한국어 의도 표현 연구: ‘(으)ㄹ게’와 ‘(으)ㄹ래’ 구문을 중심으로
A study on intentional expressions in Korean: based on the (u)lkey/(u)llay constructions
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper discuses how commitments interact with person constraints. Much literature points out that (u)lkey and (u)llay constructions in Korean convey the speaker’s intention; thereby the first person subject should be employed. However, it is also noted that unlike the latter, the former reflects the hearer’s intention together, and due to this, polar questions cannot be construed. To explain this kind of disparities, this paper argues that in terms of the perspective sensitivity, the subject in those constructions varies along with the source of the commitment. Given this, it is shown that the sentence final particle –lay encodes the speaker’s commitment; hence the subject is confined to be first person. But in interrogative sentences, the second person subject should be used due to perspective shifts. On the other hand, the sentence final particle –key is claimed to specify a contingent commitment; i.e., the speaker’s authority is relatively stronger than the hearer’s. Thus, it also gives rise to a first person constraint. Regarding questions, however, this paper puts forth an idea that when sentences obtain performative effects, person constraints based on contingent commitments cannot be shifted.
Abstract
This paper discuses how commitments interact with person constraints. Much literature points out that (u)lkey and (u)llay constructions in Korean convey the speaker’s intention; thereby the first person subject should be employed. However, it is also noted that unlike the latter, the former reflects the hearer’s intention together, and due to this, polar questions cannot be construed. To explain this kind of disparities, this paper argues that in terms of the perspective sensitivity, the subject in those constructions varies along with the source of the commitment. Given this, it is shown that the sentence final particle –lay encodes the speaker’s commitment; hence the subject is confined to be first person. But in interrogative sentences, the second person subject should be used due to perspective shifts. On the other hand, the sentence final particle –key is claimed to specify a contingent commitment; i.e., the speaker’s authority is relatively stronger than the hearer’s. Thus, it also gives rise to a first person constraint. Regarding questions, however, this paper puts forth an idea that when sentences obtain performative effects, person constraints based on contingent commitments cannot be shifted.
참고문헌 (61)
- 강현화, "‘-을걸’의 특성과 후회표현의 양상", 이중언어학, (38), pp.43~68 (2008), 이중언어학회[DOI]
- 고창운, "‘-을라, -을걸, -을게, -을래’의 의미 분석 연구", 한국어교육, 11 (1995)
- 권재일, "한국어 문법론" (2012), 태학사
- 김병건, "{-다}와 {-어}의 변별과 담화에서의 효과", 한글, (304), pp.89~115 (2014), 한글학회
- 김병건, "{-는걸}과 {-을걸}의 양태 의미 연구", 한글, (309), pp.65~94 (2015), 한글학회
- 남기심, "국어의통사. 의미론", pp.2~26 (1983), 탑 출판사
- 박재연, "한국어 양태 어미 연구" (2006), 태학사
- 서정목, "국어 의문문 연구" (1987), 탑 출판사
- 송재목, "증거성(evidentiality)과 주어제약의 유형론-한국어, 몽골어, 티벳어를 예로 들어-", 형태론, 9(1), pp.1~23 (2007), 형태론
- 윤은경, "한국어 양태 표현 연구 －종결어미 ‘-(으)ㄹ래, -(으)ㄹ게’를 대상으로－", 언어와 문화, 2(2), pp.41~63 (2006), 한국언어문화교육학회[DOI]
- 이윤진, "한국어교육에서의 양태 표현 연구", 한국어교육, 14(1), pp.173~209 (2003), 국제한국어교육학회
- 이정민, "심리술어와 1인칭: 증거성의 문제", 언어, 41(4), pp.679~713 (2016), 한국언어학회[DOI]
- 최동주, "종결어미 ‘-ㄹ걸’의 기능과 문법적 특성", 國語學, (54), pp.225~251 (2009), 국어학회[DOI]
- 허세문, "약속문의 내포 불가능성에 대한 의미론적 제안", 언어와 정보, 20(2), pp.27~56 (2016), 한국언어정보학회
- 허세문, "한국어의 다양한 인칭 제약에 대한 소고", 언어와 정보 사회, 40, pp.391~426 (2020), 언어정보연구소[DOI]
- 허세문, "{걸}", {지} 접속절의 인칭 제약과 담화에서의 효과, 2021 (2021), 3~16
- AnderBois, S., "An illocutionary account of reportative evidentials in imperatives", Proceedings of SALT, 27, pp.459~479 (2017)
- Anand, P., "Epistemics and attitudes", Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, pp.1~59 (2013)
- Bianchi, V., "Tense and Point of view", pp.213~246 (2003), Universite Paris X
- Bylinina, L., "The landscape of perspective shifting, A handout presented at Pronouns in Embedded Contexts at the Syntax-Semantics Interface", Universität Tübingen, ~ (2014)
- Ceong, H. H., "Korean hearsay constructions and speech act phrases", Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association (2016)
- Chung, K. -S., "Spatial deictic tense and evidentials in Korean", Natural Language Semantics, 15, pp.187~219 (2007)
- Condoravdi, C., "Imperatives : Meaning and illocutionary force", Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 9, pp.37~58 (2012)
- Davis, C., "Constraining interpretation", Doctoral, pp.2011
- Farkas, D., "On reacting to assertions and polar questions", Journal of Semantics, 27, pp.81~118 (2010)
- Farkas, D., "Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives", Journal of Semantics, 34, pp.237~289 (2017)
- von Fintel, K., "Modality across syntactic categories", pp.288~319 (2017), Oxford University Press
- Gunlogson, C., "True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English", PhD., pp.2001
- Gunlogson, C., "A question of commitment", Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 22, pp.101~136 (2008)
- Hamblin, C. L., "Mathematical models of dialogue", Theoria, 37, pp.130~155 (1971)
- Hoe, S., "Korean adverbials with interrogative", declarative endings and the speaker’s commitment, Korean Linguistics, 28[DOI]
- Kalsang, J. G., "Direct evidentials, case, tense and aspect in Tibetan", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, pp.517~561 (2013)
- Kaufmann, M., "Interpreting Imperatives" (2012), Springer Science & Business Media
- Kim, Y. -J., "The syntax and semantics of Korean case", PhD, pp.1990
- Kratzer, A., "Modals and Conditionals" (2012), Oxford University Press
- Kuroda, S. -Y., "A Festschrift for Morris Halle", pp.377~391 (1973), Holt, Rinehart and Winston
- Kwon, I., "The viewpoint shifter-eha-in Korean and how it affects causal event structure", Language Science, 42, pp.30~42 (2014)
- Landau, I., "The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, pp.811~877 (2004)
- Landau, I., "A Two-Tired Theory of Control, Cambridge" (2015), MIT Press
- Lee, K. Y., "Finite control in Korean", PhD., pp.2009
- Lee, J., "Temporal constraints on the meaning of evidentiality", Natural Language Semantics, 21, pp.1~41 (2013)
- Lim, D., "Evidentials and Interrogatives", PhD., pp.2010
- Madigan, S., "Control constructions in Korean", Doctoral, pp.2008
- Malamud, S., "Three ways to avoid commitments", Journal of Semantics, 32, pp.275~311 (2015)
- McCready, E., "Context shifting in questions and elsewhere", Proceedings of SuB, 11, pp.433~447 (2007)
- McCready, E., "Particles: Dynamics vs. utility", Japanese, 2008, pp.16, ~[DOI]
- Nam, S., "Psychological origos and levels of deixis", A handout presented at 2018 Seoul Linguistic Forum (2018), Seoul National University
- Northrup, O., "Grounds for commitment", PhD., pp.2014
- Pak, M., "Agreement and the subjects of jussive clauses in Korean", Proceedings of NELS, 37, pp.127~138 (2007)
- Park, J. U., "Clause structure and null subjects: Referential dependencies in Korean", PhD., pp.2011
- Park, Y., "Overt subjects in obligatory control constructions in Korean", Proceedings of WCCFL, 35, pp.305~312 (2018)
- Poletto, C., "The Syntax of Italian Dialects", pp.175~206 (2003), Oxford University Press
- Portner, P., "Imperatives and modals", Natural Language Semantics, 15, pp.351~383 (2007)
- Portner, P., "Discourse and grammar", pp.43~68 (2012), Walter de Gruyter
- Portner P., "Mood and contextual commitment", Proceedings of SALT, 22, pp.461~487 (2012)
- Searle, J. R., "Philosophy in America", pp.221~239 (1965), Unwin Hyman
- Searle, J. R., "How performatives work", Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, pp.535~558 (1989)
- 서샛별, "Agreement of a Point-of-Viewer and a Jussive Subject", 생성문법연구, 25(1), pp.1~34 (2015), 한국생성문법학회[DOI]
- Stalnaker, R., "Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, vol. 9", pp.315~332 (1978), Academic Press
- Tenny, L. C., "Evidentiality, experiencers, and the syntax of sentience in Japanese", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 15, pp.245~288 (2006)
- Zanuttini, R, "A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30, pp.1231~1274 (2012)