Alternation ‘Causative (periphrastic)’ (Coded)

This causative can be formed by adding the suffix -ge, converbal ending (see Haspelmath 1995) to the verb stem and using the auxiliary hada 'do'. As opposed to what has been termed 'morphological causative' here, the causative meaning is expressed by analytic means. Standing in opposition to existing morphological forms which are not realised by multiple syntactic words, this construction can be identified as being periphrastic (see Brown et al. 2012 for more). Its applicability shows a rather unclear pattern, since it seems to be almost fully productive, whereas on the other hand emotion verbs as johda 'be good', museobda 'be scary' do not seem to take part in this alternation, unless these verbs undergo the hada-alternation. Following Yeon (2003:66ff.) on this, in the base form, a Korean emotion verb describes an emotion that is not accessible to external entities, but only to the experiencer, and Yeon concludes that the hada-transitivisation process brings about an 'externalisation' (Yeon 2003: 66) of such emotions. As mentioned in the entry for the morphological causative, a lot of research has been done on the morphosyntactic and semantic-pragmatic differences of this construction to the periphrastic causative (see entry for the morphological causative for references, or also Lee and Ramsey 2000: 212-215), although research on these differences tend to suffer from a notorious desire to make a clear-cut distinction between these constructions on the one hand, and misconceptions on the nature of periphrastic verb forms on the other. Especially the Korean periphrastic construction has attracted a great deal of attention regarding the issue of clausality in constructions involving multiple verbs, and various tests have been applied to show that the periphrastic causative involves the embedding of a clause into another that is headed by the auxiliary hada (see Sohn 1999: 377 or Song 2005 for example, or O'Grady 1991: 188ff. making a finer distinction in biclausal and monoclausal periphrastic causative constructions). The coding pattern in Korean periphrastic causative constructions has been discussed in Yeon (2003: 87) on the basis of Comrie (1981). Basically, an intransitive, monovalent verb will have NOM-ACC as its causative case frame, and a causativised transitive verb NOM-DAT-ACC. For causativised ditransitive verbs Yeon (2003: 88) claims that the causee is encoded in a postpositional phrase, although for someone who is mainly acquainted with spoken Korean I cannot support this claim. Rather I would say that the additional argument here is marked with accusative case. Yeon (2003: 90ff.) indeed discusses cases that diverge from Comrie's generalisations, and several researchers (cf. O'Grady 1991: 171) have tried to show that the causee can be marked with nominative, dative or accusative case depending on the volitionality and agency that the causee retains. This is a claim that I can neither refute nor confirm, although I would like to remark here that in meany examples I have given here in this database I have noted that nominative and dative marking on the causee sound at best awkward to me.

Verb Meaning Verb form Basic coding frame Derived coding frame Occurs Comment # Ex.