e1•god•x)•speaker 
∧ moment•e<pt_speech ∧ moment•e∈I 
 
The following example (14) denotes that fishing of 
Yunsôk has been repeated in a regular way during 
the interval indicated by the DONGAN adverbial. 
 
(14) shimnyôn DONGAN yunsôkun môn badaesô 
kokijabirul haetta  
10 years /DONGAN /Yunsôk-TOP /far ocean-LOC 
/fishing-ACC/do-PA-DEC 
For ten years, Yunsôk fished in the far ocean.  
 
(sr 14) λD. ∃P equi-partition•D•P•intref ∧  
∃H H=(λJ. (P•J ∧ ∃e fish•e•yunsôk ∧ 
in•e•the_far_ocean ∧ ending•e<pt_speech ∧ 
interv•e⊆J) ∧  
∃M max•(λN. N⊆(∪•H) ∧ [inferior•(∪•N), 
superior•(∪•N)] ∩ intref = ∪•N)•M ∧ length•M = 
(10 years)8  
 
Such a distributional pattern of events disappears 
when the nuclear sentence is modified by 
quantification, which is illustrated by (15). 
 
(15) shimnyôn DONGAN yunsôkun môn badaesô 
kokijabirul se bôn haetta 
10 years /DONGAN /Yunsôk-TOP /far ocean-LOC 
/fishing-ACC/three times/do-PA-DEC 
For ten years, Yunsôk had fished in the far ocean 
three times.  
 
(sr 15) ∃I interval•I ∧ length•I=(10 years) ∧ 
|λe. fish•e•yunsôk ∧ in•e•the_far_ocean ∧ 
ending•e<pt_speech ∧ interv•e⊆I|=3 
  
To find a strategy to solve such a multiple 
ambiguity, we investigated three thousand 
sentences for each temporal marker 9  and 
discovered the following facts: 
 
1. The semantic and syntactic properties of 
the phrase accompanying the temporal 
markers play an important role to locate 
the event in time. 
2. It is necessary to distinguish mono-
occurrent sentences concerning a single 
event from multi-occurrent sentences 
concerning a set of different events10. The 
multi-occurrent nature is very often 
                                                 
8 [Renaud, 2002] defines the function used in this 
formula as follows: 
intref ≡ interval of reference 
[∪•I] ≡ [inferior•(∪•I), superior•(∪•I)] where the 
brackets denote an interval. 
max•E•M ≡ (E•M ∧ ¬∃N(M⊂N ∧ E•N)) 
9 We took the sentences from Yonsei malmunchi corpus 
built by Yonsei Center for Linguistic Information. 
10 [Renaud, 2002].  
signaled by bare plurals in nominal 
phrases, adverb like ch’arero ‘in turn’, and 
quantification modifiers. 
3. When it comes to the multi-occurrent 
sentences, DONGAN adverbials impose 
constraints on the distribution of events in 
some cases (see (14)). 
4. The quantification negates the 
distributional meaning brought by 
DONGAN adverbials and gets them to 
indicate the temporal scope of this 
semantic operation (see (14) and (15)). 
5. As for the verbal infix ‘-at-’, its common 
semantic value is to denote the fact that the 
beginning of the event is anterior to the 
point of speech 11 ; λe. beginning•e < 
pt_speech. 
6. The information relevant to the time 
interpretation is scattered over the whole 
sentence; in the verbal phrase, 
quantification modifiers ranging over 
individuals or events, determiners in the 
nominal phrases and time adverbials. 
Therefore, the temporal interpretation of a 
sentence should be constructed in a 
compositional way.  
7. For the same reason, the aspectual value 
should be attributed to the nuclear sentence 
and not to the verbal phrase. 
 
3 Computational implementation 
We discovered that Renaud’s G Grammar is 
suitable for the purpose of computational 
implementation of these facts. This grammar loads 
information on word definitions as little as possible 
and charges the rules with detailed description. 
This principle contributes to gathering the pieces 
of information scattered throughout a sentence and 
to establishing a semantic representation of the 
sentence in a compositional way. Moreover, it 
enables us to deal with all the other linguistic 
phenomena in the same way as with the temporal 
problems. This grammar has been applied to 
French [Renaud, 1996; 2000; 2002] and Japanese 
[Blin, 1997] as well. 
 
                                                 
11 [Reichenbach, 1966]. 
This grammar is divided into word definitions 
called ‘dico’ and composition rules. Each of them 
consists of syntactic constraint, unification-based 
feature constraint and semantic constraint written 
in lambda-terms. 
 
%dico example 
dongan(dg_dur, qu:no&multiocc:no,  
λiλe. duration•e=i)  
 
%rule example  
adv_DG → dur, dg_dur 
U0::(U1&U2),  
S0 <<= λe. (S2•S1•e & ending•e < pt_speech()). 
 
Figure 1. Dico and rules 
 
In composition rules, the symbol ‘→’ stands for 
syntactic rewriting and ‘<<=’ stands for β-
reduction. 
 
We present here an example process 
establishing the temporal interpretation of a 
Korean sentence extended by a DONGAN 
adverbial.  
 
(11) hanshigan DONGAN kwanghoe bihaenggiga 
naratta   
an hour/ DONGAN/ of Kwangho/ airplane-NOM/ 
fly-PA-DEC 
Kwangho’s airplane flew for an hour. 
 
We determine the semantic term of a 
DONGAN adverbial, according to the semantic and 
syntactic properties of the phrase preceding the 
temporal marker.  
  
(Syn)                   NP                       Clause 
 
 
(Sem)  Moment/Extended Interval/Duration 
    (M)  (EI)        (D) 
 
 
 
(Syn)                       A          B    C       D    E    F 
 
     semantic terms   t1         t2    t3      t4    t5   t6 
 
Figure 2. Processing of DONGAN adverbials 
 
The time adverbial hanshigan DONGAN in (11) 
includes a NP denoting duration and conforms to 
the syntactic condition E 12 . Thus, the semantic 
term of type t5 is assigned to this time adverbial.  
We also calculate the semantic term of the 
nuclear sentence relying on criteria such as 
quantification modification, mono/multi-occurrent 
and aspect 13 , which get involved in the feature 
constraint at the levels of both dico and of rules. 
Since the nuclear sentence of (11) is not modified 
by quantification, and since it concerns a single 
event of activity, it receives a semantic term of 
type c3 in the following figure.   
 
                                                 
12 DONGAN accepts seven different syntactic structures: 
A. Interval Noun + DONGAN     (ex: summer vacations) 
B. Interval NP + Duration NP + DONGAN  
C. Deictic/anaphoric determiner + Duration NP +  
DONGAN 
D. Attributive Clause + Duration NP + DONGAN  
E. Duration NP + DONGAN 
F. Attributive Clause + DONGAN  
G. Anaphoric determiner  + DONGAN 
We excluded the last structure from our research 
because of its highly context dependent meaning. 
13  Aspectual classification is done by the following 
method; first, we observed the compatibilities of nuclear 
sentences with linguistic expressions such as -go innun 
chungida, mane and dongan. And then we investigated 
whether mane indicates the preparatory stage of the 
concerned event and whether dongan marks the 
resultant state of the event.  As a result, we obtained 
seven distinct combinations as follows. 
 
    (1)   (2)   (3) 
Verb+go innun 
chungida 
(progressrve 
verbal form)     
 
- 
 
+ 
 
+ 
Durative NP + 
mane 
+/- + + 
preparatory stage    + + - 
Durative NP + 
dongan   
- - - 
Resultant state  - - - 
          ACH1 ACH2 ACC 
 
 (4) (5) (6) (7) 
Verbe+go innun 
chungida 
(progressrve 
verbal form)     
 
+ 
 
- 
 
+ 
 
+ 
Durative NP + 
mane 
- - + + 
preparatory stage    + - +/- + 
Durative NP + 
dongan   
+ + + + 
Resultant state  - - - + 
          ACT State ACT_ACC Ch_of_state 
 
Nuclear Sentence 
 
 
quantification  ¬(quantification  
modified      modified) 
 
 
mono-occ,  multi-occ        mono-occ,  multi-occ 
 
 
ach1/ach2/act/acc/state/act_acc/ch_of_state 
 
 
a1,a2,…,a7    b1, …, b7   c1, …,c3…,c7,      d1, …, d7 
 
Figure 3. Processing of nuclear sentences 
 
At last, the semantic term of the time adverbial 
and that of the nuclear sentence are joined together 
by the following rule to put the final semantic 
representation of (11)14: 
 
ph1→ adv_DG, ph 
U1::tps2:dur & U2::(qu:no & multiocc:no) 
S0<<=cond([[U2::asp:act/stat/act_acc,  
λQ.S2•(λE. (proj•1•S1)•E ∧ Q•E)], 
          [U2::asp:ch_of_state, λQλR. S2•(λE.  
Q•E)•(λA. (proj•2•S1)•A ∧ R•A)]]). 
 
Figure 4. DONGAN sentence construction rule 
 
As we mentioned above, one of the most important 
advantages of G Grammar consists of its capacity 
to establish semantic interpretations in a 
compositional way. Even if we presented only the 
final step of semantic processing, our Korean 
parser constructs a semantic representation at each 
step15.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
14 ‘/’ stands for disjunction. 
‘λxλy. proj•x•y’ returns the member occurring in the xth 
place in the list y.  
15 Our Korean parser is built in LPI Prolog. In Figure 6, 
‘lb’ stands for λ-abstraction and ‘*’ stands for λ-
application. 
      (sr 8)  
 
 
     
    (sr 7) 
 
 
           (sr 5) 
 
 
 
       (sr 2)  (sr 4) 
 
 
 (sr 1)          (sr 3)      (sr 6) 
 
 
i    bun     dongan   kwangho   e   bihaenggi    ga    nar at ta 
2 minute dongan   Kwangho-of   airplane-NOM   fly-PA-DEC 
 
Figure 5. Parsing tree of the example (11) 
 
(sr1) [0,0,0,2,0]      
(sr2) lb(_24864,duration * _24864 = 
[0,0,0,2,0] & ending * _24864 < 
[2003,2,14,19,32]) 
(sr3) lb(_16476,lb(_15622,of * 
kwangho * _15622 & _16476 * _15622)) 
(sr4) lb(_18330,exist * y * (of * 
kwangho * y & airplane * y & _18330 * 
y))  
(sr5) lb(_18330,exist * y * (of * 
kwangho * y & airplane * y & _18330 * 
y)) 
(sr6) lb(_1682,lb(_1720,exist * e * 
(fly * e * _1720 & beginning * e < 
[2003,2,14,19,5] & _1682 * e))) 
(sr7) lb(_4814,exist * y * (of * 
kwangho * y & airplane * y & exist * 
e * (fly * e * y & beginning * e < 
[2003,2,14,19,7] & _4814 * e))) 
(sr8) lb(_25184,exist * y * (of * 
kwangho * y & airplane * y & exist * 
e * (fly * e * y & beginning * e < 
[2003,2,14,19,33] & (duration* e = 
[0,0,0,2,0] & ending * e < 
[2003,2,14,19,33] & _25184 * e)))) 
 
Figure 6. List of semantic representations presented in 
Figure 5. 
 
The sentences extended by an OE adverbial are 
represented in the same way as those by a 
DONGAN adverbial, as will be seen in the 
following.  
 
 
(8) samwol shiboirOE nurôngoiga chugôtta.  
March/the fifteenth-OE /Nurôngoi-NOM/die-PA-
DEC 
On the fifteenth of March, Nurôngoi died. 
 
Relying on the semantic and syntactic constraints 
of the phrase preceding OE at the same time, we 
determine the semantic term of the OE adverbial.  
 
(Syn)                       NP                       Clause      
 
 
(Sem)      Moment/Extended Interval/Duration 
      (M)  (EI)        (D) 
 
 
 
(Syn)            A     B        C     D    E    F     G     H16 
 
    
      t1     t2       t3    t4     t5    t6    t7    t8 
 
Figure 7. Processing of OE adverbials 
 
Since samwol shiboirOE of (8) denotes an 
extended interval and it conforms to the syntactic 
condition C, this adverbial is attributed the 
semantic term of type t3. 
 
The semantic representation of the nuclear 
sentence of (8) is established in the same way as 
explained above in Figure 3. At last, taking the 
semantic terms of the OE adverbial and of the 
nuclear sentence, the following rule serves to 
construct the final representation of the whole 
sentence17. 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
16 OE adverbials take the following syntactic structures: 
A. Instant NP +OE 
B. Interval Noun + OE 
C. Interval NP + OE 
D. Attributive Clause + Interval NP + OE 
E. Attributive Clause + Interval Noun + OE 
F. Deictic/anaphoric determiner + Interval NP +OE 
G. Deictic/anaphoric determiner + Interval Noun  
+ OE 
H. Duration NP + OE 
17 See [Son, 2002] for more detailed description of OE.  
ph1→ adv_OE, ph 
U1::tps2:inter & U2::(qu:no & multiocc:no) 
S0 <<= cond([[U2::asp:ach1/ach2, λQ. S2•(λE. 
(proj•1•S1)•E ∧ Q•E)], 
 [U2::asp:acc, λQ. S2•(λE. (proj•2•S1)•E 
∧ Q•E) ], 
 [U2::asp:act/stat/act_acc/ch_of_state, λQ. 
S2•(λE. (proj•3•S1)•E ∧ Q•E)]]) 
 
Figure 8. OE sentence construction rule 
 
4 Conclusion 
In this paper, we showed how OE adverbials and 
DONGAN adverbials contribute to constructing the 
temporal interpretation of Korean sentences. We 
also formalized the semantic properties of these 
temporal markers with typed lambda calculus 
before we integrated them into the Korean parser 
that we built on the basis of Renaud’s G Grammar. 
We showed the effectiveness of this grammar in 
representing compositionally semantic 
interpretations of Korean sentences.  
In the future, we will study the Korean time 
adverbials with MANE and zero particle. The first 
temporal marker is believed to signal the telicity of 
the event and the second appears very frequently in 
informal discourses. 
 
Acknowledgement 
We are deeply grateful to Francis Renaud and 
Irène Tamba, without whom this work would not 
have happened. 
This research is supported by the Pasteur 
scholarship from the French government.  
 
References 
[Andrews, 1986] Andrews P.B., 1986, An Introduction 
to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory, Orlando: 
Academic Press Inc. 
[Andrews, 2002] Andrews, P.B., 2002 An Introduction 
to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory, Dordrecht: 
Kluwer Academic Press.  
[Blin, 1997] Blin, R., 1997, Interrogation sur la 
manière en japonais: Une approche formelle, Paris: 
EHESS Dissertation. 
[Hindley at al., 1986] Hindley, J. & Seldin, J.P., 1986, 
Introduction to Combinators and λ-Calculus, 
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 
[Jo, 2000] Jo, M.J., 2000, A Study on the Aspect of 
Korean (in Korean), Seoul: Yonsei Univ. 
Dissertation. 
[Kim, 1981] Kim, S.-D., 1981, ‘Aspect of Korean’(in 
Korean), Aesan Hakbo 1, Aesan Hakhoe. 
[Lee, Ch., 1982] Lee, Ch., 1982, ‘Aspects of Aspect in 
Korean’, Language 7, Korean linguistic Society.  
[Lee, Ch., 1987] Lee, Ch., 1987, ‘Temporal Expressions 
in Korean’, in Bertuccelli-Papi Verschueren, J. et 
al.(eds.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
[Lee, H., 1993] Lee, H. S., 1993, ‘Tense or aspect : The 
speaker’s communicative goals and concerns as 
determinant, with reference to the Anterior –ôss- in 
Korean’, Journal of Pragmatics 20. 
[Lee, J., 1982] Lee, J.-R., 1982, ‘A Study of aspectual 
forms of Modern Korean’(in Korean), Korean 
Linguistic Research 51, Society of Korean Studies. 
[Reichenbach, 1966] Reichenbach, H., 1966, The 
Elements of Symbolic Logic, Now York: The Free 
Press. 
[Renaud, 1992] Renaud, F., 1992, ‘Générateurs 
automatiques d’analyseurs linguistiques’, Intellectica 
13-14. 
[Renaud, 1996] Renaud, F., 1996, Sémantique du temps 
et lambda-calcul, Paris: puf. 
[Renaud, 2000] Renaud, F., 2000, ‘Adverbes itératives 
et quantification’, Revue de Sémantique et 
Pragmatique 8. 
[Renaud, 2002] Renaud, F., 2002, ‘Durativité et 
Négation’, ms. 
[Son, 2002] Son, H., 2002, ‘Formal Description of 
‘NP+OE’ with Lambda-Calculus and Unification 
Mechanism’(in Korean), Annual Meeting of Korean 
Society for Language and Information.  
[Verkuyl, 1989] Verkuyl, H.J., 1989, ‘Aspectual Classes 
and Aspectual Composition’, Linguistics and 
Philosophy 12. 
[Vet, 1980] Vet, C., 1980, Temps, aspect et adverbes de 
temps en français contemporain, Genève: Librairie 
Droz. 
[Vlach, 1993] Vlach, F., 1993, ‘Temporal Adverbials, 
Tense and the Perfect’, Linguistics and Philosophy 
16. 
 
