본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

한국어 지시사와 한정성

Demonstratives and Definiteness in Korean

박소영
사단법인 한국언어학회 (The Linguistic Society of Korea)|2023.12|언어학 (EONEOHAG)|제97호|pp. 129-159|DOI 10.17290/jlsk.2023..97.129

1

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

uniquenessfamiliaritydefinitenessdemonstrativenominal structure
주제분류언어학

초록

This paper investigates the usage of the Korean demonstrative ku ‘that’ in the context of definiteness. Cross-linguistically, the expression of definiteness varies depending on whether it is grounded in uniqueness or familiarity. This distinction is also evident in Korean, where uniqueness-based definiteness is typically conveyed through bare noun phrases, while familiarity-based definiteness is expressed using noun phrases combined with demonstratives. However, these two types of noun phrases are not mutually exclusive, particularly in the realm of familiarity-based definiteness. While the use of demonstrative noun phrases are preferred, bare noun phrases are also permissible. The choice of a bare noun phrase is made when the object in question is contextually salient enough to be uniquely identifiable. The demonstrative, by referring back to a specific object in the context, obligatorily induces an anaphoric definite reading, facilitating the identification of the intended object. This paper's discussion demonstrates that Korean noun phrases also conform to the language-universal distinction of definiteness.

Abstract

This paper investigates the usage of the Korean demonstrative ku ‘that’ in the context of definiteness. Cross-linguistically, the expression of definiteness varies depending on whether it is grounded in uniqueness or familiarity. This distinction is also evident in Korean, where uniqueness-based definiteness is typically conveyed through bare noun phrases, while familiarity-based definiteness is expressed using noun phrases combined with demonstratives. However, these two types of noun phrases are not mutually exclusive, particularly in the realm of familiarity-based definiteness. While the use of demonstrative noun phrases are preferred, bare noun phrases are also permissible. The choice of a bare noun phrase is made when the object in question is contextually salient enough to be uniquely identifiable. The demonstrative, by referring back to a specific object in the context, obligatorily induces an anaphoric definite reading, facilitating the identification of the intended object. This paper's discussion demonstrates that Korean noun phrases also conform to the language-universal distinction of definiteness.

참고문헌 (71)

  1. 강명윤, "DP와 국어의 명사구", 한국어학, 13, pp.15~51 (2001)
  2. 강범모, "양화와 복수의 의미론" (2014), 한국문화사
  3. 강아름, "한국어 민명사의 한정적 해석: 당나귀 구문을 중심으로", 언어, 48(1), pp.75~97 (2023), 한국언어학회[DOI]
  4. 김용하, "한국어 생성통사론" (2017), 한국문화사
  5. 김일웅, "지시의 분류와 지시사 ‘이, 그, 저’의 쓰임", 한글, 178, pp.58~87 (1981)
  6. 민경모, "한국어 지시사 연구", 박사, 국어국문학, pp.2008
  7. 민경모, "Deixis의 개념 정립에 대한 일고찰", 한국어 의미학, 37, pp.27~52 (2012), 한국어의미학회[DOI]
  8. 박소영, "한국어 관형절 어순에 대한 실험통사론적 연구", 언어학, (91), pp.35~59 (2021), 사단법인 한국언어학회[DOI]
  9. 서경희, "“이게 바로 그거야”: 원근지시에서 태도지시로", 담화와인지, 6, pp.1~22 (1999)
  10. 안소진, "소위 3인칭 대명사 '그, 그녀'의 기능에 대하여", 한국어학, 38, pp.145~164 (2008), 한국어학회
  11. 이상근, "한국어 교량지시 명사구 변이형태에 대한 연구", 언어, 47(2), pp.317~345 (2022), 한국언어학회[DOI]
  12. 임홍빈, "국어문법의 심층 2", pp.549~612 (1998)
  13. 장경희, "지시어 ‘이’, ‘그’, ‘저’의 의미 분석", 어학연구, 16, pp.167~184 (1980)
  14. 장경희, "지시사", 새국어생활, 12, pp.147~161 (2002)
  15. 특정성, 총칭성, 복수성, "한국어 명사구의 의미론 : 한정성", pp.2013, 전영철
  16. 최기용, "한국어의 3인칭 지시 표현 ‘그’에 관한 소고", 생성문법연구, 23(3), pp.527~558 (2013), 한국생성문법학회[DOI]
  17. 최기용, "한국어의 지시사는 진정 명사구의 기능 핵이 아닌가", 학회발표논문 (2023)
  18. 홍용철, "한국어 명사 외곽 수식어들의 어순과 명사구 구조", 생성문법연구, 20(1), pp.27~50 (2010), 한국생성문법학회[DOI]
  19. Ahn, D., "THAT thesis: A competition mechanism for anaphoric expressions", Doctor, pp.2019
  20. Arkoh, R., "A familiar definite article in Akan", Lingua, 123, pp.1~30 (2013)
  21. Barbosa, P., "Pro as a minimal nP", Linguistic Inquiry, 50(3), pp.487~526 (2019)
  22. Barrie Michael Jonathan Mathew, "In Defense of DP (or KP)", 언어연구, 38(2), pp.207~238 (2021), 언어정보연구소[DOI]
  23. Bi, R., "Pronouns, null arguments, and ellipsis in Mandarin Chinese", Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung, 23, pp.127~142 (2019)
  24. Borer, H., "Structuring Sense I" (2005), Oxford University Press
  25. Bošković, Ž., "Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase : On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis", Linguistic Inquiry, 45, pp.27~89 (2014)
  26. Cheng, L., "Two levels of definiteness", Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI, pp.79~93 (2017)
  27. Chierchia, G., "Dynamics of Meaning" (1995), University of Chicago Press
  28. Chierchia, G., "Reference to kinds across languages", Natural Language Semantics, 6, pp.339~405 (1998)
  29. Clem, E., "Two types of binding : Evidnece from tswefap pronominals", NELS, 47, pp.173~184 (2017)
  30. Cho, J., "The acquisition of different types of definite noun phrases in L2-English", International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(3), pp.367~382 (2016)
  31. Collins, J., "Definiteness determined by syntax : A case study in Tagalog", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37(4), pp.1367~1420 (2019)
  32. Dayal, V., "Trends in Hindi Linguistics", pp.1~26 (2018), Mouton de Gruyter
  33. Dayal, V., "The puzzle of anaphoric bare nouns in Mandarin", Linguistic Inquiry (2023)
  34. Diessel, H., "Demonstratives : Form, Function, and Grammaticalization" (1999), John Benjamins
  35. Elbourne, P., "E-type anaphora as NP-deletion", Natural Language Semantics, 9(3), pp.241~288 (2001)
  36. Etxeberria, U., "Definiteness Across Languages", pp.420~452 (2019), Language Science Press
  37. Farkas, D., "Specificity distinctions", Journal of Semantics, 19(3), pp.213~243 (2002)
  38. Frege, G., "Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege", pp.56~78 (1892), Blackwell
  39. Gundel, J., "Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse", Language, 69(2), pp.274~307 (1993)
  40. Hanink, E., "DP structure and internally headed relatives in Washo", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 39(2), pp.505~554 (2021)
  41. Heim, I., "The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases", Doctor, pp.1982
  42. Heim, I., "Semantics in Generative Grammar" (1998), Blackwell
  43. Jenks, P., "Two kinds of definites in numeral classifier languages", SALT, 255, pp.103~124 (2015)
  44. Jenks, P., "Articulated definiteness without articles", Linguistic Inquiry, 49(3), pp.501~536 (2018)
  45. Jenks, P., "Indexed definiteness", Glossa, 7(1), pp.1~44 (2022)
  46. Kang, A.-R., "Marking definiteness in an articleless language: The role of the domain restrictor KU in Korean", Language and Linguistics, 22(2), pp.302~337 (2021)
  47. Kim, J. -H., "The Korean plural marker tul and its implications", Doctor, pp.2005
  48. Kim, M. -J., "Anaphoric marking in bare noun languages: When and why demonstratives are needed" (2023), TEAL-13
  49. Kim, M.-J., "Subject anaphoric definites in Korean and nominative- vs. topic-marking", Journal of East Asian Linguistics (2023)
  50. 김선희, "A Pragmatic Alternative to Syntactic Accounts of Anaphora", 담화와 인지, 10(3), pp.75~107 (2003), 담화·인지언어학회
  51. 김선웅, "NP", DP Parameter and (In)definiteness in Articleless Languages, 2021, pp.31(2), 273~308[DOI]
  52. Li, Y. A., "Plurality in a classifier language", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8, pp.75~99 (1999)
  53. Moroney, M., "Updating the typology of definiteness : Evidence from bare nouns in Shan", Glossa, 6, pp.1~28 (2021)
  54. Nemoto, N., "On the occurrence of anaphoric bare NPs in Japanese", Linguistics, 53(5), pp.1203~1231 (2015)
  55. Park, S.-Y., "Functional categories: The syntax of DP and DegP", Doctor, pp.2008
  56. Park, S. -Y., "NP-ellipsis and numeral classifiers in Korean", Linguistics, 59(3), pp.635~681 (2021)
  57. Park, S. -Y., "Two types of plurals and numeral classifiers in classifier languages : the case of Korean", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 31(2), pp.139~177 (2022)
  58. Park, M.-K., "Korean vs. Chinese on anaphoric definite with(out) a determiner", ~ (2020)
  59. 박명관, "On how to use anaphoric definites in Korean", 언어연구, 39(1), pp.25~54 (2022), 언어정보연구소[DOI]
  60. Patel-Grosz, P., "Revisiting pronominal typology", Linguistic Inquiry, 48(2), pp.259~297 (2017)
  61. Roberts, C., "Uniqueness and definite noun phrases", Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(3), pp.283~350 (2003)
  62. Royer, J., "Decomposing definiteness : Evidence from Chuj", Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 67(3), pp.383~418 (2022)
  63. Russell, B., "On denoting", Mind, 14(56), pp.479~493 (1905)
  64. Simpson, A., "Bare classifiers and definiteness : a cross-linguistic investigation", Studies in Language, 35, pp.168~193 (2011)
  65. Simpson, A., "Bare nominals, classifiers and the representation of definiteness in Bangla", Linguistic Analysis, 40, pp.167~198 (2016)
  66. Simpson, A., "Strict vs. free word order patterns in Korean nominal phrases and Cyclic Linearization", Studia Linguistica, 73(1), pp.139~174 (2019)
  67. Simpson, A., "New explorations in Chinese theoretical syntax: Studies in honor of Yen-Hui Audrey Li", pp.301~330 (2022), John Benjamins
  68. Schwarz, F., "Two types of definites in natural language", Doctor, pp.2009
  69. Schwarz, F., "Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically", Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(10), pp.534~559 (2013)
  70. Strawson, P., "On referring", Mind, 59(235), pp.320~344 (1950)
  71. Tomioka, S., "The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures", pp.321~340 (2003), John Benjamins

관련 논문AI추천

On anaphoric definiteness in Korean: A reassessment박명관언어과학회 · 언어과학연구2023 · 제107호On how to use anaphoric definites in Korean박명관한국현대언어학회 · 언어연구2022 · 제39권 제1호Anaphoric definite and syntax of demonstrative김규민한국현대언어학회 · 언어연구2024 · 제41권 제3호On Anaphoric Bare Nouns in Korean: Their Interaction with the Particle NUNMyung-Kwan Park인지과학연구소 · Journal of Cognitive Science2025 · 제26권 제2호한국어 교량지시 명사구 변이형태에 대한 연구이상근, 정유정, 정재림한국언어학회 · 언어2022 · 제47권 제2호Anaphoric Definites without a Determiner: Korean vs. Chinese강아름, Myung-Kwan Park인지과학연구소 · Journal of Cognitive Science2024 · 제25권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)

Aboutness Topic and ECM Subjects정한별pp. 4-24주격조사 ‘-가’의 기원과 발달에 대한 재론 — 이용규⋅황선엽(2021)과 양재영(2022)에 대한 비판 —고광모pp. 25-53재귀사 ‘자신’의 특성에 대하여— ‘ziji’와의 대조를 중심으로 —*강은지, 허세문pp. 55-84영어의 even이 없는 양보조건문에 관하여임동식pp. 85-105한국어 일반 명사의 기능적 분포와 분류최운호pp. 107-128
원문 보기