특정한 동사류와 <-고>, <-어서>와의 통합에 대하여- 동사의 어휘적 의미, 상적 특성과 관련하여

Abstract

This paper was motivated by the difficulty Japanese students of Korean experience in learning the correct usage of the converb , . As I observed by the author and mentioned in an earlier paper (Chung Hyunsuk, 1996), certain verbs fall generally into mode category when combined with . These include: verbs denoting possession, or conveyance, e.g. `grasp` or `carry on one`s back`, `verbs` denoting conveyance of the subject by an object, e.g. `ride a vehicle`, some reflexive verbs, e.g. `close one`s eyes`, `bend one`s neck`, but excluding repetition verbs. I have also noticed that these three groups of verbs seldom appear combined with in actual linguistic situations, although this combination is possible. This evident difference in usage between and has hitherto not been researched in any great detail. The purpose of this paper is to elucidate this area (of korean grammar). In developing this line of reaearch, standard basic language situations are analysed with regard to usage of these two converbs. Model texts are supplemented where necessary by additional examples of converb usage. In order to have an objective point of view, I tried to ask the opinions about these examples of many peple whose native tongues are other than korean. This methodological approach may be said to be characteristic of this paper. In chapter 2, I have made it clear that in contemporary Korean, those groups of verbs which fall into mode category when combined with , will express "means and method" or "cause and reason" when combined with . It is meaning of the verb in such combinations that determines whether the succeeding clause is the "means and method" type or the "cause and reason" type. In chapter 3, I take up the verbs denoting possession of something by the subject and the verbs denoting possession of subject by an object. Here, I have specilally noticed the relation between the subject and an object, and see if it has influence on making up those sentences I mentioned at the end of chaper 2. First I have found out there are three kind of relation: a) touching relation, where the subject and an object are just touching, b) unifying relation, where the subject and an object become one and c) separate relation, where the subject and an object are always apart never touching each other. The combination with becomes more difficult as the kind of verb moves from a)to c). Reflexive verbs may fall into two kinds d) the verbs espressing "expansion" and "opening", and e) the verbs espressing "shrinkage" and "closing". When these verbs are combined with , e) type expresses "means and method" more easely than d), while d) type expresses "cause and reason" more easilly than e). This also means that the preceding verbs when combined with tend to determine the type of succeed clauses, e.g. whether the preceding verbs combined with can be easily used as "means and method" for the verbs in the succeeding clause, or whether the preceding verbs combined with can easely bring about their result when they express "cause and reason". Thus I have shown that the groups of verbs which fall into mode category when combined with , are difficult to combine with dependent on their word-meaning. Hence those verbs combined with often appear in actual linguistic usage, while those combinded with seldom do. In chapter 4, I noticed the aspectual character of those three groups of verbs in <-go issta> from, that when the action of the verbs finish, only the result remains, and by combining with they fanction as pointers indicating continuation in the succeeding clause. On the other hand when the verbs are combined with , the special situations or events brought about by the preceding verbs will become "means and method" or "cause and reason" of the succeeding actions or conditions.