Earticle

This paper investigated the L2 acquisition of Korean causative case marking and syntactic complexity by L1 English speakers. The nominative causee can be marked only in syntactic causative (‘-ke hata’ causative). Forty L1 English speakers of Korean and twenty one Korean native speakers have participated in the study. The acceptability judgment task was conducted in order to assess the learners' knowledge on the case marking of causee in the causative construction. For the task, two types of case marking-nominative and accusative- were distributed in syntactic and morphological causative constructions. A total of 44 items were created based on 11 verbs. The results showed that L2 learners had lower acceptability on the causative sentences with nominative causee compared to Korean native speakers. This implicates that not only the intermediate learners of Korean but also the advanced learners failed to acquire the native like case marking due to lack of recognizing syntactic complexity on Korean causative and the relying on their L1 knowledge on English causative.

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

Song's (2005) Type 2 of morphological causative verbs is classified as compositional and non-compositional causative verbs. The so-called reflexive verbs are an achievement verb, which lacks a process; hence, they express a non-compositional meaning (i.e., achievements) despite the causative morphology. The causative verbs may bear [+durative] processes. This means that the causative verbs may be accomplishment verbs. Accomplishments consist of subevents mapped onto subintervals at the temporal level, and these are modifiable by adverbs such as keuy 'almost'; hence, the morphological causative verbs are really compatible with adverbs like keuy 'almost'. While the compositional causative verbs bearing a simplex structure are translated into the English causative verbs, the non-compositional causative verbs are translated into the English dative or transitive verbs. The non-compositional meanings of the so-called reflexive verbs are also achievement verbs, which lack a process; hence, non-compositional meaning, even though the sentences are translated into the causative constructions in English.

This study examines the morphological errors made by L1 Korean speakers with L2 English causative verbs?change of state verbs and psych verbs?in the argument structure alternation (i.e., causative/inchoative alternation) to identify possible influence from their L1. Driven by Montrul’s (2001) findings, where L1 Turkish-L2 English learners transferred their L1 morphological patterns with psych verbs but did not do so with change of state verbs, we aim to partially replicate the experimental design of Montrul (2001) to examine whether her results of Turkish speakers are repeated with Korean speakers in our study given the resemblance between Turkish and Korean. A picture-based acceptability judgment task was implemented to see whether Korean speakers are biased towards certain morphological verb forms, possibly constrained by their L1 patterns. The results align with those of Montrul (2001) as traces of L1 influence were discovered with psych verbs while only marginal of them were observed with change of state verbs. Indeed, in case of change of state verbs, Korean speakers’ strong preferences for morphologically marked verb forms in intransitive contexts (e.g., The door got opened) suggest that L2-developmental factors (viz., overpassivization) may have played a greater role in their morphological errors.

The purpose of this study is to re-examine the causative type classification of ‘(X)sikita’ causatives. In recent studies, ‘-sikita’ is classified as morphological causative and ‘sikita’ is classified as lexical causative, furthermore, lexical causative type is excluded in causative type classification. But ‘-sikita’ and ‘sikita’ are identical causative type. They are equal points like these, first ‘the sameness of valency’ which is the syntactic condition of causatives, second the separation or combination possibility of X and ‘sikita’, third the sameness of the basic counterpart of causative verb, ‘hata’, fourth the identical controllity of causee such as animacy and case marker. In particular, ‘-sikita’ is not causative affix in the viewpoints of the functional, derivational and formal difference with general causative affix, both the ‘-sikita’ and ‘sikita’ involve suppletion, there being no formal similarity between the basic verb and the causative counterpart, therefore ‘-sikita’ and ‘sikita’ are typical generic causative verb in lexical causative type.

본고는 한국어 형태적 사동 표현과 중국어 무표지 사동 표현의 특징 및 대응 현상을 고찰하고자 하였다. 이에 앞서 사동사에 의한 문장 구조, 문형 및 사동주와 피사동주의 [유정성]을 중심으로 한국어 형태적 사동 표현의 특징을 살펴보았다. 그리고 사동주와 피사동주의 [유정성]에 있어 분포가 자유로운 중국어 무표지 사동 표현 가운데 동결식 사동 표현과 ‘放/加/弄’ 사동 표현에 대해 알아보았다. 이를 바탕으로 이들 한ㆍ중 사동 표현을 대조언어학 관점에서 비교 대조해 봄으로써 그 대응 양상 및 관계를 면밀히 살펴 그 특징을 제시하였다. 본 대조 분석을 통해 확인한바, 우선 한국어 형태적 사동 표현은 사동사의 어휘적 의미에 따라 직접 사동 및 간접 사동으로 나뉘나 중국어 무표지 사동 표현은 모두 직접 사동이었다. 또한 사동주와 피사동주의 [유정성] 여부에 따라 한국어 형태적 사동 표현과 중국어의 동결식 사동 표현 및 ‘放/加/弄’ 사동 표현의 그 대응 분포 가능 여부를 살핀바 다소 복잡한 양상을 보였다. 곧 두 언어의 사동주와 피사동주의 [유정성] 및 직접 간접 사동 여부, 주동사의 형용사 자동사 여부 등 매우 복잡하고도 세밀한 어휘 의미, 문법 지식이 요구됨을 알 수 있다.

The paper presents an examination of the characteristics and correspondence between the Korean morphological causative expressions and the Chinese unmarked causative expressions. The [animateness] of the causers and causes of Korean causative expressions are the main topics of an analysis of the characteristics of Korean morphological causative sentences. However, in Chinese unmarked causative sentences, there is a lot of freedom in how the maker and made subject are distributed. Based on this, a controlled linguistic view is used to compare and elaborate the correspondence between Korean and Chinese causative sentences. Through comparative analysis, it was found that Korean morphological causative sentences can be divided into direct causatives and indirect causatives according to the lexical meaning of causative verbs. But the Chinese unmarked causative sentences are all direct actuation. To investigate the two languages of the causers and causes of the [animateness] and direct and indirect causative or not, the active word was an adjective or intransitive verb or not, require to be familiar with its lexical meaning and grammar knowledge.

이 논문의 목적은 한국어 형태 사동 구문(morphological causative construction) 중에서 피사동주(causee)가 행위성을 지닌 구문의 통사 구조를 제시하는 데 있다. 형태 사동 구문에서 피사동주가 행위성을 지니느냐의 문제는 이것의 통사 구조를 밝히는 것에 핵심이기 때문에 상당히 중요한 문제라 할 수 있을 것이다. 우선 이 구문에 관한 통사 구조를 제시한 Son(2006)의 제안을 살펴보고 이 구조에 대해 문제를 제기한 Kim(2011)과 박소영(2012a,b)을 중심으로 살펴보고자 한다. Son에서는 행위주성 동사를 지닌 형태 사동 구문에 사동주(외현논항) 이외의 외현논항을 도입하는데, 피사동주가 이 외현논항에 해당된다고 주장한다. 그 이유는 당연히 피사동주가 행위주의 성질을 지니고 있기 때문이다. 하지만 Kim과 박소영에서는 형태 사동 구문에서의 피사동주는 행위주 성질을 가질 수 없다고 주장하면서 이 위치에 행위성이 없는 여격 피사동주를 나타내기 위해 Applicative를 도입한다.

The purpose of this paper is to confirm that the syntactic structures of morphological causative constructions should be derived by considering the properties of the verb bases such as the transitive verb bases and the intransitive verb bases according to Son (2006). This means that the causee in the constructions may be an agent, depending on the verb base types mentioned above. On the contrary, it is claimed that the causee in the constructions cannot be an agent in Kim (2010) and Park (2012a, b) because the causee cannot be compatible with an agent-oriented adverb like 'ilpule' (on purpose). In this paper, I give some pieces of evidence for Son’s (2006) argument and further show that the causee could be matched with an adverb like 'hayekum' (make) which has the function that makes the noun just before it become the agent of the caused event in the causative constructions. Finally, it is proposed that the syntactic structures of morphological causative constructions should be subdivided on the basis of the context as well as the verb base types.

이 글은 한국어와 튀르키예어의 역사적 단계에서 사동문의 유형과 현대 한국어와 현대 튀르키예어의 기본 동사의 형태적 사동의 파생 상황을 비교한 논문이다. 현대 한국어 사동의 유형은 고유어 동사의 경우 어휘적 사동, 형태적 사동, 통사적 사동이 있고, ‘하다’ 동사의 경우 어휘적 사동, 통사적 사동, ‘(-)시키다’ 사동이 있다. 현대 튀르키예어 사동의 유형은 어휘적 사동, 형태적 사동, 통사적 사동이 있다. 현대 한국어와 현대 튀르키예어의 100개의 기본 동사의 형태적 사동 파생 상황을 살펴보면 한국어는 48개, 튀르키예어는 92개의 파생 사동소 형성이 가능하다. 고대 한국어는 형태적 사동, 중세한국어는 형태적 사동과 통사적 사동, 근대한국어는 형태적 사동, 통사적 사동, (-)시키다 사동이, 현대 한국어는 어휘적 사동, 형태적 사동, 통사적 사동, ‘(-)시키다’ 사동이 있다. 튀르키예어의 경우 고대 튀르크어와 오스만 튀르크어는 형태적 사동만 있고, 현대 튀르키예어는 어휘적 사동, 형태적 사동, 통사적 사동이 모두 존재하지만, 고대 튀르크어, 오스만 튀르크어, 현대 튀르키예어를 통틀어 가장 강력한 사동 형식은 여전히 형태적 사동이다.

This paper compares the types of causative constructions at the historical stage of Korean and Turkic languages with the derivative phenomena of the morphological causative of the 100 basic verbs of modern Korean and modern Turkish language. The types of modern Korean include lexical, morphological, syntactic and NPsiki- causatives, while the latter includes lexical, morphological and syntactic causatives. Looking at the morphological causative derivation of 100 basic verbs in modern Korean and Turkish language, 48 in Korean and 92 in Turkish can be formed as morphological causative verbs. Ancient Korean has morphological and syntactic causatives, Pre-modern Korean has morphological and syntactic causatives and modern Korean has lexical, morphological, syntactic and NPsiki- causatives. In the case of Turkish language, ancient and Ottoman Turkic languages have only morphological causative, but modern Turkish has all lexical, morphological, and syntactic causatives, however the most powerful causative is still morphological one.

The meaning of causative construction in Complement of Result is a combination of two lexical Chinese verbs expressing a causative meaning. Generally, most linguists insist that Chinese has two types of causatives—lexical causative and syntactic(or periphrastic) causative. However, they do not agree that Chinese has a morphological causative, because Chinese is an isolated language that has not undergone morphological changes. This research has opposite views to prevailing opinions. Complement of Result construction, which is special causative forms(VP) on Chinese, can be divided into two lexical words, V1 and V2. This combination structure is very similar to lexical causative structure when viewed for the sake of formality. However, when we analyze the situation in detail, we can find that they have radical differences between the structures. Turning now to morphological causatives, the prototypical case has the following two characteristics. First, the causative is related to the non-causative predicate by morphological means, for example, by affixation. A simple example provided by the prototypical morphological causative is that the means of VP(V1+V2) construction has its productivity. In this situation, VP has two types of constructions. One is ‘VP-a’ and the other is ‘VP-b’, and especially the latter has a wide variety of productivity, which is exemplified by ‘咬斷’, ‘打破’, ‘扭傷’, ‘解開’, ‘熬白’ etc. This research provides that although these structures has limitations to causative productivity, they are very close to morphological causatives, and have a broad distinction with lexical causative constructions.