초기 한국아동의 주제표지와 주격표지 발달
The Acquisition of Topic- and Subject Marker in Young Korean Children
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The nature of children’s concepts is one of the most critical issues in developmental psychology. Language concepts are central to this issue because they play a deep and universal role in human cognition. Some scholars in the study of cognitive development have proposed that the initial and early concepts that underlie child language have a nonformal, nonlinguistic component. This component is usually thought of as providing a semantic or pragmatic base for the formal concept. Another research and debate on these issues have centered around the study of the nature of children’s concepts of grammatical categories such as ‘subject’ or ‘object’ (Maratsos 1983). Concepts of ‘subject’ or ‘object’ are general, formal, grammatical, and clearly required for adult knowledge of language. Some researchers have argued that there is evidence for children’s early access of formal concepts such as ‘subject’. However, it has been reported in several child language studies that children’s concepts such as ‘subject’ in early sentence formation are not formal, grammatical or general. They argue that concepts that function as grammatical subject in child language are in fact based on semantic or pragmatic concepts such as ‘agency’ (Bowerman 1973, deVilliers 1980) or ‘topic’ (Bates and MacWhinney 1982). Previous studies have dealt mainly with English. In English, as pointed out by Reinhart (1981), a topic of a sentence is usually introduced by the grammatical subject. Thus these two concepts, topic and subject, are often confounded with each other. In Chinese, concepts of grammatical subject and topic, in many cases, are clearly distinguishable, and topic, as well as subject, is accessible in this language. In Korean and Japanese, both subject and topic are clearly marked on the surface by separate element, namely by subject- and topic maker respectively. The present study found that the tested concept of subject and topic be clearly distinguishable and that both be equivalently available in Korean. The present investigation provides evidence that young Korean children’s early rules for word combination may be based on semantic categories. The semantic categories might serve as core meanings and early exemplars of the syntactic relations in the child’s speech would thus be limited to expressions of those core meanings. As the child progressed he would gradually extend the boundaries of the meaning categories to encompass meanings increasingly distant from the core (Bowerman 1982, Slobin 1985).
Abstract
The nature of children’s concepts is one of the most critical issues in developmental psychology. Language concepts are central to this issue because they play a deep and universal role in human cognition. Some scholars in the study of cognitive development have proposed that the initial and early concepts that underlie child language have a nonformal, nonlinguistic component. This component is usually thought of as providing a semantic or pragmatic base for the formal concept. Another research and debate on these issues have centered around the study of the nature of children’s concepts of grammatical categories such as ‘subject’ or ‘object’ (Maratsos 1983). Concepts of ‘subject’ or ‘object’ are general, formal, grammatical, and clearly required for adult knowledge of language. Some researchers have argued that there is evidence for children’s early access of formal concepts such as ‘subject’. However, it has been reported in several child language studies that children’s concepts such as ‘subject’ in early sentence formation are not formal, grammatical or general. They argue that concepts that function as grammatical subject in child language are in fact based on semantic or pragmatic concepts such as ‘agency’ (Bowerman 1973, deVilliers 1980) or ‘topic’ (Bates and MacWhinney 1982). Previous studies have dealt mainly with English. In English, as pointed out by Reinhart (1981), a topic of a sentence is usually introduced by the grammatical subject. Thus these two concepts, topic and subject, are often confounded with each other. In Chinese, concepts of grammatical subject and topic, in many cases, are clearly distinguishable, and topic, as well as subject, is accessible in this language. In Korean and Japanese, both subject and topic are clearly marked on the surface by separate element, namely by subject- and topic maker respectively. The present study found that the tested concept of subject and topic be clearly distinguishable and that both be equivalently available in Korean. The present investigation provides evidence that young Korean children’s early rules for word combination may be based on semantic categories. The semantic categories might serve as core meanings and early exemplars of the syntactic relations in the child’s speech would thus be limited to expressions of those core meanings. As the child progressed he would gradually extend the boundaries of the meaning categories to encompass meanings increasingly distant from the core (Bowerman 1982, Slobin 1985).
참고문헌 (28)
- Aissen, J., "Topic and Focus in Mayan", pp.43~80 (1992), Language
- Bates,E., "Functionalist Approaches to Grammar. In. L. Gleitman & E. Wanner (eds.). Language Acquisition: The State of the Art", Cambridge University Press, pp.173~218 (1982)
- Bates, E., "Competition, Variation, and Language Learning. Mechanisms of Language Acquisition", pp.157~193 (1987), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Bloom,L., "Language Development:Form and Function in Emerging Grammar" (1970), MIT Press
- Bowerman,M., "Early Syntactic Development: A Cross-Linguistic Study with Special?Reference to Finnish" (1973), Cambridge University Press
- Bowerman,M., "Reorganizational Processes in Lexical and Syntactic Development", pp.319~346 (1982), Cambridge University Press
- Chafe,W.L., "Giveness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In. C. Li (ed.). Subject and Topic", pp.25~55 (1976), Academic Press
- Chien,Y., "The Concept of Topic and Subject in First language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese", pp.1359~1375 (1985), Child Development
- Cho,S.W., "Null Arguments and Mood Categories. In. Y. Kim-Renaud?(ed). Theoretical issues in Korean Linguistics", pp.443~462 (1994), Stanford University
- Korean Linguistics, "Discourse Motivations of Referential Choice in Korean Acquisition. In. H. Sohn & J. Haig (eds.).Japanese", pp.1997, Clancy,P.
- de Villier,J.G., "The Process of Rule Learning in Child Speech: A new Look", pp.1~44 (1980), Gardner Press
- Givon,T., "On Understanding Grammar" (1979), Academic Press
- Givon,T., "Topic Continuity in Discourse: Quantified Cross-Language Studies" (1983), John Benjamins
- Gundel,J., "The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory" (1974), Indiana University Linguistic Club
- Henriks, H., "The Acquisition of Topic Marking in L1 Chinese and L1 and L2 French" (2000), SSLA
- Herring, S., "Information Structure as a Consequence of Word order type. In. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society", pp.163~174 (1990), Berkeley Linguistics Society
- Kim, S., "Null Objects in Korean Child Language" (1999), ms. UCLA
- Kim,Y.J., "The Acquisition of Korean. In. D.I. Slobin (ed.). The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition" (1997), Erlbaum
- Kuno, S., "Functional Sentence Perspective", pp.269~320 (1972), Linguistic Inquiry
- Lee, C.M., "Acquisition of Subject and Topic Nominals and Markers in the Spontaneous Speech of Younger Children in Korean", Korean Psycholinguistics
- Lee, H.W., "Early Development of Topic Marking in Korean", ms
- Li,C.N., "Mandarin Chinse: A Functional Reference Grammar" (1981), University of California Press
- Li,C.N., "Subject and Topic: A new Typology of Language" (1976), Academic Press
- Marantz, "On the Acquisition of Grammatical Relations" (1982), Linguistic Inquiry
- Maratsos,M., "The Child's Construction of Grammatical Categories", pp.240~266 (1982), The State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- Pinker,S., "Language Learnability and Language Development" (1984), Harvard University Press
- Reihart, T., "Pragmatics and Linguistics. An Analysis of Sentence Topics", pp.53~94 (1981), Philosophica
- Slobin,D.I., "Crosslinguistic Evidence for the Language-making Capacity" (1985), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates