현대중국어의 양상(Modality) 관련 표현에 대한 일 고찰
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
What I discussed in this paper as follows. 1. I do not think that we can establish a grammatical category called 'modality' in modern Chinese. In languages allowing modality as a grammatical category, expressions of modality basically depend on a structure of form or syntax, or a structure of a grammaticalized specific group of words. But this kind of orderly grammatical mark is not observed in the expressions of modern Chinese Mandarin corresponding to expressions of modality. Each grammatical repertory consisting of a grammatical category of each language is not established until it has a certain grammatical mark. If we take a corresponding grammatical item as a category only with a simple correspondence in meaning, not only we cannot rightly establish a grammatical system of each language but also the meaning of a typological research seeing grammatical differences between each language is diluted. 2. In modern Mandarin, the meanings corresponding to the expressions of morality of other languages basically depend on the meanings of individual words, their combinations, and contexts. Any orderly boundary is not found in these words or their combinations when we compare related words in each type. So, to use 'lexical means' indicating a way of expressing modality can cause a misunderstanding that Chinese allows modality. This is why we should be careful when we use this term. 3. Following the traditional way of classification, I classified modality into proposition and event modality. Next, I classified proposition modality into epistemic and evidential modality, and classified event modality into deontic and dynamic modality. In this classification, I found Chinese expressions corresponding to them, took related key words out of them, and analyzed them. The results of analysis were presented in the last of the chapter three. In Chinese, there is no grammatical mark making a distinction between realis and irrealis morality. Also, there is no opposition realis vs irrealis based on a distinction between indicative and subjunctive mode. This research shows, even in the grammatical category of modality, that Chinese as a conceptual language strongly has a character of an isolated language.
Abstract
What I discussed in this paper as follows. 1. I do not think that we can establish a grammatical category called 'modality' in modern Chinese. In languages allowing modality as a grammatical category, expressions of modality basically depend on a structure of form or syntax, or a structure of a grammaticalized specific group of words. But this kind of orderly grammatical mark is not observed in the expressions of modern Chinese Mandarin corresponding to expressions of modality. Each grammatical repertory consisting of a grammatical category of each language is not established until it has a certain grammatical mark. If we take a corresponding grammatical item as a category only with a simple correspondence in meaning, not only we cannot rightly establish a grammatical system of each language but also the meaning of a typological research seeing grammatical differences between each language is diluted. 2. In modern Mandarin, the meanings corresponding to the expressions of morality of other languages basically depend on the meanings of individual words, their combinations, and contexts. Any orderly boundary is not found in these words or their combinations when we compare related words in each type. So, to use 'lexical means' indicating a way of expressing modality can cause a misunderstanding that Chinese allows modality. This is why we should be careful when we use this term. 3. Following the traditional way of classification, I classified modality into proposition and event modality. Next, I classified proposition modality into epistemic and evidential modality, and classified event modality into deontic and dynamic modality. In this classification, I found Chinese expressions corresponding to them, took related key words out of them, and analyzed them. The results of analysis were presented in the last of the chapter three. In Chinese, there is no grammatical mark making a distinction between realis and irrealis morality. Also, there is no opposition realis vs irrealis based on a distinction between indicative and subjunctive mode. This research shows, even in the grammatical category of modality, that Chinese as a conceptual language strongly has a character of an isolated language.
참고문헌 (18)
- 高明凱, "漢語語法論" (1986), 商務印書館
- 劉月華, "實用現代漢語語法" (1983), 外語敎學與硏究出版社
- 丁聲樹, "現代漢語語法講話" (1961), 商務印書館
- 趙元任, "漢語口語語法" (1979), 商務印書館
- 朱景松, "語法理論硏究" (2002), 百家出版社
- 이상도, "중국어문법" (1997), 동방미디어
- 양상, "언어유형론 3: 시제와상", pp.송경안, 조동사
- Asher, R. E, "Tamil. Lingua Descriptive Series, 7" (1982), North Holland
- Barnes, J, "Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb", International Journal of American Linguistics, 50, pp.255~271 (1984)
- Bugenhagen, R. D, "The semantics or irrealis in the Austronesian languages of Papua New Guinea", pp.1~39 (1994)
- Donaldson, T, "Ngiyambaa: the Langusge of the Wangabuwan" (1980)
- Foley, W, "The Papuan Languages in New Guinea" (1986), The Cambridge University Press
- Hope, E, R, "The deep syntax of Lisu sentences: transformational case grammar", Pacific Linguistics, 34 (1974), Department of Linguistics, Australian National University
- Lichtenberk, F, "Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization", Language, 67, pp.475~509 (1991)
- General Grammar of Fasu(Namo Me), "Loeweke, E", 5~106, pp.Working Papers in Papua New Guinea Linguistics27 (1980)
- Palmer, F. R, "Mood and Modality" (2001), The Cambridge University Press
- 조희무, "중국어의 주요 기본 어순과 유형론적 특징 - 부사어 어순을 중심으로 한 한국어·영어와의 비교를 통하여", 중국인문과학, 29(29), pp.81~113 (2004), 중국인문학회
- 안기섭, "現代漢語 ‘能願動詞’의 성격에 관한 考察", 중국언어연구, (22) (2006), 한국중국언어학회
