직접적 증거성과 추론적 증거성: 한국어의 '-더-'를 중심으로
Direct evidentiality and inferential evidentiality: focusing on Korean -te-
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In this paper, I argue that Korean –te- is not an evidential marker which just requires the speaker’s direct perceptive evidence, as assumed by many previous studies, but it requires inference from direct perceptive evidence (Lim 2019, a.o.). I further propose that the inference required by -te- should also be based on the efficacious causal relation (Copley and Harley 2015, a.o.) between the event consisting in the speaker’s direct perceptive evidence and the event denoted by the prejacent of –te-. This proposal will explain the apparent variable evidentiality of –te- between direct perceptive evidentiality and inferential evidentiality, and other problems related to –te-, such as spatiotemporal ‘discontinuity’ between the situation where the event denoted by the prejacent of –te- occurs and the situation where the utterance occurs (c.f. Chung 2007), and the inferential aspect of –te- in various contexts. I also point out that this unique characteristics of –te- raises questions to, and requires the reconsideration of, the previous typology of evidentials.
Abstract
In this paper, I argue that Korean –te- is not an evidential marker which just requires the speaker’s direct perceptive evidence, as assumed by many previous studies, but it requires inference from direct perceptive evidence (Lim 2019, a.o.). I further propose that the inference required by -te- should also be based on the efficacious causal relation (Copley and Harley 2015, a.o.) between the event consisting in the speaker’s direct perceptive evidence and the event denoted by the prejacent of –te-. This proposal will explain the apparent variable evidentiality of –te- between direct perceptive evidentiality and inferential evidentiality, and other problems related to –te-, such as spatiotemporal ‘discontinuity’ between the situation where the event denoted by the prejacent of –te- occurs and the situation where the utterance occurs (c.f. Chung 2007), and the inferential aspect of –te- in various contexts. I also point out that this unique characteristics of –te- raises questions to, and requires the reconsideration of, the previous typology of evidentials.
참고문헌 (40)
- 강계림, "한국어 증거성 표지의 화용론적 추론 의미", 언어과학, 22(1), pp.1~22 (2015), 한국언어과학회[DOI]
- 김건희, "국어 양태의 특수성:다른 양태소 및 문법소와의 공기를 중심으로", 한국어학, 70, pp.1~54 (2016), 한국어학회[DOI]
- 김진웅, "한국어 증거성의 체계: 유형론을 중심으로", 한국어 의미학, 39, pp.101~124 (2012), 한국어의미학회
- 송재목, "안맺음씨끝 ‘-더-’의 의미기능에 대하여 : 유형론적 관점에서", 국어학, 32, pp.135~169 (1998), 국어학회
- 송재목, "한국어 ‘증거성’ 종결어미 ‘-네’: 정경숙(2007, 2012)에 대한 대답", 언어, 39(4), pp.819~850 (2014), 한국언어학회[DOI]
- 송재목, "상황과 증거, 증거성", 한국언어학회 학술대회지, pp.411~422 (2016)
- 양정석, "‘-더-’의 형식의미론적 기술들에 대한비판과 대안", 한국어 의미학, 69, pp.155~195 (2020), 한국어의미학회[DOI]
- 이정민, "심리술어와 1인칭: 증거성의 문제", 언어, 41(4), pp.679~713 (2016), 한국언어학회[DOI]
- 임동식, "상황의미론의 존재론과 증거성의 해석: 한국어 ‘-더-’의 경우", 언어, 44(4), pp.923~942 (2019), 한국언어학회[DOI]
- Aikhenvald, A., "Evidentiality" (2004), Oxford University Press
- Arregui, A., "Modality across syntactic categories", pp.211~234 (2017), Oxford University Press
- Barwise, J., "Situations and attitudes" (1983), MIT Press
- Chung, K. -S., "Spatial Deictic Tense and Evidentials in Korean", Natural Language Semantics, 15, pp.187~219 (2007)
- Copley, B., "Events are the source of causal readings in the simplest English conditionals", Paper presented in the linguistics colloquium, Department of Linguistics (2021), Seoul National University
- Copley, B., "Causation in Grammatical Structures", pp.120~151 (2015), Oxford University Press
- Davidson, D., "The Logic of Decision and Action" (1967), University of Pittsburgh Press
- Devlin, K., "Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 7", pp.601~664 (2006), Elsevier
- Faller, M., "Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua", Doctoral, pp.2002
- Grice, H. P., "Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts", pp.43~58 (1975), Academic Press
- Hara, Y., "Causality and evidentiality", The proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium, pp.295~304 (2017)
- Hoe, S., "Korean evidential –te-, the past tense –ess-, and the commitment of the speaker", Proceedings of the 26th Japanese, 2018, 275~285[DOI]
- Izvorski, R., "The present perfect as an epistemic modal", Proceedings of the Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 7, pp.222~239 (1997)
- Kalsang, J. Garfield, "Direct evidentials, case, tense and aspect in Tibetan", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, pp.517~561 (2013)
- Kaufmann, S., "Causal Premise Semantics", Cognitive Science, 37, pp.1136~1170 (2013)
- Kratzer, A., "An investigation of the lumps of thought", Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, pp.607~653 (1989)
- Kratzer, A., "Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy" (2017), CSLI
- Krawczyk, E., "Inferred Propositions and the Expression of the Evidence Relation in Natural Language", Doctoral, pp.2012
- Kwon, I., "Viewpoints in the Korean Verbal Complex", Doctoral, pp.2011
- Lee, J., "Temporal constraints on the meaning of evidentiality", Natural Language Semantics, 21, pp.1~41 (2013)
- Lee J., "Evidentials and Modals", pp.345~377 (2020), Brill
- Lim, D., "Two types of inference in evidentials – efficacy vs. doxastic worlds", Paper presented in Sinn und Bedeutung, 26, pp.2021~ (2021), University of Cologne
- Matthewson, L., "Epistemic Indefinites", pp.141~160 (2015), Oxford University Press
- Matthewson, L., "Temporal evidentials without tense", Paper presented at “Expressing Evidence” (2019), University of Konstanz
- Murray, S., "Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts", Doctoral, pp.2010
- Potts, C., "The Logic of Conventional Implicature" (2005), Oxford University Press
- Pustejovsky, J., "The Generative Lexicon" (1995), MIT Press
- Roberts, C., "Information structure in discourse : Towards an integrated theory of pragmatics", Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), pp.1~69 (2012)
- Tonhauser, J., "Toward a Taxonomy of Projective Content", Language, 89(1), pp.66~109 (2013)
- Vendler, Z., "Linguistics in Philosophy" (1967), Cornell University Press
- Willet, T., "A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality", Studies in Language, 12, pp.51~97 (1986)