Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T08:22:53.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The -eci Syncretism in Korean: Implications for the Theory of v and Voice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2024

Hyun Kyoung Jung
Hyun Kyoung Jung*
Affiliation:
Silla University, Busan, South Korea
*
hkjung@silla.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the syncretism exhibited by the Korean verbal suffix -eci. In addition to its widely known appearance in the passive construction, -eci can also be used to derive verbs expressing potentiality. In this paper, I show that two independently motivated theoretical tools — (i) the articulated verbal structure with root, verbalizer, and Voice; and (ii) the assumption that morphological identity signifies the morpheme's realization of an identical syntactic head — accurately explain the passive-potential syncretism in Korean. Specifically, I argue that -eci realizes a syntactic head that the passive and potential structures have in common: vGO, the verbalizer marking the eventuality of ‘change’. I attribute the systematic morpho-syntactic and semantic contrasts between passives and potentials to the (non)existence of VoicePASS, the projection introducing an implicit external argument. The analysis successfully captures the properties of the other constructions formed upon -eci — namely, derived change-of-state and lexical inchoative predicates.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article étudie le syncrétisme du suffixe verbal coréen -eci. Outre son apparition bien connue dans la construction passive, -eci peut également être utilisé pour dériver des verbes exprimant la potentialité. Dans cet article, je montre que deux outils théoriques motivés indépendamment — (i) la structure verbale articulée avec la racine, le verbalisateur et la voix ; et (ii) la supposition que l'identité morphologique signifie la réalisation par le morphème d'une tête syntaxique identique — expliquent avec précision le syncrétisme passif-potentiel en coréen. Plus précisément, je soutiens que -eci réalise une tête syntaxique que les structures passives et potentielles ont en commun : vGO, le verbalisateur marquant l’éventualité du « changement ». J'attribue les contrastes morpho-syntaxiques et sémantiques systématiques entre les passifs et les potentiels à la (non-)existence de VoicePASS, la projection introduisant un argument externe implicite. L'analyse capture avec succès les propriétés des autres constructions formées sur -eci, à savoir les prédicats dérivés de changement d'état et les prédicats lexicaux inchoatifs.

Keywords

syncretismpassivepotentialinchoativeschange of statesyncrétismepassifpotentielinchoatifchangement d'état
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , March 2024 , pp. 2 - 45
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper developed from a study presented at the Korea Association of Language Sciences (KALS) in February 2019 and as part of an invited talk at the Workshop on Morphosyntax and Language Universals hosted at Nanzan University in January 2020. I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the invaluable feedback of reviewers, Hiroshi Aoyagi, Jaehoon Choi, Heidi Harley, and the participants of the KALS meeting and Workshop on Morphosyntax and Language Universals. All shortcomings of this work are my own.

References

Ackema, Peter, and Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 2005. Middles. In The Blackwell companion to syntax III, ed. Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 131–203. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2009. On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes: the case of (Greek) derived nominals. In Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, ed. Giannakidou, Anastasia and Rathert, Monika, 253–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Frascarelli, Mara, 187–211. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopolou, Elena, and Schäfer, Florian. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations: a layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Cano, Mariangeles, Iordăchioaia, Gianina, Martin, Fabienne, and Schäfer, Florian. 2013. ‘Direct participation’ and ‘agent exclusivity’ effects in derived nominals and beyond. In Categorization and category change, ed. Iordăchioaia, Gianina, Roy, Isabelle, and Takamine, Kaori, 153–180. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where is morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13(4): 571–612.Google Scholar
Angelopoulos, Nikos, Collins, Chis, and Terzi, Arhonto. 2020. Greek and English passives, and the role of by-phrases. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon W. 1980. In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3(3): 297–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Belder, Marijke, and van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2015. How to merge a root. Linguistic Inquiry 46(4): 625–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D., and Harley, Heidi. 2017. Suppletion is local: Evidence from Hiaki. In The structure of words at the interfaces, ed. Newell, Heather, Noonan, Máire, Piggott, Glyne, and Travis, Lisa, 141–159. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2012. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16(1): 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2018. Is the passive by-phrase an adjunct. Ms., New York University.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 1989. The middle: Where semantics and morphology meet. In Papers from the Student Conference on Linguistics (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11), ed. Branigan, Phil, Gaulding, Jill, Kubo, Miori, and Murasugi, Kumiko, 16–30. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2014. On diagnosing complement-taking roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3/4): 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, Maŕ́ia Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Maŕ́ia Cristina. 2014. Alternating unaccusatives and the distribution of roots. Lingua 141, 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, Maŕ́ia Cristina. 2015. Causation without a CAUSE. Syntax 18:4, 388–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2004. Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternation. In The unaccusativity puzzle, ed. Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Everaert, Martin, 137–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi. 2005. Consuming results in Italian and English: Flavors of v. In Aspectual inquiries, ed. Kempchinsky, Paula and Slabakova, Roumyana, 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, obligation and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2): 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukuda, Shin. 2013. Flavors of Voice and Selection of vPs in Japanese. Paper presented at the little v workshop, Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from building 20: A Festschrift for Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–108. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20: A Festschrift for Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hallman, Peter. 2013. Predication and movement in passive. Lingua 125, 76–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. In Yearbook of linguistic variation 2, ed. Rooryck, Johan and Pica, Pierre, 29–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2008. On the causative construction. In Handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. Miyagawa, Shigeru and Saito, Mamoru, 20–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, ed. Giannakidou, Anastasia and Rathert, Monika, 320–342. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the independence of Voice and v. Lingua 28, 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3/4): 225– 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2017. The ‘bundling’ hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. In The Verbal Domain, ed. D'Alessandro, Roberta, Franco, Irene, and Gallego, Ángel J., 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Mixed nominalizations, short verb movements and object shift in English. In Proceedings of North East Linguistics Society (GLSA), ed. Tamanji, Pinus N. and Kusumoto, Kyomi, 143–157. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14(1): 25–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Causatives and Transitivity, ed. Comrie, Bernard and Polinsky, Maria, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1): 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, Ki-Sun. 1991. The passive construction and case in Korean. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 17, 130–143. Berkeley, CA: University of California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, Dukkyo. 2002. Light Verb Just As a Little v. In Stowers and Poell (eds.), In Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 26, ed. Stacey Stowers and Nathan Poell, 59–74. University of Kansas.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, Hyun Kyoung. 2014a. Korean first syntax as non-Voice-bundling. Studies in Generative Grammar 24(1): 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, Hyun Kyoung. 2014b. On the syntax of applicative and causative constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Jung, Hyun Kyoung. 2016a. On the Affected Construction in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 26(2): 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, Hyun Kyoung. 2016b. On the verbalizing suffixes in Korean and their implications for syntax and semantics. Lingua 179, 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina. 2006. A unified analysis of passives, anticausatives and reflexives. In Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics, Vol. 6, ed. Bonami, Olivier and Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo, 201–225. Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.Google Scholar
Kang, Sun-Young. 1997. Unaccusative verbs in Korean — with a special reference to the verbs ci- and toy-. Studies in Generative Grammar 7(2): 115–152.Google Scholar
Kastner, Itamar. 2020. Voice at the interfaces: The syntax, semantics, and morphology of the Hebrew verb. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1980. Passive is phrasal (not sentential or lexical). In Lexical grammar, ed. Teun, Hoekstra, van der Hülst, Harry, and Moortgat, Michael, 181–214. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Key, Gregory. 2013. The morphosyntax of the Turkish causative construction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Kim, Min-Joo. 2002. The absence of the adjective category in Korean. Ms., University of Massachusetts. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TU4NzlkM/MinJoo%20Adjective.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2013. Towards a null theory of the passive. Lingua 125: 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. Zaring, Laurie Ann and Rooryck, Johan, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41(3): 357–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 506–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Dongsik. 2015. Hankwuke pocotongsa ‘-(e)cita'ey kwanhan soko: ehwithongsaloncek cepkun [On Korean auxiliary verb ‘-(e)cita’: An l-syntax approach]. Korean Journal of Linguistics 40(4): 661–673.Google Scholar
Lim, Dongsik and Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 2012. The syntax and semantics of inchoatives as directed motion: The case of Korean. In Telicity, change and state, ed. Demonte, Violeta and McNally, Louise, 212–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, Rita, 1983. On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14(3): 421–446.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, ed. Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa, and Williams, Alexander, 201–225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Penn Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1975. Review of Chomsky, Studies on semantics in generative grammar. Studies in English Linguistics 3, 209–311.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2011. Blocking and causatives: Unexpected competition across derivations, In Proceedings of the Arizona Linguistics Circle 4, ed. Schertz, Jessamyn, Hogue, Alan, Bell, Dane, Brenner, Daniel, and Wray, Samantha. Tucson: University of Arizona Linguistics Circle.Google Scholar
Mok, Jung-soo, and Kim, Yeong-jung. 2006. Hankwuke phidongmwunuy kocowa kanunguy uymi haysek [A structure of passive constructions in Korean and their meaning ‘Potential’]. Inmwun Ene [Lingua Humanitatis] 8: 369–387.Google Scholar
Myler, Neil. 2016. Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nam, Sukyong. 2011. ‘-Eojida‘ uymi kochaley tayhan silon: Yuhyenghakcek kwancemeyse [An essay on the meanings of ‘-eojida‘: A typological perspective]. Emwun Yenkwu [Journal of the Research Society of Language and Literature] 39(3): 175–202.Google Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, I. 2010. On the morphology of complex adjectives. Doctoral Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Park, Jeong-Woon. 1994. Morphological causatives in Korean: Problems in grammatical polysemy and constructional relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Park, Sang Doh, and Whitman, John. 2003. Direct movement passives in Korean and Japanese. In Japanese/Korean linguistics 12, ed. McClure, William, 307–321. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Park, Sang Doh. 2005. Parameters of passive constructions in English and Korean. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Postal, Paul M.. 1977. Toward a universal characterization of passivization. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Whistler, Kenneth, Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., Chiarello, Chris, Jaeger, Jeri J., Petruck, Miriam, Thompson, Henry, Javkin, Ronya, and Woodbury, Anthony, 394–417. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Pitteroff, Marcel. 2015. Non-canonical middles: A study of personal let-middles in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18: 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18(2): 267–310.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The syntax of (anti-)causatives: External arguments in change-of-state contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language 61(4): 821–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sichel, Ivy. 2010. Event structure constraints in nominalization. In The syntax of nominalizations across languages and frameworks, ed. Alexiadou, Artemis and Rathert, Monika, 151–190. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Son, Minjeong. 2006. Causation and syntactic decomposition of events. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Son, Minjeong. 2008. Resultatives in Korean revisited: Complementation versus adjunction. In Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 35, ed. Svenonius, Peter and Tolskaya, Inna, 89–113. CASTL, Tromsø.Google Scholar
Song, Sanghoun, and Jae-Woong, Choe. 2007. Type hierarchies for passive forms in Korean. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. Stefan Müller, 250–270. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tubino-Blanco, Mercedes. 2011. Causatives in minimalism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Matthew. 2020. Argument structure and argument-marking in Choctaw. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin, 1981. On the notions ‘‘lexically related’’ and ‘‘head of a word’’. Linguistic Inquiry 12(2): 234–274.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1987. Implicit arguments, the binding theory, and control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(2): 151–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon. 2000. When causatives meet passives in Korean. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 249–268.Google Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon. 2003. Korean grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning. London: Saffron Books.Google Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon. 2015. Passives. In The handbook of Korean linguistics, ed. Brown, Lucien and Yeon, Jaehoon, 116–136. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon, and Brown, Lucien. 2011. Korean: A comprehensive grammar. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa and Oh, Eunjeong. 2007. On the syntactic composition of manner and motion. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar