Cover not available
Part of
Topics in Theoretical Asian Linguistics: Studies in honor of John B. Whitman
Edited by Kunio Nishiyama, Hideki Kishimoto and Edith Aldridge
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 250] 2018
► pp. 23–44

Chapter 2
The syntactic status of by-phrases in Korean and Japanese

| Korea Soongsil Cyber University

Traditional analyses of Japanese syntax make a distinction between ni passives and ni yotte passives depending on the type of by-phrases. These two patterns of passives correspond semantically to HI passives and CI passives in Korean respectively in that the subject in ni passives and HI passives typically bears an Affectee role whereas the subject in ni yotte passives and CI passives is not constrained by this semantic requirement. Despite the superficial similarities between Japanese and Korean passives, however, the by-phrases behave like arguments in both types of Korean passives whereas their Japanese counterparts demonstrate adjunct-like properties in ni yotte passives. While unveiling what mechanism operates in generating each type of passive construction, this chapter investigates the syntactic status of by-phrases and the origin that triggers the affectedness constraint observed in these East Asian languages.

Keywords: passive, Korean, Japanese, by-phrase, affectedness constraint, implicit argument, thematic structure, ontological salience
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Two types of passives in Korean and Japanese
    • 2.1Korean passives and an Agent-oriented adverb
    • 2.2Idiosyncrasies of HI passives
    • 2.3Japanese passives and their Korean counterparts
  • 3.The syntactic status of by-phrases
    • 3.1Thematic properties of ey uyhay-phrases
    • 3.2 Thematic properties of eykey-phrases
    • 3.3 Thematic properties of ni-phrases
    • 3.4 Thematic properties of ni yotte-phrases
  • 4.The origin of the affectedness constraint in Japanese
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.250.03par
References
Bowers, J.
1993 The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656.Google Scholar
2002 Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 183–224.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Arguments as Relations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 Minimalist inquiries. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C.
2005 A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8: 81–120.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
1979 Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D.
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuda, S.
2011 Two by-phrases in Japanese passive. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18, W. McClure & M. den Dikken (eds.), 253–265. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Goro, T.
2006 A minimalist analysis of Japanese passives. In Minimalist Essays[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 91], C. Boecks (ed.), 233–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoshi, H.
1994 Theta role assignment, passivization, and excorporation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 147–178.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 Passives. In The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, N. Tsujimura (ed.), 191–235. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ishizuka, T.
2012 The Passive in Japanese: A Cartographic Minimalist Approach[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 192]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, O.
1986 Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587–622.Google Scholar
Klaiman, M. H.
1984 The grammar of doing and undergoing in Korean. Language Research 20: 331–343.Google Scholar
1991 Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Kuno, S.
1973 The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S. -Y.
1979 On Japanese passives. In Exploration in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue, G. Bedell, E. Kobayashi & M. Muraki (eds.), 305–347. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Fiengo, R.
1974 Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 535–571.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S.
1989 Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 22 (Structure and Case Marking in Japanese). San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Park, S. D.
2005 Parameters of Passive Constructions in English and Korean. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
2013 Korean passive constructions without movement from the internal argument position. The Journal of Linguistic Science 67: 65–84.Google Scholar
2016 Another unified approach to Japanese passives. The Journal of Linguistic Science 77: 59–79.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, S. D. & Whitman, J.
2003 Direct movement passives in Korean and Japanese. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12, W. McClure (ed.), 307–321. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M.
1990 The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M.
1976 Hierarchies of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Atlantic Highlands NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Suh, C. -S.
1996 Kwuke mwunpep (Korean grammar). Seoul: Hanyang University Press.Google Scholar
Teramura, H.
1982 Nihongo no shintakusu to imi I (Japanese syntax and meaning I). Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Wu, I.
1997 Wulimal phitong yenkwu (Research on Korean passives). Seoul: Hankwuk Mwunhwasa.Google Scholar
Yeon, J.
2015 Passives. In The Handbook of Korean Linguistics, L. Brown & J. Yeon (eds.), 116–136. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar