한국어 ‘-고 (그리고)’와 ‘-지만 (그러나)’ 대등구문의 해석: ‘나열’과 ‘대립’의 의미를 중심으로
Construal of Korean –ko (kuliko) and –ciman (kulena) coordinate constructions: Focusing on ‘listing’ and ‘opposition’ meanings
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
We can observe that Korean speakers use concatenated forms consisting of a connective ending and a conjunctive adverb. This is called Conjunctive Concatenation(CC). This study aims to explore the discourse function of Korean CC and how CC influences coordinate construction construal. Specifically, this study compares the focus distributions of coordinate constructions using a connective ending(-ko and -ciman) with those of coordinate constructions using a CC(-ko kuliko and -ciman kulena). For this purpose, an online experiment was conducted among 95 Korean native speakers and 91 responses were analyzed by Chi-square test and frequency analysis. Participants were asked to indicate where the focus was placed in the given constructions. The result showed that there was a difference between the aspects of coordinate construction construal according to the form and meaning of connective expressions. This suggests that the conceptualizer’s construal is not always fixed and Korean CC operates as a factor which gives each clause of coordinate construction a different focus, and results in different aspects of construal.
Abstract
We can observe that Korean speakers use concatenated forms consisting of a connective ending and a conjunctive adverb. This is called Conjunctive Concatenation(CC). This study aims to explore the discourse function of Korean CC and how CC influences coordinate construction construal. Specifically, this study compares the focus distributions of coordinate constructions using a connective ending(-ko and -ciman) with those of coordinate constructions using a CC(-ko kuliko and -ciman kulena). For this purpose, an online experiment was conducted among 95 Korean native speakers and 91 responses were analyzed by Chi-square test and frequency analysis. Participants were asked to indicate where the focus was placed in the given constructions. The result showed that there was a difference between the aspects of coordinate construction construal according to the form and meaning of connective expressions. This suggests that the conceptualizer’s construal is not always fixed and Korean CC operates as a factor which gives each clause of coordinate construction a different focus, and results in different aspects of construal.
참고문헌 (35)
- 쿠로야나기 시게오, "한국어와 일본어의 접속연쇄 비교 연구", 박사, pp.2020
- 권영문, "복잡 표현의 의미 양상", 현대문법연구, 16, pp.199~219 (1999)
- 권희상, "언어의 도상성", 언어연구, 21(1), pp.5~37 (2005), 한국현대언어학회
- 김유권, "현대국어 중첩구성의 통사특성 연구", 겨레어문학, 27, pp.319~345 (2001)
- 김정남, "동일 어미반복 구문의 통사와 의미- 한국어 문법어휘 연계 교육에 대한 제안 -", 이중언어학, (34), pp.49~76 (2007), 이중언어학회[DOI]
- 김현지, "한국어 구어 말뭉치에서 접속부사 중첩 구성 연구", 담화와 인지, 22(2), pp.29~52 (2015), 담화·인지언어학회[DOI]
- 나찬연, "학교문법에서의 잉여적 표현의 처리에 대하여", 언어연구, 2, pp.31~51 (1998)
- 나찬연, "뜻바탕되풀이표현의 설정", 우리말연구, (14), pp.153~169 (2004), 우리말학회
- 박종후, "한국어에서 중첩의 유형 분류와 기능 분석", 언어사실과 관점, 32, pp.97~129 (2013), 언어정보연구원[DOI]
- 박철우, "한국어와 정보구조-적용상의 쟁점을 중심으로-", 한국어학, 91, pp.51~94 (2021), 한국어학회[DOI]
- 서희정, "어미 반복형태의 문법구성화 연구 - 한국어교육의 관점에서", 새국어교육, (79), pp.129~152 (2008), 한국국어교육학회[DOI]
- 송정근, "중첩의 두 유형", 한국어 의미학, 33, pp.131~152 (2010), 한국어의미학회
- 이영길, "첩어의미 연구", 영어영문학연구, 30(2), pp.275~298 (2004), 대한영어영문학회
- 이정훈, "구어 말뭉치에 나타난 ‘그리고’에 대한 고찰", 우리말글, 36, pp.73~105 (2006), 우리말글학회
- 임성출, "A linguistic construal based on figure and ground organization", 영미어문학연구, 21(1), pp.127~145 (2005)
- 임지룡, "국어에 내재한 도상성의 양상과 의미 특성", 한글, (266), pp.169~205 (2004), 한글학회
- 임지룡, "시점의 역전 현상", 담화와 인지, 14(3), pp.179~206 (2007), 담화·인지언어학회[DOI]
- 임지룡, "해석 작용의 양상과 의미특성 -문장 층위를 중심으로-", 국어교육연구, (65), pp.139~170 (2017), 국어교육학회(since1969)[DOI]
- 임지룡, "한국어 의미론" (2018), 한국문화사
- 전영옥, "구어와 문어의 접속부사 실현 양상 비교 연구", 텍스트언어학, 22, pp.223~247 (2007), 한국텍스트언어학회[DOI]
- 정수진, "인지언어학의 ‘해석’에 기초한 국어 접속문의 유형과 의미구성 분석", 언어과학연구, (70), pp.405~432 (2014), 언어과학회
- 최웅환, "국어 문장 성분의 중첩 현상", 언어과학연구, (50), pp.225~244 (2009), 언어과학회
- 최재희, "국어 중복 표현의 유형과 의미 구조의 특성", 국어학, 36, pp.401~426 (2000)
- Bolinger, Dwight, "Meaning and form" (1977), Longman
- Bybee, Joan L., "Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form" (1985), John Benjamins
- Chafe, Wallace L, "Subject and topic", pp.25~55 (1976), Academic Press
- Croft, William, "Cognitive linguistics" (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Givón, Talmy, "Iconicity in language", pp.47~76 (1995), John Benjamins
- John Haiman, "Iconic and Economic Motivation", Language, 59(4), pp.781~819 (1983), JSTOR[DOI]
- M. A. K. Halliday, "Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2", Journal of Linguistics, 3(2), pp.199~244 (1967), Cambridge University Press (CUP)[DOI]
- Lambrecht, Knud, "Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents" (1994), Cambridge University Press
- Langacker, Ronald W, "Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2" (1991), Stanford University Press
- Prince, Ellen F, "Radical pragmatics", pp.223~233 (1981), Academic Press
- Talmy, Leonard, "Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application", pp.225~282 (1983), Plenum Press
- Talmy, Leonard, "Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 1" (2000), MIT Press