A study of the acquisition of English tense and aspect by L1 Korean

speakers
with focus on morphosyntactic and lexico-semantic issues
Seon Young Kim
The differences between Korean and English in terms of tense and aspect (TA)
1.

While English has clear formal marking for present and present progressive, Korean has the only formal
marking (nu)n for present and present progressive.

Minjaka pianolul chinda.

2.

Minja plays the piano/ Minja is playing the piano.

While English has clear formal marking for perfect and imperfect, Korean has no special marking for perfect and
impeferfect.

Minjaka mak ttunassassta.

kekurika nuwa issassta.
3.

Minja had just left. (Past Perfect)

The frog was lying. (Past Imperfect)

In Korean time adverbial is more important than English for distinguishing present and present progressive.

Minjanun kongbu hanta.

Minja studies.

Minjanun jikum kongbu hanta. Minja is studying now.

4.

While English distinguishes state verbs from other verbs, Korean has no state verbs (for example, see, like,
hate, be happy, be sad and etc are active verbs).

The Primacy of Aspect (POA)

L1 and L2 learners, in the early stage of acquiring verbal morphology, use tense-aspect markers selectively according
to the inherent lexical aspect of the verb to which the tense-aspect marker is attached or with which it is associated.
Evidence for the Primacy of Aspect
achievementsaccomplishmentsactivitiesstates
activitiesaccomplishmentsachievements

past and perfect tense morphology

progressive aspect marker -ing

3rd person singular present tense marker -s

(no overextension to state verbs)

statesactivitiesaccomplishmentsachievements

The Vendlrean Four-Way Classification

Lexical aspectual classes
Semantic features
Punctual
Telic
Dynamic

States

Activities

Accomplishments

(Telic events)
+
+

Achievements
(Punctual events)

Research Questions
1.

What effect do formal marking have on the L2 learners acquisition of English tense and aspect?
1a. Do Korean learners whose L1 has only formal marking (n)un for present and present progressive
distinguish English present and present progressive which have clear distinction in their forms?
1b. Do Korean learners whose L1 has no special marking for perfective aspect and imperfective aspect
distinguish English perfective aspect and imperfective aspect?
1c. If Korean learners dont distinguish English TA, is it the effect of their L1 or other factors (time
adverbial, context, etc.)?

2.

How much does inherent lexical aspect affect on L2 learners acquisition of English tense and aspect?
2a. Do Korean learners whose L1 has no stative verbs follow the Primacy of Aspect for the acquisition of
English TA?
2b. If Korean learners dont follow POA, is it the effect of their L1 or other factors (time adverbial, context,
etc.)?

Test Methodology
1.

The study has tested 3 Korean Ph.D. students and 3 Korean undergraduates in Lancaster University with
five basic English inflectional verb forms (V, Ving, Vs, Ved, Virreg) across the four traditional Vendlerian
inherent aspect classes (states, activities, accomplishments, achievements) with English TA interpretation
test.

2.

To compare the interpretation with their real speaking production, the study has also tested them with
English TA production test.

3.

For the purpose of reference for subjects, data has also been collected from their English grammar
proficiency test and interviewing them about their language background.

4.

To have a base line for the English TA interpretation test, three natives have been tested with the same
interpretation test with Korean students.

English TA Interpretation Test Results

1.

In terms of grammatical sentences of states Korean students responses are on the whole similar with natives.
grammati c al s entenc es / s tates i n s i mpl e
pres ent

grammati c al s entenc es / s tates i n - i ng

0
-1

0
N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-2

-1

N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-2

2. In terms of grammatical sentences of activities Korean students responses are on the whole similar with natives.
grammati c al s entenc es / ac ti vi ti es i n
s i mpl e pas t

grammati c al s entenc es / ac ti vi ti es i n
- i ng

0
-1

0
N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-2

-1

N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-2

3. In terms of grammatical sentences of achievements Korean students responses are on the whole similar with
natives.
grammati c al s entenc es / ac hi evements i n
s i mpl e pres ent
2

0
-1

0
N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-2

4.

grammati c al s entenc es / ac hi evements i n

- i ng

-1

N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-2

In terms of grammatical sentences of accomplishments Korean students responses are on the whole similar with

natives in simple present and simple past, but show difference of degree in progressive sentences even though all
of them are positive.
grammati c al s entenc es /
ac c ompl i s hments i n s i mpl e pas t

grammati c al s entenc es /
ac c ompl i s hments i n - i ng

0
-1
-2

0
N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-1
-2

N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

Problematic Ones in test results

1. In terms of ungrammatical sentences of states while Korean students responses are on the whole similar with
natives in progressive forms, several Korean students responses are different with natives in simple past.
ungrammati c al s entenc es / s tates i n - i ng

ungrammati c al s entenc es / s tates i n

s i mpl e pas t

0
-1

0
N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-2

N1 N2

-1

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-2

2. In terms of ungrammatical sentences of activities while Korean students responses are on the whole similar with
natives in progressive forms, several their responses are different with natives in simple present.
ungrammati c al s entenc es / ac ti vi ti es i n
- i ng

ungrammati c al s entenc es / ac ti vi ti es i n
s i mpl e pres ent

0
-1

0
N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-2

-1

N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-2

3. In terms of ungrammatical sentences of accomplishments Korean students responses are clearly different from
natives.
ungrammati c al s entenc es /
ac c ompl i s hments i n s i mpl e pres ent

ungrammati c al s entenc es /
ac c ompl i s hments i n s i mpl e pas t

0
-1

0
N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-2

-1

N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6

-2

4. Two Korean Ph.D. students (NN2, NN3) whose grammar proficiency are most advanced among 6 subjects show
different responses compared with natives and other Koreans.
ungrammati c al s entenc es / ac ti vi ti es i n
s i mpl e pres ent
2
1
0
-1
-2

N1 N2

N3 NN1 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5 NN6