Myung-Kwan Park

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

De Gruyter | Published online: March 15, 2021

Abstract

This study investigates the grammatical status of the so-called Dative particle –eykey and its implications on the syntax of Korean morphological/lexical passives. We first argue that this type of passive derives from causative/experiential constructions in this language. The former and the latter involve the same form of verb, but in the process of passivization the null passive morphology on the embedded transitive verb phrase selected by the matrix causative/experiential morpheme demotes the Dative –eykey-marked Causee in embedded [Spec, VoiceP] position from an argument to an adjunct, besides the embedded transitive lexical verb losing the ability to assign Accusative Case. The so-called animacy restriction on the Nom-marked subject a noun phrase (NP) in –eykey passives is ascribed to the requirement that it takes the Causer/Experiencer role in –eykey passives. In contrast, –ey uyhay passives are derived from the null passive morphology attached to the matrix causative verb complex, thus the matrix Causer/Experiencer subject being demoted and realized with the particle –ey uyhay.

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).

(1) a. Cheli-ka Yengi-eykey chayk-ul cwu-ess-ta.
Cheli-Nom Yengi-Dat book-Acc give-Pst-Dcl
“Cheli gave a book to Yengi.”
b. Cheli-ka Yengi-eykey chayk-ul pat-ass-ta.
Cheli-Nom Yengi-Dat book-Acc receive-Pst-Dcl
“Cheli received a book from Yengi.”
c. Na-eykey-nun ku sensayngnim-i mwusew-ess-ta.
I-Dat-Top the teacher-Nom fearful-Pst-Dcl
“I feared the teacher.”

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.

(2) Totwuk-i kyengchal-eykey/-ey uyhay cap-hy-ess-ta.[1]
thief-Nom police-Dat/-by arrest-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“The thief was arrested by a policeman/had a policeman arrest him.”

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).

(3) Ku namwu-ka Cheli-*eykey/-ey uyhay cal-li-ess-ta.
the tree-Nom Cheli-Dat/-by cut-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“The tree was cut by Cheli.”
(4) Cip aph tamcang-i halapeci-*eykey/-ey uyhay hel-ly-ess-ta.
Home front fence-Nom grandfather-Dat/-by pull.down-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“The entrance fence was pulled down by my grandfather.”

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

(5) Ku mwun-i Inho{-*eykey/-ey uyhay} yel-li-ess-ta.
that door-Nom Inho-Dat/-by open-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“That door was opened by Inho.”
(6) Ku namwuskaci-ka Inho{-?eykey/-ey uyhay} kkekk-i-ess-ta.
that tree.branch-Nom Inho-Dat/-by break-CAU/PAS-Past-Ind
“That tree branch was broken by Inho.”

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.

(7) Chwusinswu-ka chi-n thakwu-ka wuikswu-eykey/-ey uyhay
Shinsoo Choo-Nom battered-Rel hit-Nom right fielder-Dat/-by
cap-hy-ess-ta.
catch-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Shinsoo Choo’s battered hit was caught by the right fielder.”
(8) Sonheungmin-uy kongkyek-i sangtay swupiswu-eykey/-ey uyhay
Son Heungmin-Gen attack-Nom opponent defensive player-Dat/-by
mak-hy-ess-ta.
block-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Heungmin Son’s offensive attack was blocked by the opponent defensive player.”

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.

(9) Pascwul-i Yengswu-*eykey/-ey uyhay kkunh-e cy-ess-ta.
rope-Nom Yengswu-to/by cut.off-Peri PAS-Pst-Dcl
“The rope was cut off by Yengswu.”

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]

(10) a. Inho-ka Mina-eykey chayk-ul ilk-hi-ess-ta.
Inho-Nom Mina-Dat book-Acc read-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho made Mina read the book.”
b. Inho-ka Mina-eykey (caki) tali-lul nwul(u)-li-ess-ta.[5]
Inho-Nom Mina-Dat self leg-Acc press-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho had Mina press his own leg.”
c. Inho-ka Mina-eykey nwul(u)-li-ess-ta.
Inho-Nom Mina-Dat press-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho was pressed by Mina.”

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]

(12) a. Inho-ka Mina-eykey ilpwule chayk-ul ilk-hi-ess-ta.
Inho-Nom Mina-Dat deliberately book-Acc read-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho on purpose made Mina read the book.”
b. Inho-ka Mina-eykey ilpwule (tali-lul) nwul(u)-li-ess-ta.
Inho-Nom Mina-to deliberately leg-Acc press-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho on purpose had Mina press his leg,” or “Inho on purpose had an experience of having his leg pressed by Mina,”
but not “Inho was (adversely) affected by Mina pressing his leg on purpose.”

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).

(14) a. *Ku sihem-i Yengswu-eykey chayk-ul ilk-hi-ess-ta. [10]
the exam-Nom Yengwu-Dat book-Acc read-CAU-Pst-Dcl
“The exam made Yengswyu read a book.”
b. *Ku namwu-ka Yengswu-eykey namwuskaci-lul ccic-ky-ess-ta.
the tree-Nom Yengswu-Dat tree branch-Acc tear off-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“The tree had Yengswu tear off the branches.”
c. Can pyeng-i kul-ul/*-eykey koylop-hi-ess-ta.
constant disease-Nom him-Acc/Dat painful-CAU-Pst-Dcl
“The constant disease made him painful.”

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:

(15) a. Isungyep-i chi-n phawul pol-i simphan-eykey
Lee Seung-Yuop-Nom hit-Rel foul ball-Nom umpire-Dat
ilkyek-ul ip-hi-ess-ta.
injure-Acc inflict-CAU-Pst-Dcl
“The foul ball that Lee Seung-Yuop hit inflicted a blow on the umpire.”
b. Hwanguycyo-uy kongkyek-i Canghyenswu-eykey khu-n swupi
Hwang Uy-Jo-Gen attack-Nom Jang Hyun-Soo-Dat huge offensive
pwutam-ul ci-wu-ess-ta.
burden-Acc put-CAU-Pst-Dcl
“Hwang Uy-Jo’s attack placed a huge offensive burden on Jang Hyun-Soo.”

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:

(16) a. Chwusinswu-ka chi-n thakwu-ka wuikswu-eykey/-ey uyhay
Shinsoo Choo-Nom battered-Rel hit-Nom right fielder-Dat/-by
cap-hy-ess-ta.
catch-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Shinsoo Choo’s battered hit was caught by the left fielder.”
b. Sonheungmin-uy kongkyek-i sangtay swupiswu-eykey/-ey uyhay
Son Heungmin-Gen attack-Nom opponent defensive player-Dat/-by
mak-hy-ess-ta.
block-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Heungmin Son’s offensive attack was blocked by the opponent defensive player.”

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:

(17) a. Swuni-ka moki-{eykey/#ey uyhay} mwul-li-ess-ta.
Swuni-Nom mosquito-{Dat/#by} bite-EXP/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Swuni was bitten by a mosquito.”
b. Kanchep-i taythonglyeng-{#eykey/ey uyhay} cap-hi-ess-ta.
spy-Nom president-{#Dat/by} catch-EXP/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“The spy was caught by the president.”
c. Pyekci-ka appa-{eykey/ey uyhay} ttut-ki-ess-ta.[12]
wallpaper-Nom dad-{Dat/by} tear.off-EXP/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“The wallpaper was torn off by dad.”

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):

(18) a. Inho-ka Mina-eykey/(?)lul chayk-ul ilk-hi-ess-ta.
Inho-Nom Mina-Dat/Acc book-Acc read-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho made Mina read the book.”
b. Inho-ka Mina-eykey/-*lul (caki) tali-lul nwul(u)-li-ess-ta.
Inho-Nom Mina-Dat/-Acc self leg-Acc press-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho had Mina press his own leg.”
cf. Yengi-ka ku kay-ey/-lul kapang-ul mwul-li-ess-ta.[14]
Yengi-Nom that dog-Dat/-Acc bag-Acc bite-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Yengi made that dog bite the bag.” (causative)
“Yengi had that dog bite the bag.” (experiential)
c. Inho-ka Mina-eykey/-*lul nwulu-li-ess-ta.
Inho-Nom Mina-Dat/-Acc press-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho was pressed by Mina.”

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.

(19) a. Mina(-eykey)-nun Inho-ka chayk-ul ilk-hi-ess-ta.
Mina-Dat-Top Inho-Nom book-Acc read-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho made Mina read the book.”
b. Mina(*-eykey)-nun Inho-ka (caki) tali-lul nwulu-li-ess-ta.
Mina-Dat/-Top Inho-Nom self leg-Acc press-EXP/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho had Mina press his own leg.”
cf. Ku kay-(ey)-nun Yengi-ka kapang-ul mwul-li-ess-ta. (√causative/*experiential)
that dog-Dat-Top Yengi-Nom bag-Acc bite-CAU/EXP-Pst-Dcl
“Yengi made that dog bite the bag.” (causative)
“Yengi had that dog bite the bag.” (experiential)
c. Mina*(-eykey)-nun Inho-ka nwulu-li-ess-ta.
Mina-Dat/-Top Inho-Nom press-EXP/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho was pressed by Mina.”

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.

(20) a. Inho-ka [e] chayk-ul ilk-hi-ess-ta.
Inho-Nom book-Acc read-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho made [the person given in the context] read the book.”
b. Inho-ka [e] (caki) tali-lul nwulu-li-ess-ta.
Inho-Nom self leg-Acc press-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho had his own leg pressed by someone.”
c. Inho-ka [e] nwulu-li-ess-ta.
Inho-Nom press-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Inho was pressed by someone.”

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 VoicePPAS 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 VoicePPAS) 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]

(22) Totwuk-i [kyengchal-eykey cap-PM]-hi-ess-ta.[17]
thief-Nom policeman-to catch-PAS-CAU/EXP-Pst-Dcl
“The thief was caught by a policeman/got himself caught by a policeman.”

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):

(23) Jean s’est fait sauver par un policier.
Jean Refl.Perf faire(p.p.) save by a police.officer
“Jean made a police officer save him.” (reflexive causative) or
“Jean was saved by a police officer.” (passive)

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.

(24) Swuni-ka kangaci-eykey son-i mwul-li-ess-ta.
Swuni-Nom puppy-Dat hand-Nom bite-EXP/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“*Swuni had the puppy bite her hand.”
“Swuni was bitten in her hand by the puppy.”

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 (VoicePPAS) 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]

(27) a. Cheli-ka emma-lul/*-eykey nwup-hi-ess-ta.
Cheli-Nom mother-Acc/-Dat lie.down-CAU-Pst-Dcl
“Cheli laid down his mother.”
b. Cheli-ka oli-lul/*-eykey nal-li-ess-ta.
Cheli-Nom duck-Acc/-Dat fly-CAU/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Cheli flew a duck.”
(28) a. Emma-ka Cheli-ey uyhay/*-eykey nwup-hi-ess-ta.
mother-Nom Cheli-by/-Dat lie.down-PAS-Pst-Dcl
“His mother was laid down by Cheli.”
b. Oli-ka Cheli-ey uyhay/*-eykey nal-li-ess-ta.
duck-Nom Cheli-by/-Dat fly-CAU-Pst-Dcl
“The duck was flown by Cheli.”

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.

(30) Hwanca-uy phal-i [uysa-ey uyhay [kanhosa-eykey cap-PM]-hi-PM]-ess-ta.
patient-Gen arm-Nom doctor-by nurse-by hold-PAS-CAU-PAS-Pst-Dcl
“The doctor got the patient’s arms held by the nurse.”

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):

(31) a. Swuni-ka moki-{eykey/#ey uyhay} mwul-li-ess-ta.
Swuni-Nom mosquito-{Dat/#by} bite-EXP/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“Swuni was bitten by a mosquito.”
b. Kanchep-i taythonglyeng-{#eykey/ey uyhay} cap-hi-ess-ta.
spy-Nom president-{#Dat/by} catch-EXP/PAS-Pst-Dcl
“The spy was caught by the president.”
c. Pyekci-ka appa-{eykey/ey uyhay} ttut-ki-ess-ta.
wallpaper-Nom dad-{Dat/by} tear.off-EXP/PAS-Pst-decl
“The wallpaper was torn off by dad.”

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):

(32) a. Yengmi-ka Chelswu-eykey ilpwule cap-hy-ess-ta.
Yengmi-Nom Chelswu-Dat on purpose catch-PM-CAU/EXP-Pst-Dcl
“Yengmi was on purpose caught by Chelswu.”
b. *Yengmi-ka Chelswu-ey uyhay ilpwule cap-hy-esst-a.
Yengmi-Nom Chelswu-by on purpose catch-CAU/EXP-PM-Pst-Dcl
“Yengmi was on purpose caught by Chelswu.” (intended)

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):

(33) a. Yengmi-ka Chelswu-eykey son-ul cap-hy-ess-ta.
Yengmi-Nom Chelswu-Dat hand-Acc catch-PM-CAU/EXP-Pst-Dcl
“Yengmi had Chelswu hold her hand.”
b. *Yengmi-ka Chelswu-ey uyhay son-ul cap-hy-esst-a.
Yengmi-Nom Chelswu-by hand-Acc catch-CAU/EXP-PM-Pst-Dcl
“(int.) Yengmi had Chelswu hold her hand.”

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):

(34) a. Yengmi-ka Chelswu-eykey acik cap-hi-ci-lul/? *-ka anh-ass-ta.
Yengmi-Nom Chelswu-Dat still catch-PM-CAU-Nm-Acc/-Nom not-Pst-Dcl
“Yengmi has not been caught by Chelwu yet.”
b. Yengmi-ka Chelswu-ey uyhay acik cap-hi-ci-lul/-ka anh-ass-ta.
Yengmi-Nom Chelswu-by still catch-CAU-PM-Nm-Acc/-Nom not-Pst-Dcl

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:

(35) Yenghwa cangmyen-i Cheli-eykey po-y-ess-ta.
movie scene-Nom Cheli-Dat see-CAU-PM-Pst-Dcl
“The movie scene was shown to Cheli.”
(36) Khullaysik umak soli-ka Cheli-eykey tul-ly-ess-ta.
classic music tune-Nom Cheli-Dat hear-CAU-PM-Pst-Dcl
“The classic music (sound) was delivered to Cheli.”

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]

(37) Cheli(-eykey)-nun yenghwa cangmyen-i po-y-ess-ta.
Cheli(-Dat)-Top movie scene-Nom see-CAU-PM-Pst-Dcl
“The movie scene was shown to Cheli.”
(38) Cheli(-eykey)-nun khullaysik umak soli-ka tul-ly-ess-ta.
Cheli(-Dat)-Top classic music tune-Nom hear-CAU-PM-Pst-Dcl
“The classic music (sound) was delivered to Cheli.”

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:

(39) Yenghwa cangmyen-i Yengi-ey uyhay Cheli-eykey po-y-ess-ta.
movie scene-Nom Yengi-by Cheli-to see-CAU-PM-Pst-Dcl
“The movie scene was shown to Cheli by Yengi.”
(40) Khullaysik umak soli-ka Yengi-ey uyhay Cheli-eykey tul-ly-ess-ta.
classic music tune-Nom Yengi-by Cheli-to hear-CAU-PM-Pst-Dcl
“The classic music (sound) was delivered to Cheli by Yengi.”

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.

Appendix: the list of 100 verbs provided by Yang (1979) [taken from Oshima (2006)]

Stem verb Suffixed form Passive Causative
(1) pota “see” poita
(2) ssata “excrete” ssaita
(3) ketta “roll up, fold up” kethita
(4) mekta “eat” mekhita/mekita
(5) palpta “step on” palphita
(6) epta “carry, take x on one’s back” ephita
(7) ilkta “read” ilkhita
(8) capta “catch, seize” caphita
(9) ciphta “lean on(a cane, etc.)” ciphhita
(10) ccikta “print” ccikhita
(11) kalta “whet, sharpen” kallita
(12) kalta “plow, cultivate” kallita
(13) kkulta “pull, draw” kkullita
(14) nwuluta “press” nwullita
(15) talta “hang, attach” tallita
(16) tulta “lift up tullita
(17) ttalwuta “follow, go after” ttallita
(18) mwulta “bite, hold x in one’s mouth” nwullita
(19) puluta “call, sing” pullita
(20) pulta “blow” pullita
(21) ppalta “wash(clothes)” ppallita
(22) sitta “load” sillita
(23) thelta “shake off, beat off” thellita
(24) thulta “twist” thullita
(25) phulta “solve, undo” phullita
(26) helta “break, destroy” hellita
(27) kamta “wind x(round y)” kamkita
(28) kamta “wash(hair)” kamkita
(29) kkakkta “cut, shave” kkakkita
(30) takkta “wipe, polish” takkita
(31) mwukkta “bind, tie up” nwukkita
(32) pista “comb” piskita
(33) ssista “wash” ssista
(34) anta “hold, embrace” ankita
(35) ssahta “pile up, stack” ssahita ?
(36) thuta “open, break x open” thuita ?
(37) phata “dig, carve” phaita ?
(38) kkocta “stick in, stab” kkochita ?
(39) tatta “shut, close” tathita ?
(40) tephta “cover” tephhita ?
(41) twicipta “reverse, turn inside out” twiciphita ?
(42) maycta “tie” maychita ?
(43) Mwutta “bury” mwuthita ?
(44) encta “put, lay” enchita ?
(45) icta “forget” ichita ?
(46) cepta “fold” cephita ?
(47) ccikta “stamp” ccikhita ?
(48) ccikta “hack, cut” ccikhita ?
(49) ccikta “photograph, shoot” ccikhita ?
(50) kaluta “divide, split” kallita ?
(51) kelta “hang, suspend” kellita ?
(52) malta “roll” mallita ?
(53) (may)talta “hang, suspend” (may)tallita ?
(54) milta “push, shove” millta ?
(55) Yelta “open” yellita ?
(56) huntulta “shake, wave” huntullita ?
(57) kkunhta “cut, sever” kkunhkita ?
(58) nakkta “catch(a fish, etc.), entrap” nakkkita ?
(59) ttutta “pluck, tear off” ttutkita ?
(60) sekkta “mix” sekkita ?
(61) nohta “put, place” nohita ??
(62) ssuta “use” ssuita ??
(63) makta “block up” makhita ??
(64) kalta “replace, change” callita ??
(65) tutta “hear, listen to” tullita ??
(66) pelta “earn, gain” pellita ??
(67) caluta “cut, sever” callita ??
(68) thelta “rob” thellita ??
(69) kkekkta “break, bend, fold” kkekkita ??
(70) (twulle)ssata “wrap” (twulle)ssaita *
(71) mouta “collect” moita *
(72) chata “kick” chaita *
(73) tulpokkta “bully, nag” tulpokkita *
(74) kulkta “scratch” kulkhita *
(75) pakta “knock in, drive in” pakhita *
(76) ppopta “pull out, draw out” ppophita *
(77) (son)kkopta “count on one’s fingers, regard x as y” (son)kkophita *
(78) ppetta “spread, extend” ppethita *
(79) ppayasta “deprive” ppayaskita *
(80) ccochta “chase, run after” ccochkita *
(81) ccicta “tear, rip” ccickta *
(82) nwuta “excrete” nwuita *
(83) ipta “put on, wear(clothes)” iphita *
(84) mwulta “pay(a fine, etc.)” mwullita *
(85) alta “know” allita *
(86) nemta “go over, pass” nemkita *
(87) mathta “keep, take charge of” mathkita *
(88) pesta “take off(clothes), strip oneself of” peskita *
(89) ppumta “blow off, spout” ppumkita *
(90) sinta “put on(shoes, etc.)” sinkita *
(91) phumta “hold, embrace” phumkita *
(92) kkita “put on(a ring, etc.), fix” kkiwuta *
(93) meyta “carry x on the shoulder” meywuta *
(94) ssuta “write” ssuywuta *
(95) ssuta “put on(a hat, etc.)” ssuywuta *
(96) cita “carry x on one’s back” ciwuta *
(97) chata “wear(a belt, a watch, etc.), carry(a sword, etc.)” chaywuta *
(98) chita “tie (ankle bands, etc.)” chiwuta *
(99) thata “ride, take (a train, etc.)” thaywuta *
(100) chita “take (an exam, etc.)” chilwuta *

References

Baker, Mark. 1985. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Search in Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin and Thuan Tran. 2015. “The nature of the passive, with an analysis of Vietnamese.” Lingua 165: 133–72. Search in Google Scholar

Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government binding approach. Reidel: Dordrecht. Search in Google Scholar

Choi, Kiyong. 2018. “VP periphery in passive constructions: -eykey passives vs. -ey uyhay passives in Korean (in Korean).” Studies in Generative Grammar 28–2: 295–346. Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. “The grammaticization of passive morphology.” Studies in Linguistics 14(1): 25–72. Search in Google Scholar

Hoshi, Hiroto. 1991. “The generalized projection principle and its implications for passive constructions.” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 13: 53–89. Search in Google Scholar

Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1990. “HAVE/GET/MAKE/LET + Object + (to-) Infinitive in the SEU Corpus.” In Bumpo to Imi no Aida: Kunihiro Tetsuya Kyoju Kanreki Taikan Kinen Robunshu (Between Grammar and Meaning: A Festschrift for Professor Tetsuya Kunihiro), ed. S. Tsuchida, Z. Uwano and S. Yamada, 181–203. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Search in Google Scholar

Inoue, Kazuko. 1995. “Causative have and experiential have.” English Linguistics 12: 73–95. Search in Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press. Search in Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1940. A modern english grammar on historical principles, Part V (fourth vol.): Syntax. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Search in Google Scholar

Jo, Jinwoo. 2018. “On the overlap between causatives and passives in Korean.” An handout/PPT read at SICOGG 20: August 8, 2018. Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Kyunhwan. 1994. “Adversity and retained object passive constructions.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 4, ed. N. Akatsuka, 331–46. Stanford: CSLI. Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Kyumin. 2008. “Applicatives in Korean causatives and passives.” Ms., University of Toronto. Search in Google Scholar

Kirchner, Gustav. 1941. “The road to standard English. Two more cases in point: ‘The Conclusive Perfect’ and ‘To be for + -ing.’” English studies 23: 143–53. Search in Google Scholar

Klaiman, M.-H. 1991. Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Kruisinga, Etsko. 1931. A Handbook of Present-day English, Part II: English Accidence and Syntax 1 (5th edn). Groningen: Noordhoff. Search in Google Scholar

Kuroda, Shige Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Search in Google Scholar

Łęcki, Andrzej M. 2010. Grammaticalisation Paths of ‘Have’ in English. (Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 24). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Jung-tag. 2002. “Cepmisa phitongmwunuy nungtongcwu phyociey kwanhan yenkwu [A study on agent marking in morphological passives].” Hangul 258: 137–56. Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Jung-tag. 2003. “Phitongmwunuy nungtongcwu phyoci senthayk wenli [Conditions for selecting agent markers in passives].” Hangul 258: 137–56. Search in Google Scholar

Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v- Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Search in Google Scholar

Oshima, David Y. 2006. “Adversity and Korean/Japanese passives: Constructional analogy.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15(2): 137–166. Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Frank R. 1987. The English Verb (2nd edition = 3rd edition). Longman Linguistics Library). London: Longman. Search in Google Scholar

Park, Jeong-Woon. 1994. Morphological causatives in Korean: Problems in grammatical polysemy and constructional relations. PhD dissertation. Berkeley: University of California. Search in Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Search in Google Scholar

Strang, Barbara. 1970. A history of english. London: Methuen. Search in Google Scholar

Tomozawa, Hirotaka. 2002. “A semantic analysis of causative and experiential HAVE.” Hitotsubashi Journal of Arts and Sciences 43(1): 1–9. Search in Google Scholar

Uda, Chiharu. 1994. Complex predicates in Japanese. New York: Garland. Search in Google Scholar

Visser, Fredericus Th. 1973. A historical syntax of the English language, Part 3, second half: Syntactical Units with Two or More Verbs. Leiden: Brill. Search in Google Scholar

Washio, Ryuichi. 1993. “When causatives mean passive: A cross-linguistic perspective.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2: 45–90. Search in Google Scholar

Yamakawa, Kikuo. 1958. “On the construction ‘have (or get) + object + past participle’.” Anglica 3: 164–96. Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Dong Whee. 1979. “Kwuke uy phi/sa-tong [Passive and Causative Verbs in Korean] Hangeul.” Journal of the Korean Language Society 203: 33–49. Search in Google Scholar

Yeon, Jae Hoon. 1991. “The Korean causative-passive correlation revisited.” Language Research 27: 337–358. Search in Google Scholar

Yeon, Jae Hoon. 2002. “The causative-passive ambiguity and the notion of ‘contiguity’ as a crucial factor in explaining the retained-object passive constructions.” Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea 32: 197–221. Search in Google Scholar

Yeon, Jae Hoon. 2003. Korean grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning: Vol. 1 of Saffron Korean Linguistics Series. London: Saffron Books. Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-01-08
Revised: 2020-11-13
Accepted: 2020-12-06
Published Online: 2021-03-15

© 2021 Myung-Kwan Park, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.