What Makes Negative Imperative So Natural for Korean [psych-adjective +-e ha-] Constructions?

What Makes Negative Imperative So Natural for Korean [psych-adjective +-e ha-] Constructions?∗ Ilkyu Kim Department of Linguistics and Cognitive Science Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Mohyeon, Yongin, Gyeonggi, 449-791, South Korea onefinedayjazz@hufs.ac.kr Abstraction. Regarding Korean psych-adjectives and their -e ha- counterparts, e.i., [psych- adjective + -e ha-] constructions, what is at issue is how to capture the semantic difference and similarity between the two. Concerning this issue, one of the most controversial and difficult problems is whether the psych-construction has Action (Agency) as part of its meaning. The purpose of this paper is to solve this problem by answering the question why psych-constructions are much more natural when they are used as negative imperative than when they are used as positive imperative. First, in order to figure out why positive imperative is not allowed, we show that –e ha- adds the meaning of non-volitional action to psych-adjectives, using Jackendoff’s Conceptual Semantics. Secondly, in accounting for why negative imperative is so natural, we show, with Talmy’s Force Dynamics theory, what the speaker requires from the hearer is internal volitional action. Keywords: psych-adjectives, [psych-adjective + -e ha-] constructions, Action, imperative, Conceptual Semantics, Force Dynamics theory 1. Introduction Korean psych-adjectives and their -e ha- counterparts, e.i., [psych-adjective + -e ha-] constructions (psych-constructions1) have attracted many researchers with respect to their ∗ An earlier version of this paper was presented in the weekly meeting of the BK21 research team of Linguistics and Cognitive Science Department at HUFS, October 12. I thank the audiences for comments and questions. I also thank two anonymous reviewers of this paper. All errors and misinterpretations are of course mine. Copyright 2007 by Ilkyu Kim 210 meaning (e.g. Hong, K-S 1991, Kim, H-S 1989, Kim, K-H 2003, Kim, Y-J 1990, Kim, S-J 1994, Lee & Lee 2005, Nam, S-H 2007, Yeon, J-H 1996). With most semanticists agreeing with the idea that the meanings of the two constructions are certainly different from each other, what is at issue is how to capture the difference and similarity between the two. Regarding this issue, one of the most controversial and difficult problems is whether the psych-construction has Action (Agency) as part of its meaning (Kim S-J 1994). The purpose of this paper is to solve this problem by answering the question why psych- constructions are much more natural when they are used as negative imperative than when they are used as positive imperative. In answering this question, first, we show that –e ha- adds the meaning of non-volitional action to psych-adjectives, thus making the whole construction a kind of action. This characteristic of the psych-construction and its difference from psych-adjectives are captured by Jackendoff's (1990, 2002a, 2002b, 2007) Conceptual Semantics, particularly its mechanism of distinguishing thematic-tier and macrorole tier. Then, we show, with Talmy’s (1985, 2003) Force Dynamics theory, in the negative imperative of the psych-construction, what the speaker requires from the hearer is internal volitional action. The content of the rest of the paper is like the following. In section 2, we …

Content truncated to 500 words