본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

주격조사 ‘-가’의 기원과 발달에 대한 재론 — 이용규⋅황선엽(2021)과 양재영(2022)에 대한 비판 —

The Origin and Development of the Nominative Marker -ka in Korean Revisited: Criticizing Lee & Hwang (2021) and Yang (2022)

고광모
사단법인 한국언어학회 (The Linguistic Society of Korea)|2023.12|언어학 (EONEOHAG)|제97호|pp. 25-53|DOI 10.17290/jlsk.2023..97.25

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

Japaneseminor sentencereinterpretationborrowingreanalysisnominative markerprenasalized stop
주제분류언어학

초록

This paper criticizes Lee & Hwang (2021) and Yang (2022) that dealt with the appearance of the Korean postvocalic nominative marker -ka [ɡa] in the 17th century. Lee & Hwang (2021) have argued that it is highly probable that -ka was borrowed from Japanese. Their argument presupposes that the Japanese nominative marker -ga was phonetically [ɡa] in the 16-17th centuries. However, the presupposition is false and the borrowing hypothesis cannot be true. The Japanese nominative marker was phonetically [ŋ ɡa] at the time and the prenasalized stop [ ŋɡ] was perceived as a nasal-stop cluster [ŋɡ] by Koreans of the time. Thus, if the Japanese nominative marker was borrowed into Korean in the 16-17th centuries, it should have become -ŋka [ŋɡa] in Korean, as Japanese tabako [tambako] ‘tobacco’ was borrowed into Korean as tampako [tambaɡo] in the early 17th century. Furthermore, we still arrive at the conclusion that Lee & Hwang's (2021) argument is implausible, even when we review it under the assumption that the Japanese nominative marker had been phonetically [ɡa] in the 16-17th centuries. I have argued elsewhere (Ko 2014) that the nominative marker -ka developed from the interrogative marker -ka attached to the end of minor sentences. Yang (2022) has also argued that the nominative marker -ka developed from the interrogative marker -ka, but the interrogative marker -ka in his argument is that used in full sentences. He doubts whether the interrogative marker -ka can lose its identity in minor sentences because there is no other constituent that can take over the function of indicating question. However, his doubt is groundless because questions may be indicated by intonation alone. Yang (2022) assumes that an inverted interrogative cleft construction underwent reanalysis and as a result the interrogative marker -ka thereof was reinterpreted as a nominative marker. However, the reanalysis was possible only if a constituent of the construction was misperceived as another homophonous form, and the misperception could not occur since the resulting sentence could make no sense at all.

Abstract

This paper criticizes Lee & Hwang (2021) and Yang (2022) that dealt with the appearance of the Korean postvocalic nominative marker -ka [ɡa] in the 17th century. Lee & Hwang (2021) have argued that it is highly probable that -ka was borrowed from Japanese. Their argument presupposes that the Japanese nominative marker -ga was phonetically [ɡa] in the 16-17th centuries. However, the presupposition is false and the borrowing hypothesis cannot be true. The Japanese nominative marker was phonetically [ŋ ɡa] at the time and the prenasalized stop [ ŋɡ] was perceived as a nasal-stop cluster [ŋɡ] by Koreans of the time. Thus, if the Japanese nominative marker was borrowed into Korean in the 16-17th centuries, it should have become -ŋka [ŋɡa] in Korean, as Japanese tabako [tambako] ‘tobacco’ was borrowed into Korean as tampako [tambaɡo] in the early 17th century. Furthermore, we still arrive at the conclusion that Lee & Hwang's (2021) argument is implausible, even when we review it under the assumption that the Japanese nominative marker had been phonetically [ɡa] in the 16-17th centuries. I have argued elsewhere (Ko 2014) that the nominative marker -ka developed from the interrogative marker -ka attached to the end of minor sentences. Yang (2022) has also argued that the nominative marker -ka developed from the interrogative marker -ka, but the interrogative marker -ka in his argument is that used in full sentences. He doubts whether the interrogative marker -ka can lose its identity in minor sentences because there is no other constituent that can take over the function of indicating question. However, his doubt is groundless because questions may be indicated by intonation alone. Yang (2022) assumes that an inverted interrogative cleft construction underwent reanalysis and as a result the interrogative marker -ka thereof was reinterpreted as a nominative marker. However, the reanalysis was possible only if a constituent of the construction was misperceived as another homophonous form, and the misperception could not occur since the resulting sentence could make no sense at all.

참고문헌 (33)

  1. 고광모, "상대높임의 조사 ‘-요’와 ‘-(이)ㅂ쇼’의 기원과 형성 과정", 국어학, 36, pp.259~282 (2000)
  2. 고광모, "전남 방언의 상대높임법 조사 '-(이)라우, -(이)람닌짜, -(이)람니야, -(이)랑가'와 '-이다'의 기원과 형성 과정", 언어학, (38), pp.3~42 (2004), 사단법인 한국언어학회
  3. 고광모, "주격조사 ‘-가’의 발달", 언어학, (68), pp.93~118 (2014), 사단법인 한국언어학회[DOI]
  4. 고광모, "주체높임을 나타내는 어미 ‘-(으)ㅂ시-’의 발달 ― {-시-}의 형성과 ‘-(으)ㅂ시-’에 이른 변화 ―", 언어학, (76), pp.57~85 (2016), 사단법인 한국언어학회[DOI]
  5. 국립국어연구원, "표준 국어 대사전" (1999), (주) 두산 동아
  6. 권순긍, "교과서의 변천과 문학교육의 방향 —고등학교"국어"교과서를 중심으로—", 반교어문연구, 10, pp.39~72 (1999)
  7. 권태환, "조선왕조시대 인구 추정에 관한 일시론", 동아문화, 14, pp.289~330 (1977), 서울대학교 인문대학 동아문화연구소
  8. 김문자, "임진왜란과 한일관계", pp.327~368 (2005), 경인문화사
  9. 김일근, "언간의 연구" (1991), 건국대학교 출판부
  10. 김정수, "17세기 한국말의 높임법과 그 15세기로부터의 변천" (1984), 정음사
  11. 백두현, "현풍곽씨언간 주해" (2003), 태학사
  12. 손승철, "조선통신사의 피로인 쇄환과 그 한계", 전북사학, (42), pp.167~200 (2013), 전북사학회
  13. 양재영, "조사 ‘가’의 기원에 관한 새로운 해석— 의문첨사설과 일본어 차용설의 비판적 종합 —", 언어학, (93), pp.55~84 (2022), 사단법인 한국언어학회[DOI]
  14. 양흥숙, "조선후기 降倭의 존재 양상과 정착 - 대구시 우록리 김충선의 후손 사례를 중심으로 -", 대구사학, 122, pp.41~79 (2016), 대구사학회
  15. 유창돈, "이조 국어사 연구" (1964), 선명문화사
  16. 이기문, "개정 국어사 개설" (1972), 민중서관
  17. 이용규, "주격 조사 ‘-가’의 일본어 차용설 검토", 國語學, (99), pp.319~347 (2021), 국어학회[DOI]
  18. 전형대, "역주 병자일기" (1991), 예전사
  19. 정광, "『첩해신어』의 성립과 개수 및 중간", 서지학보, 12, pp.27~59 (1994), 한국서지학회
  20. 정기택, "삼국에 전래된 담배의 이름과 설화에서 동질성으로 본 한국 담배의 기원 연구", 한국연초학회지, 37(1), pp.1~7 (2015), 한국연초학회
  21. 조항범, "주해 순천김씨묘출토간찰" (1998), 태학사
  22. 주지연, "한국어 주격 조사 ‘-가’는 차용되었을까? -언어 간 문법 형식의 전이 가능성에 대하여-", 國語學, (107), pp.167~194 (2023), 국어학회[DOI]
  23. 진남택, "일본어 탁음의 비음성의 변천 과정- 15-18세기의 일본어 전사 자료를 이용하여 -", 말소리, (48), pp.35~55 (2003), 대한음성학회
  24. 허웅, "16세기 우리 옛말본" (1989), 샘문화사
  25. 허준, "임진왜란과 민족 구성원의 확대 - 왜란기 降倭를 중심으로", 지역과 역사, (49), pp.185~213 (2021), 부경역사연구소[DOI]
  26. Heine, B., "rom Cognition to Grammar: Evidence from African Languages", pp.149~187 (1991)
  27. Hopper, P. J., "On Some Principles of Grammaticalization", pp.17~35 (1991)
  28. Lee, Ki-Moon, "A History of the Korean Language" (2011), Cambridge University Press
  29. Ramsey, S. R., "Korean Language in Culture and Society", pp.57~64 (2006), University of Hawaii Press
  30. Riehl, A. K., "The Phonology and Phonetics of Nasal-Obstruent Sequences", Ph.D., pp.2008
  31. Sapir, Y., "Globally Speaking: Motives for Adopting English Vocabulary in Other Languages", pp.19~43 (2008), Multilingual Matters
  32. 서미선, "The influence of speech perception on French nasal vowel adaptation in Korean and English", 음성음운형태론연구, 17(3), pp.385~404 (2011), 한국음운론학회[DOI]
  33. Traugott, E. C., "Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol.Ⅰ" (1991), John Benjamins

관련 논문AI추천

조사 ‘가’의 기원에 관한 새로운 해석— 의문첨사설과 일본어 차용설의 비판적 종합 —양재영사단법인 한국언어학회 · 언어학2022 · 제93호주격조사 ‘-가’의 발달고광모사단법인 한국언어학회 · 언어학2014 · 제68호On the Identity and Distribution of “Case Markers” in Korean채희락한국언어학회 · 언어2023 · 제48권 제2호An Alternative Analysis of the “Case Alternation” Phenomenon in Korean계은진한국언어학회 · 언어2025 · 제50권 제2호한국어 주격표지, 격표지의 생략, 초점, 그리고 화제이종근사단법인 한국언어학회 · 언어학2021 · 제29권 제4호Categorization of Double Nominative Constructions in Korean: Based on the Properties of -i/-ka박우경, 이경미21세기영어영문학회 · 영어영문학212019 · 제32권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)

Aboutness Topic and ECM Subjects정한별pp. 4-24재귀사 ‘자신’의 특성에 대하여— ‘ziji’와의 대조를 중심으로 —*강은지, 허세문pp. 55-84영어의 even이 없는 양보조건문에 관하여임동식pp. 85-105한국어 일반 명사의 기능적 분포와 분류최운호pp. 107-128한국어 지시사와 한정성박소영pp. 129-159
원문 보기