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

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.