≪국어문법≫에 나타나는 주시경의 지시어 인식

Abstract

The objective of this study was to understand Ju Si-gyeong’s perception of demonstratives by analyzing ‘I/Geu/Jeo’(이/그/저) type-words appearing in his Korean Grammar. Moreover, this study discussed the meanings and limitations of Ju Si-gyeong’s perception of demonstratives from the viewpoint of the contemporary Korean language. ‘I/Geu/Jeo’ type-words in Korean Grammar perform largely the functions of ‘indication’, ‘description,’ and ‘connection,’ and this is consistent with the explanation of the contemporary Korean language. What is noteworthy is, however, the order of ‘I-Jeo-Geu’. Ju Si-gyeong consistently maintained the order of ‘I-Jeo-Geu’ instead of ‘I-Geu-Jeo’, and by doing so, revealed his unique perception distinguishing between ‘I/Jeo’ and ‘Geu’. In Korean Grammar, ‘I/Jeo’ usually represents a deictic function. According to the results of analyzing example sentences including ‘I/Jeo’, ‘I/Jeo’ type-words were interpreted as deixes that require a situational context. On the other hand, ‘Geu’ represented a substitute function. Ju Si-gyeong used sign ‘( )’ in order to indicate a co‐reference relation in ‘jjamdeumgal’(짬듬갈), and the antecedent omitted here was substituted by ‘Geu’. Here, Ju Si-gyeong seems to have perceived the essential function of demonstratives not as substitute but as deictic. In particular, it is characteristic that he viewed personal pronouns ‘I/you/we’ as concepts of indication. This is believed to be a setting for filling the gap of the deictic system that cannot be expressed with ‘I/Geu/Jeo’. However, this perception has problems in that ‘geot’(것) in ‘Igeot/Geugeot/Jeogeot’(이것/그것/저것) was regarded as a pronoun, that the concepts of ‘distance from the speaker and hearer’ were not stated clearly, and that the modification scope of ‘I/Geu/Jeo’ was misunderstood. Despite these problems, however, Korean Grammar is considered highly meaningful in that it recognized and explained the pragmatic functions of demonstratives.