피동 구문의 VP periphery:

Studies in Generative Grammar, 28-2, 295-346. In this article, I claim that -eykey passives differ from –e uyhay passives in that the former involves Voice while the latter does not. Four pieces of evidence are provided for the claim: (a) the animacy condition on the subject holds only for the -eykey passive, (b) modification of ilpule ‘on purpose’ is allowed only in the –eykey passive, (c) accusative case is allowed only in the –eykey passive, and (d) nominative case is not allowed only in the long-form negation of the –eykey passive. I further claim that Voice is merged in the –eykey passive as a last resort to save the derivation which would crash when an internal theta-role of a verb is not assigned, which means that subject is base-generated in Spec, VoiceP contrary to the movement analysis (Park 2010, 2013) and that there is no empty category within VP contrary to both the movement analysis and the control analysis (Hoshi 1999, K. Kim 2011, and H. K. Jung 2014, 2016). Finally, the article’s view on the passive is compared with the current views of the Korean passive (Park 2010, 2013) and those of passive in general (Collins 2005 and Breuning 2013).