Earticle

The so-called serial verb constructions (SVCs) permit Case-alternation, causing the goal to bear possession. For example, while the verb sa ‘buy’ in Korean is a simple transitive verb, the verb buy in English is a ditransitive verb, causing the goal to bear possession; hence, the genuine counterpart of buy is not sa, but sa-cwu ‘buy-give’. This helps us to cultivate the idea that the Korean counterparts of the English ditransitive verbs are the SVCs such as sa-cwu ‘buy-give’. This paper is based on Lee’s (2007b) argument the Korean counterpart of the English ditransitive verb give is the verb cwu base-generated on v in Chomsky’s (1995, 1999) vP-structure (cf. Harley 2002, Jung and Miyagawa 2004). The contribution of the v head is the change-of-state predicate CAUSE (Harley 2002), which induces the goal to bear possession; hence, the verb cwu is a causative verb. This is in accordance with the real generalization that only causative verbs in Korean allow the accusative/dative alternation (Jung and Miyagawa 2004). The transitive verb on V undergoes verbal suffixation to the causative verb cwu on v; hence, a dative (causative) SVC.

The purpose of this paper is to study and survey the causative construction with the view that English causatives differ from others in at least one type of causative constructions, that involves lexical and morphological causatives. There are only a few lexical causatives in English which are related in events but unrelated in surface forms. In Modern English, however there are a variety of deadjectival and denominal causative verbs which have fallen into this category with the loss inflections, and accordingly, which have the identical morphology with adjectives and nouns and even with intransitive. Therefore the so called morphological causatives with the affixes such as -ify, -ize, -en, en-, etc. cannot be all treated as causatives since some or not a few of these verbs are used both transitively and intransitively. Then these affixes which probably began to be used with the loss of other inflected forms must be treated as verbal affixes denoting diathesis alternation rather than causative affixes. In view of these idiosyncratic properties of English causatives, the present work classifies English causative construction into two types i.e., Type 1 and Type 2 ; the former includes the lexical and morphological causatives, and the latter corresponds to the traditional causatives. This distinction is based on the fact that both types with the underlying meaning CAUSE, presuppose two events, i.e., causing event and caused event, however their syntactic realization and the subsequent semantic implications differ from each other : in Type 1, the causing event and caused event are motivated and committed by the identical causer and syntactically realized in a single-predicate, while in Type 2 construction, two events are expressed in two separate predicates and ascribed to separate beings, i.e., causing event to causer and caused event to causee. An analysis to define causative construction and to identify and classify causative types is developed and their properties are investigated. English causative construction is syntactically divided into two types; the two causative types differ in syntactic realization as mentioned above, while when in both types can be identical in meaning. And it follows this distinction that in Type 1 causative construction eventuality, which is the major semantic property denoted by causer, is manipulative, which in Type 2 it is directive.

Accomplishment events typically show that a structure expresses movement away from or toward an endpoint state and induces change of location/state). This is what the causative cwu- and benefactive suffix (a/e) cwu-constructions in Korean show. The causative verb cwu is a causative signature compatible with accomplishments, which is the reason why the causative verb cwu cannot be translated into give in English. Some tests are further taken to identify whether the verb cwu is a dative verb cwu or a causative verb cwu, by examining their implicational semantic properties. The benefactive suffix (a/e) cwu is base-generated on v when it forms a serial verb, attaching to the dative verb. There necessarily arises a relation of ownership between the goal and the theme, which is triggered by the benefactive feature of (a/e) cwu on v, which induces change of ownership. This induces the gradable adverb cemcem ‘gradually’ to be compatible with the benefactive suffix (a/e) cwu sentences. The benefactive possessor should be [+animate] and the [ACC-ACC] order displays an animacy constraint. This is the reason why the benefactive suffix (a/e) cwu constructions should be translated into English double object constructions.

This paper is aimed at arguing against the proposition of Gross (1975) who suggested that "causative movement verb constructions" be paraphrased by the formula "causative verb + movement verb", and presenting counter-evidence. To begin with, we observed a general classification of causatives and applied its distributional properties to the French causative movement verb constructions. By verifying that the infinitival complements in these two constructions should be divided into two different structures: simple and complex, we proposed that infinitival complements in the latter case be treated separately from the spatio-temporal perspective. Finally, we concluded, by adopting temporal adverbials in these constructions, that our argument has been well-formed and the proposition of Gross(1975) cannot be maintained

이 글은 그동안 이루어진 중세국어의 피․사동사 파생법 연구의 성과를 정리하고, 여기에서 발견되는 쟁점과 앞으로 해결해야 할 과제를 탐색해 보기 위한 것이다. 그동안의 상당한 수준의 연구가 이루어졌지만, 접미사 목록의 작성 문제, 동일 접미사로의 판정 여부 등 구체적인 문제에 있어서는 많은 쟁점이 남아 있고 해결해야 할 과제도 많았다. 피동 접미사와 관련해서는 기존에 접미사 ‘-이(ɦi)-’에 의한 파생으로 보았던 것 중에 ‘-이(i)-’가 통합한 경우가 많았으며, 중세어의 ‘-이(ɦi)-’는 모두 동질적인 것이 아니라 공시적 교체형인 것과 통시적 변화형인 것이 있다. 특히 ㄷ불규칙 어간을 어근으로 한 ‘들이-’는 ‘-이(ɦi)-’가 아닌 ‘-이-’에 의한 피동사이다. ‘들이-’의 어근은 ‘듣-’의 불규칙 어간형 ‘드르-’와 관련된 것이다. 그동안 독립적 접미사 형태로 인정되지 않기도 했던 ‘-ㅣ-’는 1음절 어간을 어근으로 하여 통합하면서 약어미와 같은 성조 실현 패턴을 보이는 분명한 접미사이다. 사동 접미사에는 ‘이’계 접미사와 ‘오’계 접미사, 복합형, ‘-ᄋᆞ/으-’ 등 다양한 접미사가 존재했는데 이는 각 유형의 접미사들이 독특한 의미 기능을 지녔기 때문인 것으로 보인다. 기존에 사동 접미사의 하나로 다루어지기도 했던 ‘-ᄫᆞ-’(>‘-오-’)는 사동 접미사가 아니라 공접사일 가능성이 높다. 피․사동사 파생의 어근 가운데에는 활용에서는 발견되지 않는 불규칙 교체형이 발견되기도 한다(예：눌이-). ‘살이-’의 어근도 ‘살-’이 아닌 ‘사ᄅᆞ-’일 가능성이 있다. 끝으로 피․사동 접미사와 외형상 유사하면서도 단순히 동사 파생 기능을 하는 ‘-이-’와 공접사 ‘-이-’가 별개의 접미사인지도 밝혀야 할 과제이다.

The Aim of this paper is to survey the results and issues of the researches on the Middle Korean causative/passive verb derivation. Meanwhile, this paper will suggest issues and challenges that need to be more discussed and solved in the future researches. Although there are considerable research achievements on this subject both in quantity and in quality, there are still more issues and challenges, such as those of making a list of the causative/passive suffixes correctly and judging the functional identity of some suffixes closely. More specifically, many derivational passive verbs are known to be made by adding suffix ‘-ɦi-.’ However, a number of them are actually derived by adding suffix ‘-i-.’ Also, middle Korean suffix ‘-ɦi-’ is not homogeneous, that is to say, in some cases ‘-ɦi-’ is used as synchronic allomorph, in other cases it is a form has been diachronically changed. Especially, ‘들이-’ is the derivational passive verb derived by adding suffix ‘-i-’, not suffix ‘-ɦi-.’ The root of ‘들이-’ is related with ‘드르-’ which is the irregular stem of ‘듣-’. Sometimes, a certain suffix ‘-y-’ was not dealt as a separate one. However, it can be clearly argued that ‘-y-’ is a distinct suffix that is combined with one syllable root and shows the same tone pattern as middle Korean weak endings. Middle Korean causative suffixes can be classified into four types depending on the forms of suffixes. They are ‘i’ type, ‘o’ type, the blending type of ‘i’ and ‘o’, and ‘-ʌ/ɨ-.’ Maybe this is due to the semantic/functional differency of each type of suffixes. A suffix ‘-βʌ-’(> ‘-o-‘) has been usually dealt as a causative suffix. But it seems clear that it is an empty suffix, not a causative suffix. Among the roots of passive/causative verbs, there are some irregular stem forms of verbs which are not to be found in conjugation(e.g. 눌이-). And there is a high probability that the root of ‘살이-’ is ‘사ᄅᆞ-’, not ‘살-.’ Finally, there left a question to be answered later. It is important to make it clear if a suffix ‘-i-’ that has only a derivational function though it looks like a passive/causative suffix is identical with a empty suffix ‘-i-’ or not.

There are the transitive verbs being causative in its meaning. The transitive morphemes such as -as- , -os- , -s- , -se- contain continuity with the causative morphemes of (sa)seru on the formal characteristics. The transitive morpheme [-as-] is seen as a turning point converting a transitive meaning into a causative meaning. The morphemes such as [-os-, -s-, -se-] are categorized as direct and indirect factor by the influence on objects of a subject, which are the transitive or the causative meaning through the process of the middle stage. As a result, the morpheme [-(sa)seru-] is typically expressed as the causative meaning. We categorize the transitive verbs into three types: typically direct meaning, direct and indirect meaning, indirect meaning as to the intention and the activity of the subject. In summary, we try to induce them to typically be a causative meaning, which is to be realized by ordering, commanding, requesting objects as to the intention of the subject.

The Japanese causative sentence appears in the form of "verb +(sa)seru."Regarding the meaning of the causative role, Aoki (1977) states that 'The causative role means that the causative action reaches another person, so it is not different from the characteristic of the other verb, which is said to have meaning.'It may be natural to exchange an intransitive causative form for another verb, but it may also be unnatural.It turns out that the meanings of the causative sentence of the corresponding intransitive verb and the transitive sentence do not match at all. Then, what is the difference between the causative sentence of the corresponding intransitive sentence and the transitive sentence? This article compares the intransitive (-u) of one's own and other corresponding psychological verbs, the causative sentence of the transitive verb (-eru) type intransitive verb with the transitive verb sentence, and clearly makes a difference.

The Structure of Causative Verb Complements in EnglishHwang, Kyu-HongGiven that little attention has been paid to the syntactic aspects of Causative Verb Complements (CVCs) in English, this paper aims to examine various syntactic phenomena of such CVCs from a generative perspective. In particular, it lays focus on their constituency, category, and case valuation of their DP subjects.It has been claimed that the CVC of [DP, VP] is a single unit and the DP is the subject of the CVC. Supporting evidence for this claim comes from many syntactic facts: coordination facts, binding phenomena, the behaviors of subject-oriented idioms and adjuncts, the occurrence of expletives, facts about the floating emphatic reflexive, not-initial DPs, and alone-final DPs. After arguing against previous CP and VP analyses of the CVC, I have proposed that CVCs are clausal constituents with the category of TP whose head T is defective, laking ∮-complete in the sense of minimalist syntax. With respect to the case valuation of the CVC subject, it has been stressed that the overt subject is an active Goal but cannot be valued by the Tdef of the CVC under Chomsky’s (1995, 2000, 2001, 2005) Agree Theory. Then, the subject has been said to agree with the matrix light verb v and receive an accusative case value, as in typical ECM constructions.

The purpose of this study is to investigate two patterns of morphological passive and causative serial verb constructions. I am against the approaches in which the two patterns have distinct syntactic structures. Instead, I claim that they have a univocal structure based on the order of two morpho-syntactic applications: serialization precedes morphological passivization/causativization. I claim that verbs must be identical in their category (namely, vDO or vINCH) to form serial verbs. To this successfully serialized verb construction, a higher level of functional categorizer (vPASS or vCAUS) merges to create standard passive/causative SVCs. The consequence of this sequential operation is as if each verb underwent the morphological derivation. This is because the later merged functional head c-commands the entire serialized verb construction, supporting Distributed Morphology (Marantz 1997, 2007; Son 2006). The other structure, where passive/causative morphemes occur on each verb, is a PF variant of the standard SVCs.

Choi, YoungSik. (2017). Clausal architecture of auxiliary verb and periphrastic causative constructions in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 25(2), 23-41. I show that auxiliary verb construction in Korean is mono-clausal, using negation, manner adverbial and argument projection, prosodic boundary of pause as valid tests. The present result is quite in agreement with the cross-linguistic observation in the literature (Anderson 2006), according to which the auxiliary verb construction is mono-clausal. I will also show that when the same sentence is construed as a non-auxiliary verb construction, it is a complex sentence with a non-complement subordinate clause. I will also argue that periphrastic causative construction is a non-auxiliary verb construction, too, a complex sentence with a complement clause. The present research will have a non-trivial implication on a better understanding of the auxiliary verb constructions in Korean in general.

.

본고는 경북 방언에 두루 나타나는 사동사와 사동 접미사의 목록을 고찰하고 변화의 양상과 분포를 살펴보는 것이 목적이다. 먼저 단일 사동 접미사와 이중 사동 접미사로 구분하여 사동사를 서술하였다. 경북방언의 ‘X이-’ 사동사는 ‘X에-’로 변화하는 경우가 있는데 이 변화 과정에서 음소와 성조가 함께 고려되었다. 이 방언에는 새로운 단일한 사동 접미사인 ‘-키-, -쿠-’ 등이 존재하여 사동사를 형성하는 경우가 발견되는바, ‘-키-’의 제1발생지는 강원 지역이고, 제2발생지는 전남과 경남의 해안으로 추정하였다. 그것은 ‘-게 하다’ 구성에 의해 사동이 표현되는 다른 지역과 달리 사동 접미사 ‘-키-’에 의한 파생적 사동이 강원도 지역에서 발견되기 때문이다. ‘-쿠-’는 경남 지역을 발생지로 추정하였는데, 경남 지역에는 ‘X쿠-’에서 변화한 ‘X카-’가 존재하며, 이 지역은 ‘-후-’가 활발히 쓰이는 지역과 분포가 겹치기 때문이다.

In this paper, I deal with changes and distributions of causative verbs and causative suffixes in Gyeongbuk dialect. causative suffixes are classified as single causative suffixes and double causative suffixes. The change of ‘Xi- > Xe-’ in Gyeongbuk dialect is linked to phonemes and tones. In this dialect, new single causative suffixes exist. These are ‘-khi-’ and ‘-khu-’. One occurrence of ‘-khi-’ is started in Gangwon, and the other occurrence of ‘-khi-’ is started on coasts of Jeonnam and Gyeongnam. The reason is that we find the derivation of causative sufffix ‘-khi-’ in Gangwon, for example ‘t?ukhi-’ exist in Gangwon instead of ‘t?uke hada’ of other areas. Suffix ‘-khu-’ is first occurred in Gyeongnam.

現整理本稿結論如下：首先，截止目前已知材料，我們認為來源於韓國吏讀中“使役+主體敬語”的韓語主體敬語“-이시”訓讀字‘教（-是）’首次出現時期為13世紀中葉，而‘教（-是）’出現得較晚的理由在於漢語中使役兼語動詞”教（叫）”語法化的完成時期大致為較晚的唐代前後。其次，‘敎(-是)’由“使役+主體敬語”義變化爲只有“主體敬語”的語法化過程的原因是由於其前行動詞具[+授予]義時所產生的[+使役]義中和之類推。再次，漢語授予動詞‘教’在兼語句‘N1(實施)+VI(授予動詞)+N2(授予對象/V2的施事)’+V2‘結構中，相比較於據head final信息語序所突出的V2，其動詞義相對弱化，導致其語法化路徑最終指向使役標記。但漢語自先秦時期起曾存在’V1(授予動詞)+NP+V2+NP‘結構，由此‘教’語法化時期相對較晚的原因也可能在於古漢語的信息結構為head-initial。最後，通過韓語和漢語的語法化對比，我們能夠了解[+授予]義同[+使役]義緊密的連貫性，而且該類語言特點通過研究各類型的語言也可得到確認。不過兩種語言語法化方向仍互不相同，究其原因，根本還是在於韓語與漢語類型上的差別。

한국어 형태소 사동구문에서는 사동자질인 [CAUSE]가 외현상 형태소들로 나타난다. ‘-이, -히, -리, -기’ 와 같은 사동형태소들이 Chomsky(1995, 그 이후)의 vP 핵인 v의 [CAUSE] 자질의 외현적 형태소들인데(Ahn 2001), 이것들은 사동성 동사 ‘주’ 구문과 호환되는 형태소 사동구문에서 어휘동사와 함께 나타난다. 사동성 ‘주’와 호환되는 ‘어휘동사 + 사동형태소’의 형태소 사동동사는 보조동사인 ‘(아/어) 주’와 함께 쓰일 수 없다. 이것이 바로 사동성 여격동사 ‘주’와 보조동사 ‘(아/어) 주’가 연속동사를 구성할 수 없는 이치인데, 이 현상을 Chomsky(1995, 그 이후)의 vP 구조에서 설명하는 것이 본 연구의 필요성이다.

Achievement of an intended goal can be cancelled even after it is apparently asserted. One type of challenge to telicity is the phenomenon of event cancellation. The telic interpretation and event cancellation are mutually exclusive in the morphological causative construction and the causative cwu-construction, which provides a way to verify that the morphological causative verb may be interchangeable with the causative verb cwu on v without any meaning change. The terminal node v is split into two pieces (i.e., the verbalizing v with the causative feature and (a/e)cwu with the benefactive feature, which is known as "fission" within Distributed Morphology (Halle 1997, Noyer 1997). However, the morphological causative verb interchangeable with the causative verb cwu on v cannot appear with the benefactive suffix verb (a/e) cwu on v since the two phonologically identical verbs are ruled out by the filter *cwu-cwu at PF. At this point, the lexical verb on V cannot undergo raising to the causative morpheme on v to obey the constraint.

본고는 현대 경남방언에서 생산적으로 쓰이고 있는 세 종류의 사동사 ‘마시ᛌ이다, 마수ᛌ우다, 마ᛌ시이다’의 생성 및 변화 과정을 밝히는 것을 목적으로 작성되었다. 본고는 사동사 형성을 어형의 관점에서만 다룬 기존의 연구와는 달리, 성조변화를 적극적으로 논의에 포함시켰다는 점에서 의의가 있다. 타동사 ‘마시－’의 중세 한국어 시기 중앙어와 경남방언의 성조는 저고[LH]였다. 여기에 사동 접미사 ‘－이－’가 통합하여 ‘마시ᛌ이－’가 생성되었고, 경남방언에서는 ‘마시ᛌ이－’에 다시 ‘－우－’가 통합한 ‘마수ᛌ우－’가 생성되었다. 어느시기 이후 경남방언 타동사는 성조 변화를 입어 ‘마ᛌ시－’가 되었고 이 시기에 파생된 사동사는 ‘마ᛌ시이－’가 되어 오늘날까지 공존하고 있다. 따라서 사동사 ‘마시ᛌ이다’가 가장 구형이고, ‘마ᛌ시이다’는 신형이며, ‘마수ᛌ우다’는 그 중간에 해당하는 구형이다. 사동사에 연결어미 ‘－아’가 통합한 형식은‘마사ᛌ아’가 가장 구형이고, ‘마ᛌ시이’가 가장 신형이며, ‘마시ᛌ이’는 그 중간에 해당하는 구형이다. 신형은 공시적으로 형성된 것이지만 나머지 두 개의 구형은 모두 통시적 산물이다.

The purpose of this thesis is to reveal the process of formation and change in three types of causative verb ‘Masi?i－da, Masu?u－da, Ma?sii－ da(let one drink)’ productively used in Gyeongnam dialect of modern times. Contrary to the existing researches that handled the formation of causative verb only in the perspective of word form, this thesis is significant in the aspect of actively including discussions of tone change. During the period of medieval Korean language, the tone of a transitive verb ‘Masi－’ in central dialect and Gyeongnam dialect was [LH]. As a causative suffix ‘－i－’ was combined with this, ‘Masi?i－’ was formed. In Gyeongnam dialect, ‘Masu?u－’ was formed as ‘－u－’ was combined with ‘Masi?i－’ again. After a certain period of time, the transitive verb of Gyeongnam dialect became ‘Ma?si－’ with tone change, and the causative verb derived in this period became ‘Ma?sii－’, which is still coexisting up to this day. Thus, the causative verb ‘Masi?i－da’ is the oldest form; ‘Ma?sii－da’ is a new form; and ‘Masu?u－da’ is an old form between them. In the form of combining a connective ending ‘－a’ with a causative verb, ‘Masa?a’ is the oldest form; ‘Ma?sii’ is the newest form: and ‘Masi?i’ is an old form between them. The new form was synchronically formed while the rest two old forms were all diachronic products.

This paper aims to present an analysis of the causative make. The English causative verb make is categorized as a syntactic causative construction. The causative make conveys different meanings with respect to the properties of the complement construction. make in direct causation constructions takes a bare infinitive complement, while make in indirect causation constructions takes a passive bare infinitive complement. The functional category ‘Voice(P)’ is used for a structural analysis of the causative make. In addition the two semantics features, [±direct] in matrix constructions and [±volition] in complement constructions, are adopted for a feature analysis of the two different constructions. First, [-direct] and [+volition] are suggested for indirect causation. The matrix construction cannot be passivized because of one of these features and its value, such as [-direct]. Second, [+direct] and [-volition] are posited for direct causation. There is a semantic condition on passivization such that make involving direct causative meaning can be passivized.

심리동사 의미의 모호성, 내부 구성의 복잡함 등 심리동사는 특수한 성질을 가진 동사이다. 여러 심리동사 중 심리사역동사는 심리동사 내에서도 비교적 특수한 종류 중 하나이므로 심리사역동사의 의미적 성질 및 구법 특징을 제대로 파악해야만 실수를 줄일 수 있다. 본고는 『HSK动态作文语料库2.0版』을 통해 한국인 중국어 학습자가 심리사역동사를 사용할 때 어떠한 오류를 일으키는지, 오류를 일으키는 원인이 무엇인지 등을 분석하고, 오류 분석을 통해 객관적이고 과학적으로 심리사역동사의 특징을 탐구하고자 노력했다. 오류 분석을 한 결과, 한국인 중국어 학습자가 심리사역동사 자체의 특징과 심리사역동사가 지배하는 필수성분의 의미적 역할에 대한 인지체계가 다소 부족하다는 사실을 알 수 있었다. 심리사역동사문의 각 필수성분에 대한 의미적 특징과 심리사역동사가 심리상태동사 및 심리활동동사와의 문장조합 관계가 전혀 다르다는 개념에 대해 정확히 숙지한다면, 심리사역동사의 오류를 줄일 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 심리사역동사의 특징에 대해 더 잘 파악할 수 있다. 결국 오류 분석을 통해 심리사역동사의 문법적 특징에 대해 자세히 탐구하는 것은 심리사역동사의 합리적인 이해와 인지에 도움이 될 뿐만 아니라 중국어 심리사역동사 교육의 효율성 향상에도 도움이 될 것이다. 본 논문이 심리동사 어휘 연구에 분명한 의미를 줄 것으로 믿으며, 향후 한국어 학습자의 심리사역동사 학습의 기초 자료로 활용될 수 있기를 바란다.

psychological verbs, such as ambiguity of meaning and complexity of internal construction, are verbs with special properties. Among the many psychological verbs, the psychological causative verbs are also one of the special types within the psychological verbs. Therefore, only by correctly mastering the semantic structure and syntactic function of the psychological causative verbs, can mistakes be reduced. Through valence theory, this paper tries to analyze the semantic structure and syntactic function of psychological causative verbs more objectively and scientifically. As analyze the psychological causative verbs with valence theory, we can examine in detail the grammatical features of the verbs themselves, such as verb how many essential component dominate, what properties they each have, and what grammatical features they have. Finally, through this paper, the syntactic and semantic properties of the psychological causative verbs are discussed in detail, not only helped the rational understanding and cognition of psychological causative verbs, but also helped to improve the efficiency of teaching Chinese psychological causative verbs. It is believed that this paper will bring clear significance to vocabulary research and hopefully be used as basic material for Korean learners to Chinese psychological causative verbs in the future.

The purpose of this study is to examine the category of causative verb in Korean. The notion of causative is that the causer operates on causee directly or indirectly and makes the causee come into a result. We can say that the grammartical causative is grammartical category to realize the causative. Also, causative verb is derived verb combined with causative suffix at the root of declinable word and has declarative function which causer makes the causee come into a result by operating directly or indirectly. We looked into category of causative verb in the view of morphological, syntactic, semantic. As a result, causative verb in Korean is the morphologicaly combined with causative suffix '-i-, -hi-, -li-, -ki-, -u-, -ku-, -chu-' at the root of declinable word, and syntacticaly must keep the case form in adition to the relationship with main verb in meaning.

本文研究汉语實義致使動詞句和韩国语實義致使動詞句的特征及其對比。有的学者把汉韩實義致使動詞句排除在致使句的范围之外，但是本文主张汉韩實義致使動詞句满足致使句的成句条件，所以应该把它们包括在致使句内。类型分类上汉韩實義致使動詞句属于分析型致使。而且表达“命令义”和“允许义”的汉韩實義致使動詞句属于“目的(PURP)类型”致使。本文阐明了汉韩實義致使動詞句能表达的语义范围。也阐明了汉韩實義致使動詞句表达的语义和汉韩實義致使動詞句的各种特征(比如，蕴含性特征、致使者控制度特征、被致使者自控度特征)之间的关联。最后指出了汉语實義致使動詞句和韩国语实义致使动词句之间的共同点和不同点。