‘N1도 N1이지만’의 구문화와 의미 재현 기제
Constructionalization and Mechanisms of Meaning Representation in ‘N1-do N1-ijiman’
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
‘N1-do N1-ijiman’ is a commonly used patterned expression in Korean. While it can be generally interpreted as ‘N1 is like that’ at the surface level, it can also represent entirely different predicate ideas depending on the context. This study provides quantitative evidence to support the consideration of ‘N1-do N1-ijiman’ as a type of construction through an analysis of a Korean language corpus and examines the mechanisms underlying its meaning representation. As part of this analysis, we categorize the reference scope of the predicate-idea represented by ‘N1-ijiman’ into three groups: preceding elements, following elements, and other cases. The findings reveal that ‘N1-ijiman’ does not always substitute for the predicate mentioned in the preceding sentence, and the predicate-idea it represents may not correspond directly to the predicates articulated in the discourse. Ultimately this study argues that ‘N1-do N1-ijiman’ reflects the speaker's intention to background the specific entity indicated by N within the set of elements under consideration, while foregrounding others.
Abstract
‘N1-do N1-ijiman’ is a commonly used patterned expression in Korean. While it can be generally interpreted as ‘N1 is like that’ at the surface level, it can also represent entirely different predicate ideas depending on the context. This study provides quantitative evidence to support the consideration of ‘N1-do N1-ijiman’ as a type of construction through an analysis of a Korean language corpus and examines the mechanisms underlying its meaning representation. As part of this analysis, we categorize the reference scope of the predicate-idea represented by ‘N1-ijiman’ into three groups: preceding elements, following elements, and other cases. The findings reveal that ‘N1-ijiman’ does not always substitute for the predicate mentioned in the preceding sentence, and the predicate-idea it represents may not correspond directly to the predicates articulated in the discourse. Ultimately this study argues that ‘N1-do N1-ijiman’ reflects the speaker's intention to background the specific entity indicated by N within the set of elements under consideration, while foregrounding others.
참고문헌 (23)
- "표준국어대사전" (2018), 국립국어원[URL]
- "국립국어원 문어 말뭉치(버전 1.2)" (2020), 국립국어원[URL]
- 박진희, "국어 절 접속의 의미관계 유형에 대한 연구", 박사, 국어국문학과, pp.2012
- 고려대학교, "고려대 한국어대사전" (2009), 고려대학교민족문화연구원
- 박재연, "한국어 연결어미 의미 확장에서의 환유와 은유", 국어학(國語學), 70, pp.117~155 (2014)
- 손혜옥, "‘－지만’의 절차적 의미와 사용 영역", 국어학(國語學), 103, pp.209~246 (2022)
- 신지연, "대립과 양보 접속어미의 범주화", 어문학, 84, pp.75~98 (2004)
- 윤평현, "국어의 접속어미 연구", 박사, pp.1989
- 이은경, "국어의 연결어미 연구" (2000), 태학사
- 전혜영, "현대 한국어 접속어미의 화용론적 연구", 박사, pp.1989
- 정수진, "인지언어학의 ‘해석’에 기초한 국어 접속문의 유형과 의미구성 분석", 언어과학연구, 70, pp.405~432 (2014)
- 정연주, "구문문법과 한국어 구문 연구", 국어학(國語學), 106, pp.289~334 (2023)
- 진관초, "한국어 반복 구문", 박사, pp.2018
- 함계임, "배경 분류를 통한 유사 문형 변별 방안-‘-(으)ㄴ", 는데’와 ‘-지만’, ‘-니까’를 대상으로-, 2017, pp.31, 341~370
- 홍승혜, "항진적 표현과 은유적 표현의 서술어 기제에 관한 기호학적 접근-‘지각적 판단’과 ‘논리적 해석체’를 중심으로", 기호학 연구, 72, pp.169~197 (2022)
- Bybee, J. L., "Language, usage and cognition" (2010), Cambridge University Press
- Bybee, J. L., "Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language" (2007), Oxford University Press
- Fillmore, C. J., "Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions : The Case of Let Alone", Language, 64(3), pp.501~538 (1988)
- Goldberg, A. E., "Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language" (2006), Oxford University Press
- Haiman, J., "Natural syntax : iconicity and erosion" (1985), Cambridge University Press
- Kay, P., "Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction", Language, 75(1), pp.1~33 (1999)
- Pawley, A., "Language and communication", pp.191~226 (1983), Longman
- Traugott, E. C., "Constructionalization and Constructional Changes" (2013), Oxford University Press