A Typology of “Grammatical Categories”: Obligatoriness vs. Selectiveness
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper proposes a new typological parameter that classifies languages into two distinct language types, viz. ‘obligatoriness vs. selectiveness of formatives.' This essentially syntactic parameter is taken to be a meta-feature that is ultimately responsible for many contrastive features observed in semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological levels. Thus, Korean, a language of agglutinative type, where formatives are selectively used by the speaker's communicative need, appears not to have relational categories that Sapir has termed ‘pure relational'. This proves validity of the unidirectional implicative relation between syntactic types and semantic types, proposed (in slightly different terms) in Bybee 1997. Further, many formal features of Korean formatives, such as phrasal scope, phrasally defined position, phonology-conditioned allomorphy, syllable-based segmental make-up, non-cumulation and high degree of separability, are explained by the meta-feature of obligatoriness vs. selectiveness.
Abstract
This paper proposes a new typological parameter that classifies languages into two distinct language types, viz. ‘obligatoriness vs. selectiveness of formatives.' This essentially syntactic parameter is taken to be a meta-feature that is ultimately responsible for many contrastive features observed in semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological levels. Thus, Korean, a language of agglutinative type, where formatives are selectively used by the speaker's communicative need, appears not to have relational categories that Sapir has termed ‘pure relational'. This proves validity of the unidirectional implicative relation between syntactic types and semantic types, proposed (in slightly different terms) in Bybee 1997. Further, many formal features of Korean formatives, such as phrasal scope, phrasally defined position, phonology-conditioned allomorphy, syllable-based segmental make-up, non-cumulation and high degree of separability, are explained by the meta-feature of obligatoriness vs. selectiveness.
참고문헌 (25)
- Anderson, S. R., "A-Morphous Morphology" (1992), University Press
- Aronoff, M., "Morphology by Itself" (1994), The MIT Press
- Bickel, B., "Language Typology and Syntactic Description", pp.169~240 (2007), University Press
- Bybee, Joan, "Essays on Language Function and Language Type", pp.25~37 (1997), John Benjamins Publishing Co
- Carnie, A., "Syntax: A Generative Introduction" (2006), Blackwell
- Chafe, W. L., "Subject and Topic", pp.25~55 (1976), Academic Press
- 최성호, "한국어 “교착” 현상에 대한 연구 ―러시아어 굴절과 비교하여―", 언어학, (55), pp.171~197 (2009), 사단법인 한국언어학회
- Choi, Sung-ho, "형태론에서의 교착 현상 연구", inmunhagji, 44, pp.237~259 (2012), Chungbuk Nat'l Univ. Inmunhak yeonguso
- 최성호, "교착 통사론: 생략과 부가", 언어학, (65), pp.3~38 (2013), 사단법인 한국언어학회
- Choi, Hyeon Bae, "우리말본" (1937), Jeongeum munhwasa
- Foley, W., "Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar" (1984), Cambridge University Press
- 고석주, "조사 ‘가’의 의미", 國語學, 40, pp.221~246 (2002), 국어학회
- Han, H., "한국어의 AgrP NegP", Eoneo, 18(2), pp.437~461 (1993)
- Haspelmath, M., "Understanding Morphology" (2002), Oxford University Press Inc
- Heo, Ung, "20세기 우리말의 통어론" (1999), Saem munhwasa
- Hong, K., "Subjecthood Tests in Korean", Language Studies, 30(1), pp.99~136 (1994)
- Im, H., "국어 굴절의 원리적 성격과 재구조화", Kwanageomun, 22, pp.93~163 (1997)
- Lee, Ik-Seop, "국어 문법론" (1983), Hagyeonsa
- Mok, J., "한국어 문법론" (2003), Weolin
- 목정수, "선어말어미 ‘-시-’의 기능과 주어 존대", 國語學, (67), pp.63~106 (2013), 국어학회
- Nam, Gi Sim, "표준국어문법론" (2011), Tap Chulpansa
- Park, Jin Ho, "선어말어미 ‘-시-’의 통사구조상의 위치", Kwanageomunyeongu, 19, pp.75~82 (1994)
- 박석준, "선어말어미 ‘-시-’의 문법외적 용법에 관하여", 한말연구, (14), pp.201~220 (2004), 한말연구학회
- Sapir, E., "Language" (1921), Harcourt, Braxel and World, Inc
- Woo, S., "국어 어미의 통사적 지위", Gugeohak, 30, pp.225~256 (1997)