Formatives in Korean: Their semantic and syntactic characteristics
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper claims that formatives in Korean are non-mandatory sentential elements, which is a major feature in their syntactic behavior that differentiates them from inflectional elements of familiar Indo-European languages (including Russian and English), whose mandatory appearance in the sentence is regulated by the grammar of sentence-formation. It is suggested that they should be termed “agglutinatives” precisely for this reason. The consequences that derives from this feature are as follows: (1) Korean formatives are non-redundant in their semantics,thus being additive and never elliptical, (2) no zero formatives could possibly be posited for agglutinatives, (3) they have phrasal domain as their syntactic scope,while constituting a phonological unit with their formal host, and (4) neither inflectional paradigms nor inflection classes, which are established for those languages with inflection, are possibly posited for the Korean grammar.
Abstract
This paper claims that formatives in Korean are non-mandatory sentential elements, which is a major feature in their syntactic behavior that differentiates them from inflectional elements of familiar Indo-European languages (including Russian and English), whose mandatory appearance in the sentence is regulated by the grammar of sentence-formation. It is suggested that they should be termed “agglutinatives” precisely for this reason. The consequences that derives from this feature are as follows: (1) Korean formatives are non-redundant in their semantics,thus being additive and never elliptical, (2) no zero formatives could possibly be posited for agglutinatives, (3) they have phrasal domain as their syntactic scope,while constituting a phonological unit with their formal host, and (4) neither inflectional paradigms nor inflection classes, which are established for those languages with inflection, are possibly posited for the Korean grammar.
참고문헌 (31)
- Choi, Dong Ju, "국어 어미 연구의 나아가야 할 방향", Hangueohak, 16, pp.183~215 (2002)
- 최성호, "러시아어 곡용: 어간변이와 어미변이와의 상호계면현상 연구", 러시아어문학연구논집, 23(23), pp.223~249 (2006), 한국러시아문학회
- 최성호, "한국어 “교착” 현상에 대한 연구 ―러시아어 굴절과 비교하여―", 언어학, (55), pp.171~197 (2009), 사단법인 한국언어학회
- Choi, Woong Hwan, "선문말 교착소의 통사적 지위와 기 능에 대하여", Munhakgwa eoneo, 27, pp.89~106 (2005)
- Im, Hong Bin, "국어 굴절의 원리적 성격과 재구조화", Gwanageomunyeonku, 22, pp.93~163 (1998)
- 임홍빈, "한국어 무조사 명사구의 통사와 의미", 國語學, 49(49), pp.69~106 (2007), 국어학회
- 이필영, "조사 ‘이", 가’와 ‘을, 한국어학, pp.2010, 49[DOI]
- 고석주, "조사 ‘가’의 의미", 國語學, 40, pp.221~246 (2002), 국어학회
- 박진호, "통사적 결합 관계와 논항구조", 석사, pp.1994
- Woo, Sun Jo, "국어 어미의 통사적 지위", Gugeohak, 30, pp.225~255 (1997)
- 유동석, "국어의 매개변인 문법", 박사, pp.1993
- Anderson, S. R., "A-morphous morphology" (1992), Cambridge University Press
- Aronoff, Mark, "Morphology by itself" (1994), The MIT press
- Bickel, Balthasar, "Inflectional morphology, in Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon", pp.169~240 (2007), Cambridge University Press
- Bisang, Walter, "Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning: the case of tense-aspect-modality in East and mainland Southeast Asia, in What makes Grammaticalization?", pp.109~138 (2004), Mouton de Gruyter
- Bloomfield, L., "Language" (1933), Henry Holt
- Bybee, Joan, "Semantic Aspects of Morphological Types, in Essays on Langauge Function and Language Type", pp.25~37 (1997), John Benjamins Publishing Company
- 최성호, "STRUCTURE AND INNOVATION OF DECLENSION PATTERNS IN INFLECTING LANGUAGES: MOTIVATED DISTRIBUTION AND MARKEDNESS PRINCIPLE", 언어학, 51(51), pp.43~70 (2008), 사단법인 한국언어학회
- Haspelmath, Martin, "Understanding Morphology" (2002), Oxford University Press
- Kibrik, Aleksandr E., "Beyond subject and object: Toward a comprehensive relational typology", Linguistic Typology, 1, pp.279~346 (1997)
- Klavans Judith L., "The independence of syntax and phonology", Language, 61, pp.95~120 (1985)
- Lehman, Christian, "Thoughts on Grammaticalization" (1995), Lincom
- Lyons, John, "Linguistic Semantics : An Introduction" (1995), Cambrdige University Press
- Matthews, P. H., "Morphology. 2 nd ed" (1991), Cambridge Univ. Press
- Perlmutter, D., "The split morphology hypothesis: evidence from Yiddish, in Theoretical morphology: approaches in modern linguistics", pp.79~100 (1988), Academy Press
- Plank, Frans, "Split morphology: how agglutination and flexion mix", Linguistic Typology, 3, pp.279~340 (1999)
- Sadok, Jerrold, "Autolexical Syntax: a Theory of Parallel Grammatical Representation" (1991), University of Chicago Press
- Sapir, Edward, "Language" (1921), Harcourt, Brace and World
- Stump, Gregory, "Inflection, in The Handbook of Morphology", pp.13~43 (1998), Blackwell
- Stump, Gregory, "Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Zwicky, Arnold, "The general Case: Basic Form versus Default Form", Berkeley Linguistic Society, 12, pp.305~14 (1986)