The grammatical status of –eykey and its implications on the syntax of Korean morphological passives

1 Introduction

In Korean, the particle –eykey attached to a noun phrase (NP) is known to have structurally and functionally multiple roles. First and foremost, it not only represents a Dative Case/case marker in the ditransitive verb construction (1a), but it also represents either an ablative case marker (1b) or an Experiencer Case/case marker in the stative psych adjective construction (1c).

Besides these grammatical roles, another peculiar manifestation is its use in morphological/lexical passives such as (2), where –eykey as well as its sibling –ey uyhay has been analyzed on a par with the preposition by in English passives.

Concentrating on its realization in Korean passives, we argue that it most plausibly has an intimate connection in syntactic derivation with its counterpart of the same form (i.e., the particle –eykey) in causatives/experientials of Korean (to gain a quick understanding of them, they correspond to causatives/experientials of English that are constructed with the causative/experiential verb have),^[2] but not with the by-phrase-like grammatical function.

2 An outstanding issue raised

As shown in (2), in Korean the by-phrase-like element is usually marked interchangeably either with the particle –eykey or –ey uyhay, thus leading us to the aforementioned hypothesis that the particle –eykey has the same function as the preposition by in English passives does. This hypothesis can readily be rejected by the fact that in morphological passives such as (3) and (4), an inanimate subject NP can co-occur with the particle –ey uyhay but not with the particle –eykey (cf. Klaiman 1991; Park 1994; Yeon 2003; Choi 2018).

The following examples taken from Oshima (2006) also make the same point.^[3]

This so-called animacy restriction with –eykey passives runs counter to the hallmark of passives across languages: the Theme argument, either animate or inanimate, is “promoted” to the subject position in passives. If (3–4) and (5–6) with –eykey phrases were run-of-the-mill passives where Theme NPs undergo Raising to Subject, it would follow that the inanimate subject NP in (3–4) and (5–6) is construed as having the thematic role of Theme. This would in turn predict that it can be animate or inanimate, contrary to the fact.

3 Morphological passives in Korean as derived from causatives/experientials

We diverge from the previous analysis of –eykey passives in two respects. First, the animacy restriction with –eykey passives in Korean has not been defined properly in the previous literature. Note that the morphological passives in (7) and (8) have inanimate subjects co-occurring with –eykey phrases, and they are acceptable.

The telling difference between (3–6) and (7)–(8) is that what matters in –eykey passives is not animacy itself but lexically attributed mobility on the part of Nom-marked subject NPs. Such subject NPs as thakwu “battered ball” and kongkyek “attack” in (7–8) are obviously not animate but construed as evoking motion in action.

Second, there is good reason to analyze the particle –eykey in this type of passives as having a connection in syntactic derivation with the same form of particle in causatives/experientials of Korean. First of all, note that the particle –eykey is not allowed in syntactic/periphrastic passives that employ the auxiliary verb –e ci- “be/become” as in (9), though the longer form of particle –ey uyhay is fine.

We submit that passives like (9) with the particle –eykey is unacceptable because –e ci- periphrastic passives do not have anything in syntactic derivation to do with causatives/experientials that allow for the particle.

Rather than in –e ci- syntactic/periphrastic passives, the particle –eykey is productively realized in causatives like (10a) as well as the so-called experientials/adversative passives like (10b) on top of run-of-the-mill direct passives like (10c).^[4]

Note that in (10a–c), the same form of morphologically complex verb nwul(u) + li derives from a combination of the transitive verb nwul(u)- “press” and the causative/experiential/passive morpheme -li. Since this morphologically complex verb can be used ambiguously as a causative/experiential/passive verb, it follows that the morpheme -li has been analyzed as having the three-way ambiguous function as a causativizer/experientializer/passivizer (Yang 1979; Kim 1994; Park 1994; Oshima 2006).

However, the minimal departure from this analysis is that, in keeping with Haspelmath’s (1990) thesis that the causative is a common source of grammaticalization into the experiential/passive,^[6] the morpheme -li or more generally the archmorpheme -I representing the four morphemes -i/hi/li/ki is essentially a causative, but it also derives from this source the adversative passive/experiential in (10b) or the direct passive in (10c), in the same fashion as the English causative/experiential/passive verb have does. More concretely, the CAUS(ative) archmorpheme -I has the following structure where it selects a VoiceP as its complement:

(11)

The analysis of the archmorpheme -I as assigning a theta role to its external argument regardless of its specific function gains support because as in (12), the –I-attached verbal complex together with –eykey gets along with the subject-oriented adverb ilpwule “on purpose” (but we will see below that the verbal complex with the particle –ey uyhay cannot do so).^[7] Incidentally, in Korean the same adverb ilpwule cannot modify the –eykey phrase, which means that it does not function, at least in syntax, as having an agent-like role.^[8]

In this respect, adversative passives/experientials and direct passives in Korean are minimally differentiated from causatives, in that unlike in the latter, the embedded VoiceP in the former is not active but passive (see the similar proposal in Bruening and Tran 2015, Legate 2014, and Jo 2018), as follows

(13)

Thus, the matrix subject of adversative passives/experientials and the direct passives is assigned not Theme, but what Jackendoff (1990) and others [and also see Ritter and Rosen (1997) for the analysis of have in English] term Experiencer.

With this in mind, we now return to the animacy restriction in direct passives. What is noteworthy bearing on this restriction is that in causatives/experientials of Korean, the –eykey-marked Dative Causee NP is not allowed together with the Nominative Case (or Nom) marked inanimate Causer/Experiencer subject in causatives such as (14a) and experientials such as (14b).^[9] When the Causer/Experiencer subject is inanimate, the Causee is required to be Accusative Case (or Acc) marked, as in (14c).

In a nutshell, the animacy restriction in direct passives is attributed to the fact that direct passives have causatives/experientials as their structural source, where the causative/experiential morpheme -I with the –eykey-marked Dative Causee NP thematically assigns a Causer/Experiencer role to its subject that needs to be realized with an animate NP. In other words, co-occurring with the –eykey-marked Dative Causee NP, the Nom-marked subject that is assigned a Causer/Experiencer role represents a sentient entity being (adversely) affected by the event denoted by the embedded VoiceP (Yeon 1991; Park 1994).^[11]

Note, by contrast, that when inanimate subject NPs involve lexically attributed mobility, the causatives with –eykey improve significantly, as follows:

The acceptability of the causatives with –eykey in (15a–b) is on the other side of the same coin vis-à-vis that of the passives with it in (16a–b), repeated below, where the subject is construed as denoting lexically attributed mobility:

To the extent that (15a–b) and (16a–b) are fine, it stands to reason that there are two types of inanimate subjects that are or are not compatible with –eykey causatives/experientials/passives.

Most relevant to the animacy restriction in question is the fact that the particles –eykey and –ey uyhay are not always interchangeably used in direct passives. The following examples taken from Jo (2018) also make such a point:

As claimed by Lee (2002, 2003) and Jo (2018), –eykey phrases in Korean passives represent direct actor, whereas –ey uyhay phrases represent indirect actor. This contrast follows from the proposed idea that only the former are generated in the embedded [Spec, VoiceP], thus being directly involved in the event denoted by the embedded lexical verb as they serve as an external argument of the embedded lexical verb. (As will be argued below, however, the latter are generated in the matrix [Spec, VoiceP], thus being indirectly involved in such an event.)^[13]

4 The syntactic derivation of morphological passives

The causative/experiential analysis of morphological passives here has two impending issues to address. One is the derivation of the Nom-marked subject NP. Since it is assigned a theta role (i.e., Causer/Experiencer) by the causative/experiential morpheme like -I, the Nom-marked subject NP in this construction is base generated in its surface position (or in the VP-internal subject position) in the way that other external argument NPs are. The second issue related to the first one is how to derive morphological passives from their causative/experiential counterparts. Closely relating to the second issue is the fact that Dative –eykey arguments in causatives lose argument hood in both experientials/adversative passives and direct passives, thus behaving as an adjunct here.

The dropping of the –eykey particle from and the alternative Acc marking of the Causee NP provides clear evidence for the distinction between causatives and experientials/passives in regard to the grammatical status of Dative –eykey-marked NPs, as in (18):

In causatives such as (18a), the Causee can be Acc marked after dropping the Dative marker –eykey, but in both experientials and direct passives such as (18b–c), it cannot be.

Topicalization in (19) also renders compelling evidence for the differentiation between causatives and experientials/passives in regard to the grammatical status of Dative –eykey-marked NPs. In causatives such as (19a), the Causee can be topicalized after dropping the Dative marker –eykey, but in both experientials and direct passives such as (19b–c), it cannot be.

Additionally, the interpretation of the null argument as the Causee NP distinguishes experientials/passives from causatives. As Jo (2018) points out, the null Causee argument in the causatives such as (20a) is construed as a contextually salient entity, but that in experientials such as (20b) and passives such as (20c) can be construed as an implicit argument, since the implicit argument can be interpreted as a weak existential like those in English passives.

Now a question is what change in grammatical function arises in the process from causatives to experientials and direct passives? As suggested earlier, on the analogy of Korean –eykey passives to English have passives, we suggest that the passive/passivizing morphology (PM) (i.e., the zero morpheme) is attached to the lexical verb phrase,^[15] forming the small clause complement VoiceP _PAS that the experiential morpheme selects as its complement, as in (21):

(21)

Thus, for example, (21) represents the sentence in (22). The subject of the embedded extended verbal projection (small clause VoiceP _PAS ) is “demoted” to take on an adjunct role, and the object of the lexical verb in it cannot be assigned Accusative but Nominative Case.^[16]

To the extent that such a demotion takes place, the Korean experiential is assimilated in structure to the French reflexive causative that can denote a passive event, as in (23) (taken from Oshima 2006):

In (23), faire “make” selects as its complement the VoiceP where only the embedded subject is demoted, but the embedded transitive verb remains to be active.

Note that the demotion of the embedded external argument in argument hood after passivization in the embedded small clause has a consequence on the process of merging the theta grids of the embedded lexical verb and the matrix causative/experiential morpheme. For example, the embedded transitive verb cap- “catch” has the theta grid: <Agent, Theme>; the matrix causative/experiential morpheme has the theta grid: <Causer/Experiencer, Caused/Experienced Event>. In the case of the causative use of the construction at hand, after the merging process the external argument of the embedded lexical verb takes over the CAUSEE role of the matrix causative/experiential morpheme, retaining the argument status and being realized with –eykey. In the case of the experiential use of the construction at hand, on the other hand, when the embedded extended verb phrase is passivized by adding the null PM to it, the external argument of the embedded lexical verb loses argument hood, thus taking over the adjunct role [as evidenced by the contrast between (a) and (b–c) in (18)–(20)] but is realized with –eykey (retaining the inherently marked form of C/case in the causative counterpart). Meanwhile, the Theme complement NP of the embedded lexical verb in direct passive use as in (24) may end up being in a position where Acc Case cannot be assigned.

The situation in the experiential (i.e., adversative passive) use of the construction at hand is different, since the Theme complement NP of the embedded lexical verb is assigned Acc Case by the verbal complex that results from the embedded lexical verb undergoing head movement to the matrix causative/experiential morpheme, thereby fulfilling Baker’s (1985) Government Transparency Corollary [in the similar fashion to its counterpart in the French reflexive causative in (23)].

Not –eykey, but –ey uyhay passives evade the subject animacy restriction, thanks to the particle’s derivational independence from the complement (VoiceP _PAS ) of the causative/experiential affix. The –ey uyhay passives are derived directly from causative/experiential verbal affixes. In these cases, the passive morphology is attached to the verbal complex after the causative/experiential morpheme is attached, as in (25).

(25)	Totwuk-i	[kyengchal-ey uyhay	[cap-PM]-hi-PM]-ess-ta.[18]
	thief-Nom	policeman-by	catch-PAS-CAU/EXP-PAS-Pst-Dcl
	“The thief was caught by a policeman.”
(26)

Based on the proposed idea of attaching the null PM in structurally two different positions, we can make the following predictions on the use of –eykey or –ey uyhay passives. Note that the –eykey phrase in causatives is derived when the embedded lexical verb is transitive, thus having two internal arguments. By contrast, when the embedded lexical verb is intransitive, having one argument, this argument is always Acc marked, as in (27a) and (27b). The connection between causatives and passives predicts that –eykey passives are not acceptable when the embedded lexical verb is intransitive, as in (28a) and (28b):^[19]

Such examples as these render conclusive evidence that when the –eykey-marked Causee NP is available to causatives, it is carried over to their corresponding experientials/direct passives. Recall that the transfer of –eykey marking from causatives to experientials/direct passives is made because –eykey marking is driven by inherent C/case marking; it is simply retained in passivization. Otherwise, there is no chance of realizing it in experientials/direct passives. However, when the embedded lexical verb is intransitive, prior to passivization we first derive the resultant causative verbal complex by attaching the matrix causative morpheme to the embedded intransitive verb, in turn deriving the corresponding passive verb by attaching the PM to the matrix causative verbal complex. In other words, when the embedded lexical verb is intransitive, passivization only applies in the matrix clause after causative/experiential formation. That is why, as in (28a–b), only –ey uyhay passives are fine, as correctly predicted by our analysis.

(29)

Furthermore, the proposed idea of attaching the null PM, thus projecting the two Voice heads in structurally different places also predicts that the sentences such as (30) are acceptable where both –eykey and –ey uyhay phrases are realized. This prediction is borne out.

As in (30), the two instances of the PM passivize the embedded lexical verb phrase and the matrix causative/experiential verbal complex, respectively.

As noted earlier, the two types of particle are not always interchangeably used in passives, as repeated below from (17):

As claimed by Lee (2002, 2003) and Jo (2018), –eykey phrases represent direct actor, whereas –ey uyhay phrases represent indirect actor. This contrast follows from the proposed idea that two types of phrases are generated in the hierarchically different loci of Voice. The former are generated in the embedded [Spec, VoiceP], thus being directly involved in the event denoted by the embedded lexical verb phrase. On the other hand, the latter are generated in the matrix [Spec, VoiceP], thus being indirectly involved in the event denoted by the embedded lexical verb phrase.

In addition, –eykey and –ey uyhay phrases behave in different ways in syntax. Recall that the subject-oriented adverb ilpwule “on purpose” can occur with the –eykey phrase but not with the –ey uyhay phrase, as in (32a–b), which are taken from Choi (2018):

This contrast is ascribed to the fact that the Nom-marked subject in (32a) is base generated, having an Experiencer role, but that in (32b) is derived.

Interlocking with this contrast is the asymmetry between –eykey and –ey uyhay passives in terms of the Acc marking of the Theme argument, as in (33) taken from Choi (2018):

Unlike –eykey passives, –ey uyhay passives cannot have the Theme argument of the lexical verb being Acc marked. In the proposed analysis, this means that the matrix passivization makes the embedded lexical verb cap- “hold” unable to assign Acc Case to the following Theme NP, in accordance with Burzio’s (1981/1986) generalization.^[20] Alternatively, –ey uyhay is disallowed in causatives because there would be two causing events for a single main event.

Still directly relating to two types of particle phrase is the Case alternation of the lexical verb-supporting –ci morpheme before the negation in long-form negation of Korean. In –ey uyhay passives, it is either Nom or Acc marked; but in –eykey passives, it is only Acc marked, as in (34) taken from Choi (2018):

This contrast also follows from the hierarchically different places of passivization. In –ey uyhay passives, passivization occurs in the matrix domain, thus the verbal complex being construed as stative. In this case, Nom/Acc Case alternation is allowed on the affix –ci. By contrast, –eykey passives, passivization occurs in the embedded domain, thus the verbal complex being construed as eventive. In this case, Case alternation is not allowed, but only Acc marking is available to the affix –ci.

5 Passivization of ditransitive verbs

Choi (2018) notes that there are some counterexamples with the animacy restriction with –eykey passives. The cases at point involve verbs such as poi- “be shown” and tulli- “be delivered/be told,” as follows:

Choi argues that these verbs are used as middle/inchoative verbs rather than as passive verbs. However, middle verbs tend to denote a generic situation, while the examples in (35) and (36) describe a nongeneric, episodic situation. Thus, we take it that the two verbs in question can be used as a direct passive verb [in addition to being used as a middle verb in an appropriate context, as argued by Choi (2018)].

How can we instead account for the acceptability of (35) and (36), which apparently violates the animacy restriction with –eykey passives? We argue that –eykey passives with poi- and tulli- are derived in a different way from the general type of –eykey passives. Specifically, the two verbs poi- “show” and tulli- “deliver” are first derived by ditransitiving the transitive verbs po- “see” and tut- “hear” with the addition of the causativizing/transitiving morpheme -I.^[21] After that, the passive morpheme is attached to the resultant ditransitive verb. These steps of derivation are supported by the following facts. First, unlike those in the general type of passives, the –eykey NPs with poi- and tulli- are not an adjunct but an argument as part of the argument structure of the resulting ditransitive verb. Thus, unlike that in (19c), the –eykey-dropping NPs with poi- and tulli- can be topicalized (cf. Choi 2018), as follows:^[22]

Second, since these two verbs at issue do not involve passivization with the embedded verb but with the matrix ditransitiving morpheme, the –ey uyhay “by”-marked NP can be added, without affecting the presence of the –eykey-marked NP, as follows:

These aspects of the –eykey-marked NPs with two verbs in question point to the fact that they behave as a Goal argument like those in the ditransitive verb construction.

6 Conclusion

In sum, morphological –eykey direct passives derive from their causative/experiential counterparts. The former and the latter are apparently of the same form, but the null PM on the transitive lexical verb phrase in the small clause (VoiceP) complement of the matrix causative morpheme converts the Dative –eykey-marked Causee from an argument to an adjunct, besides stripping the lexical transitive verb within it of the ability to assign Accusative Case. The “mobility” restriction on the subject NP with the –eykey phrase in direct passives is attributed to the fact that the Nom-marked subject NP is required to take on the Causer/Experiencer role in this type of passives. By contrast, morphological –ey uyhay direct passives derive from the null PM not on the embedded lexical transitive verb phrase but outside the matrix causative or transitiziving verb complex, thus the matrix subject NP being realized with the particle –ey uyhay rather than –eykey in this type of passives.