국어의 극어 형성에 대한 의미․화용론적 연구
Semantic and Pragmatic Study on Building Polarity Item in Korean
2
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper aims to explain the semantic and pragmatic properties in building Polarity Item (PI) in Korean including Negative Polarity Item (NPI) and Positive Polarity Item (PPI). Above all, PI should be reconsidered as Standard Polarity Item and Semantico-pragmatic Polarity Item, which Fauconnier (1975) suggested. PI is based on a scale of a property and concessive. PI indicates the polar position on a scale and its position is located in the opposite side of what speakers mean. The opposite side of polar position is deeply related to the concession. This concession results in emphatic PI or understating PI, which are pragmatic functions of PI by Israel (1996, 2001, 2011). Emphatic PI is located in the polar position of its scale, but understating PI is near the reference point of the scale. So emphatic PI is typical, and context-free or context-dependent, while all understating PIs are context-dependent. Depending on the context, concession can be applied to the interpretation of understating PI which shows the politeness. As well, speakers can convey their intention effectively through the functions of PI, emphatic and understating.
Abstract
This paper aims to explain the semantic and pragmatic properties in building Polarity Item (PI) in Korean including Negative Polarity Item (NPI) and Positive Polarity Item (PPI). Above all, PI should be reconsidered as Standard Polarity Item and Semantico-pragmatic Polarity Item, which Fauconnier (1975) suggested. PI is based on a scale of a property and concessive. PI indicates the polar position on a scale and its position is located in the opposite side of what speakers mean. The opposite side of polar position is deeply related to the concession. This concession results in emphatic PI or understating PI, which are pragmatic functions of PI by Israel (1996, 2001, 2011). Emphatic PI is located in the polar position of its scale, but understating PI is near the reference point of the scale. So emphatic PI is typical, and context-free or context-dependent, while all understating PIs are context-dependent. Depending on the context, concession can be applied to the interpretation of understating PI which shows the politeness. As well, speakers can convey their intention effectively through the functions of PI, emphatic and understating.
참고문헌 (31)
- 강아름, "부사 ‘그렇게’의 극성 연구", 언어, 44(2), pp.145~169 (2019), 한국언어학회[DOI]
- 구종남, "국어의 부정극어 허가자와 허가 양상", 한민족어문학(구 영남어문학), (59), pp.549~584 (2011), 한민족어문학회
- 김윤신, "‘아무’의 의미에 대한 연구", 석사, 언어학, pp.1995
- 김윤신, "부정극어 (negative polarity item)와 척도(scale) 개념", 한글및 한국어 정보처리 학술대회 논문집, pp.177~188 (1996)
- 김소희, "국어 부정극 및 긍정극 선호 표현의 척도성", 박사, pp.2020
- 김한승, "‘ANY’와 ‘아무’에 관한 분석", 논리연구, 17(2), pp.253~286 (2014), 한국논리학회[DOI]
- 남승호, "한국어 부정극어의 유형과 그 허가조건", 언어학, (22), pp.217~244 (1998), 사단법인 한국언어학회
- 이영헌, "양화사 아무의 의미분석", 언어, 8(1), pp.71~87 (1983), 한국언어학회
- 이은섭, "의미의 대립 관계와 부정극어의 공기 현상에 대하여", 한국어 의미학, 42, pp.247~267 (2013), 한국어의미학회
- 이정민, "부정과 부정어", pp.185~224 (2005), 한국문화사
- 이환묵, "국어의 극어와 화용상의 가정", 어학연구, 13(2), pp.115~127 (1977), 서울대학교 언어교육원
- 홍사만, "국어특수조사론" (1983), 학문사
- Chierchia, C., "Broaden Your Views: Implicatures of Domain Widening and the “Locality” of Language", Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4), pp.535~590 (2006)
- Fauconnier, G., "Polarity and the Scale Principle", Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 11, pp.188~199 (1975)
- Fillmore, C. J., "Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone", Language, 64, pp.501~538 (1988)
- Giannakidou, A., "Licensing and Sensitivity in Polarity Items : from Downward Entailment to(Non)veridicality", Chicago Linguistic Society, 38, pp.1~21 (2002)
- Giannakidou, A., "Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning 2", pp.1660~1712 (2011), Mouton de Gruyter
- Horn, L., "A Natural History of Negation" (1989), Chicago University Press
- Israel, M., "POLARITY SENSITIVITY AS LEXICAL SEMANTICS", Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, pp.619~666 (1996)
- Israel, M., "Minimizers, Maximizers and the Rhetoric of Scalar Reasoning", Journal of Semantics, 18, pp.297~331 (2001)
- Israel, M., "The Handbook of Pragmatics", pp.701~723 (2004), Blackwell
- Israel, M., "The Grammar of Polarity: Pragmatics, Sensitivity, and the Logic of Scales" (2011), Cambridge University Press
- Kadmon, N., "ANY", Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, pp.353~422 (1993)
- Krifka, M., "The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items in assertion", Linguistic Analysis, 15, pp.209~257 (1995)
- Ladusaw, W., "Polarity Sensitivity and Inherent Scope Relation", PhD., pp.1979
- Lee, C., "Negative Polarity Items in English and Korean", Language Science, 18, pp.1~2 (1996)
- Lee, Y., "The syntax and semantics of focus particle", Ph.D., pp.2004
- Linebarge, M., "The Grammar of Negative Polarity", Ph.D., pp.1980
- Progovac, L., "Negative Polarity : Entailment and Binding", Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, pp.149~180 (1993)
- Yurchenko, A., "Processing polarity : ERP evidence for differences between positive and negative polarity", Neuropsychologia, 51, pp.132~141 (2013)
- Zwarts, F., "Plurality and Quantification", pp.177~238 (1998), Springer