한국어 증거성 표지의 화용론적 추론 의미
The Pragmatic Inference Meanings of Korean Evidential Markers
2
조회
0
다운로드
16
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study investigates the meanings of Korean Evidential markers in terms of pragmatic inference. For this purpose, it is essential that we divide the meanings into three layers; basic, explicature and implicature meanings. In basic meanings, evidential markers indicate information sources about propositions. The other two meanings come from pragmatic inference. First, as for explicature meanings, it is an explicit meaning occurred by pragmatic inference. At this layer, evidential markers represent ‘dis-assertion’, which denotes a speaker’s attitude toward a proposition. It means the speaker is not sure the proposition is true. Evidential markers form a hierarchy by strength of dis-assertion, as follows; ‘direct<inferred<reportative evidential'. Next, regarding implicature meanings, we talk through two aspects. One is ‘unintention’, which causes First Person subject not to co-occur with evidential markers in general contexts. However, it is possible in internal-experience sentences. The other aspect is ‘politeness’. Evidential markers can make a speaker avoid a Face Threatening Act based on dis-assertion.
Abstract
This study investigates the meanings of Korean Evidential markers in terms of pragmatic inference. For this purpose, it is essential that we divide the meanings into three layers; basic, explicature and implicature meanings. In basic meanings, evidential markers indicate information sources about propositions. The other two meanings come from pragmatic inference. First, as for explicature meanings, it is an explicit meaning occurred by pragmatic inference. At this layer, evidential markers represent ‘dis-assertion’, which denotes a speaker’s attitude toward a proposition. It means the speaker is not sure the proposition is true. Evidential markers form a hierarchy by strength of dis-assertion, as follows; ‘direct<inferred<reportative evidential'. Next, regarding implicature meanings, we talk through two aspects. One is ‘unintention’, which causes First Person subject not to co-occur with evidential markers in general contexts. However, it is possible in internal-experience sentences. The other aspect is ‘politeness’. Evidential markers can make a speaker avoid a Face Threatening Act based on dis-assertion.
참고문헌 (49)
- 국지연, "'말해진 것'의 명시의미: 적합성이론 분석", 담화와 인지, 14(2), pp.1~25 (2007), 담화·인지언어학회
- 김남길, "한국어의 인용 증거물", 이중언어학, 7(1), pp.418~434 (1990)
- 김영희, "회상문의 인칭제약과 책임성", 국어학, 10, pp.37~80 (1981)
- 김진웅, "한국어 증거성의 체계: 유형론을 중심으로", 한국어 의미학, 39, pp.101~124 (2012), 한국어의미학회
- 김서형, "한국어 화행에서 공손성의 실현 양상", 한국어학, 61, pp.123~143 (2013), 한국어학회
- 김해연, "국어 담화에서의 ‘-는 것 같다’의 화용적 의미와 상호작용적 기능", 언어와언어학, (52), pp.25~52 (2011), 언어연구소
- 박선현, "추측 표현 '것 같다'의 완곡 기능 연구 : 구어 전사 말뭉치를 중심으로", 석사, 외국어로서의한국어교육, pp.2009
- 박재연, "문법 형식의 의미 기술과 통사론？의미론？화용론", 한국어학, 37, pp.181~206 (2007), 한국어학회
- 박진호, "韓國語에서 證據性이나 意外性의 의미성분을 포함하는 문법요소", 언어와 정보 사회, 15, pp.1~25 (2011), 언어정보연구소
- 송재목, "안맺음씨끝 ‘-더-’의 의미 기능에 대하여 : 유형론적 관점에서", 국어학, 32, pp.135~169 (1998)
- 송재목, "A Typological Analysis of the Korean Evidential Marker -te-", 언어학, (32), pp.149~166 (2002), 사단법인 한국언어학회
- 송재목, "증거성(evidentiality)과 주어제약의 유형론-한국어, 몽골어, 티벳어를 예로 들어-", 형태론, 9(1), pp.1~23 (2007), 형태론
- 신현숙, , -더라, 논문집, pp.1980, 11[DOI]
- 유동석, "‘더’의 의미에 대한 관견", 관악어문연구, 6 (1981), 서울대학교
- 이숙, "마침법에 나타나는 '더'의 담화 효과", 한국어학, 38, pp.223~245 (2008), 한국어학회
- 이의종, "증거성과 정보 관할권의 상호작용", 국어연구, 236 (2012)
- 이한규, "‘-것 같-’의 화용의미", 텍스트언어학, 10, pp.269~291 (2001)
- 이해윤, "화용론" (2009), 한국외국어대학교 출판부
- 임동훈, "한국어의 서법과 양태 체계", 한국어 의미학, 26, pp.211~248 (2008), 한국어의미학회
- 임채훈, "‘감각적 증거’ 양태성과 한국어 어미 교육- ‘-네’, ‘-더라’, ‘-더니’, ‘-길래’ 등을 중심으로-", 이중언어학, (37), pp.199~234 (2008), 이중언어학회
- 임홍빈, "다시 {-더-}를 찾아서", 국어학, 23, pp.255~323 (1993)
- 전혜영, "한국어 공손현상과 ‘-겠-’의 화용론", 국어학, 26, pp.125~146 (1995)
- 전혜영, "한국어 공손표현의 의미", 한국어 의미학, 15, pp.71~91 (2004), 한국어의미학회
- 정문수, "{더}의 의미 기능에 관한 연구", 논문집 (1983), 대전대학교
- 정영환, "직시적 표현의 화용적 의미해석", 언어과학, 5(1), pp.237~256 (1998)
- 정인아, "한국어의 증거성(Evidentiality) 범주에 관한 연구", 박사, 한국언어문화, pp.2010
- 정희자, "발화 의미와 추론", 언어과학, 12(3), pp.101~118 (2005), 한국언어과학회
- Aikhenvald, A. Y., "Studies in Evidentiality", pp.1~32 (2003), John Benfamins
- Aikhenvald, A. Y., "Evidentiality" (2004), Oxford University Press
- Anderson, L. B., "Evidentials Paths of Change and Mental Maps: typologically Regular Asymmetries", Advances in Discourse Processes, 20, pp.273~312 (1986)
- Bach, K., "Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives", pp.267~291 (1994), Routledge
- Bach, K., "You don’t Say?", Synthèse, 127, pp.11~31 (2001)
- Bach, K, "The Handbook of Pragmatics", pp.463~487 (2004), Blackwell
- Barnes, J., "Evidentials in Tuyuca Verb", International Journal of American Linguistics, 50, pp.255~271 (1984)
- Brown, P., "Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage" (1987), Cambridge University Press
- Chafe, W., "Evidentiality : the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology" (1986), Ablex Pub. corpp
- Crystal, D., "Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics" (1997), Blackwell
- Givón, T., "Syntax: an Introduction 1" (2001), John Bengamins
- Grice, H. P., "Logic and Conversation: Syntax, Semantics and Speech acts", pp.41~58 (1975), Academic Press
- Grice, H. P., "Studies in the Way of Words" (1989), Harvard University Press
- Horn, L. R., "The Handbook of Pragmatics" (2004), Blackwell
- Jung, K. S., "Evidentials in Korean, Space in tense", pp.2005
- Lim, D., "Evidentials and Interrogatives: A Case study from Korean, Doctoral Dissertation", pp.2010
- Palmer, F. R., "Mood and Modality" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Plungian, V. A, "The Place of Evidentiality within the Universal Grammatical Space", Journal of Pragmatics, 33, pp.23~50 (2001)
- Recanati, F, "What is Said", Synthèse, 125, pp.75~91 (2001)
- Recanati, F., "The Handbook of Pragmatics", pp.45~64 (2004), Blackwell
- Sperber, Dan, "Relevance: Communication and Cognition" (1995), Blackwell
- Willett, T., "A Cross-linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality", Studies in Language, 12(1), pp.51~97 (1988)