Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 22:2 (2021) ► pp.213–242

On the relationship between middles and passives

A polyfunctional analysis of -eci in Contemporary Korean

| Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
| Chinese University of Hong Kong
Previous studies using diachronic data from the Sejong Historical Corpus have traced the semantic extension of voice marker -eci from middle to passive uses (e.g. Ahn & Yap 2017). In this study, based on data from the Sejong Contemporary Spoken Corpus, we further examine the relationship between middle and passive uses of -eci constructions, with special attention to the neutralization of adversative readings that give rise to generalized (in addition to adversative) middle and passive -eci constructions. Our analysis reveals that judgments about adversative readings in Contemporary Korean are not emergent solely from the semantics of the verb or adjective preceding -eci but additionally are emergent and grounded in the interaction between discourse participants. The distributional characteristics of -eci also show a strong interaction between voice and tense-aspect-mood (TAM). There is also some interaction effects from register and text type/genre, particularly in the usage frequency distribution of spontaneous and passive -eci constructions. In addition, contrary to the traditional notion that -eci is essentially a passive marker, in real usage, -eci is still far more frequently used as a middle marker than a passive marker.
Keywords: middle voice, spontaneous, inchoative, facilitative, subjectification, tense-aspect-mood, adversative semantics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Middle and passive uses of Korean -eci
    • 2.1Korean middle marker -eci
    • 2.2Korean passive marker -eci
  • 3.Development of voice marker -eci from adversative to non-adversative contexts
  • 4.Usage frequency of -eci middle and passive constructions
    • 4.1Distribution of tense-aspect marking and voice functions in -eci constructions
    • 4.2Distribution of voice-marking functions of -eci across text types
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Sources
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 17 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00081.ahn
References (50)
References
Ahn, Mikyung & Yap, Foong Ha. 2017. From middle to passive: A diachronic analysis of Korean -eci constructions. Diachronica 34(4). 437–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bae, Huyim. 1986. ‘-Ci’wa phitong [-Ci and passive]. Seoul: Thap Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. Kwuke phitong yenkwu [Studies on Korean passive]. Seoul: Research Institute of Korean Studies, Korea University.Google Scholar
Bak, Jae-Yeon. 2007. On the modal meanings of auxiliary construction -eoji-. Kwukehak [Journal of Korean Linguistics] 501. 269–293.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Calude, Andreea S. 2005. Reflexive-middle and reciprocal-middle continua in Romanian. In Mushin, Ilana (ed.), Proceedings of the 2004 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 1–13. Sydney: University of Sydney. ([URL]) (Accessed 2020-05-​15.)
Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael. 1999. The English get-passive in spoken discourse: Description and implications for an interpersonal grammar. English Language and Linguistics 3(1). 41–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary. 1980. Is the get-passive adversative? Papers in Linguistics 13(3). 411–452. ( Papers in Linguistics is known as Research on Language and Social Interaction since 1987.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, Hyunbae. 1961[1937]. Wuli malpon [Korean grammar]. Seoul: Cengum Publishing.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 1989. The middle: Where semantics and morphology meet. In Branigan, P. & Gaulding, J. & Kubo, M. & Murasugi, K. (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11: Proceedings of the 1st Student Conference in Linguistics, 16–30. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faltz, Leonard M. 1977. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. Berkeley: University of California. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Fleisher, Nicholas. 2006. The origin of passive get . English Language and Linguistics 10(2). 225–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type (Arbeitspapier, N.F., Nr. 5). Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, volume I: Theoretical and methodological issues (Typological Studies in Language 19:1), 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeong, Eon-hak. 2002. Study on the grammaticalization of the ‘-go isda’ construction. The Chin-Tan Hakpo [The Chin-Tan Society] 941. 167–203.Google Scholar
. 2006. Sangilonkwa pocoyongenuy yeksacek yenkwu [Historical studies on aspect and auxiliary verbs]. Seoul: Thayhaksa.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Passive in the world’s languages. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume I: Clause structure, 243–281. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice (Typological Studies in Language 23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay & Roeper, Thomas. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15(3). 381–416.Google Scholar
Kim, Cha Kyun. 1980. Kwukeuy sayekkwa swutonguy uymi [The meaning of causatives and passives in Korean]. Hangeul 1681. 3–47.Google Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam H. 1982. Affectiveness and the voice system of Japanese: Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. In Macaulay, Monica & Gensler, Orin D. & Brugman, Claudia & Civkulis, Inese & Dahlstrom, Amy & Krile, Katherine & Sturm, Rob (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 398–413. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1988. Affectedness and control: A typology of voice systems. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Passive and voice (Typological Studies in Language 16), 25–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ko, Yŏng-jin. 1997. Hankwukeuymwunpephwakwaceng: Phwulissiuykyengwu [Grammaticalization of Korean: In the case of predicates]. Seoul: Kookhak publishing.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Moyse-Faurie, Claire. 2009. Spatial reciprocity: Between grammar and lexis. In Helmbrecht, Johannes & Nishina, Yoko & Shin, Yong-Min & Skopeteas, Stavros & Verhoeven, Elisabeth (eds.), Form and function in language research: Papers in honour of Christian Lehmann (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 210), 57–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lee, Jung Tag. 2001. “Ci (ti)”- uy thongsicek pyencheney kwanhan yenkwu [On the historical development of -ti-]. Kwukehak [Journal of Korean Linguistics] 381. 117–136.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nam, Su-kyong. 2011. ‘-Ecita’ uymi kochaley tayhan silon emwun yenkwu [An essay on the meanings of ‘-eojida’: A typological perspective]. Emwun yenkwu [The Society for Korean Language and Literary Research] 39(3). 175–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd (eds.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. ‎Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Jaxontov, Sergej Je. 1988. The typology of resultative constructions. In Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions (Typological Studies in Language 12), 3–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, William D. 1980. The derived intransitive construction in English. Lingua 52(1–2). 57–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Naoyuki. 2013. Event structure and the Japanese indirect passive. In Pustejovsky, James & Bouillon, Pierrette & Isahara, Hitoshi & Kanzaki, Kyoko & Lee, Chungmin (eds.), Advances in generative lexicon theory (Text, Speech and Language Technology 46), 311–326. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oshima, David Y. 2003. Out of control: A unified analysis of Japanese passive constructions. In Kim, Jong-Bok & Wechsler, Stephen (eds.), The Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 245–265. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
2006. Adversity and Korean/Japanese passives: Constructional analogy. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15(2). 137–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Seong Jong. 1984. (A) study on Korean passive. Seoul: Seoul National University. (Master’s thesis.)Google Scholar
Prasithrathsint, Amara. 2006. Development of thùuk passive marker in Thai. In Abraham, Werner & Leisiö, Larisa (eds.), Passivization and typology: Form and function (Typological Studies in Language 68), 115–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seng, Kwangswu. 1976. Kwuke kancepphitongey tayhaye [About indirect passive in Korean]. Mwunpepyenkwu [Studies on grammar] 31. 159–182.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Syntax and semantics 6: The grammar of causative constructions, 1–40. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1985. Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language 61(4). 821–848. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives, and adversative passives. In Gahl, Susanne & Dolbey, Andy & Johnson, Christopher (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session, dedicated to the contributions of Charles J. Fillmore, 461–486. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 31, 57–149. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1). 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1991. Introduction. Approaches to grammaticalization, volume II: Types of grammatical markers (Typological Studies in Language 19:2), 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valfells, Sigridur. 1970. Middle voice in Icelandic. In Benediktsson, Hreinn (ed.), The Nordic languages and modern linguistics 1, 551–572. Reykjavík: Vísindafélag Íslendinga.Google Scholar
Winskel, Heather & Padakannaya, Prakash (eds.). 2014. South and Southeast Asian psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Woo, Inhyey. 1997. Wulimal phitong yenkwu [Studies on Korean Passives]. Seoul: Hankook Publishing House.Google Scholar
Yeon, Jae-Hoon. 1994. Grammatical relation changing constructions in Korean: A functional-typological study. London: University of London. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar