동족목적어 구문의 유형과 구조
Structure and Types of Cognate Object Constructions
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper defines the cognate object construction as a construction where the roots of both a verb and an object are identical, and categorizes cognate object constructions into three different types according to the characteristics of the predicate of a sentence. When the predicate of a sentence is a transitive verb, which only takes a cognate object, subordinate words, or several specific words as an argument, it is regarded as Type 1 cognate object construction. Secondly, when the predicate of a sentence is a transitive verb that is not particularly limited in terms of selectional restriction, it is categorized as Type 2 cognate object construction. Finally if the predicate of a sentence is originally an intransitive verb but takes cognate objects optionally, then it is Type 3 cognate object construction. Afterwards, this paper analyzes each construction to examine how it is different from a typical type of transitive construction. As a result, it was clear that the syntactic characteristics of Type 2 cognate object construction is closer to that of typical transitive construction. However, the semantic characteristics of objects in Type 1 and 3 cognate object constructions are different from general objects, and the characteristics of the predicate and/or syntactic characteristics of a construction are very much different from typical transitive constructions. The reason why the two types of cognate object constructions are different from a typical transitive construction is because the predicate and the cognate object of two types of cognate object constructions are similar to one constitution. Thus this paper concluded that the structure can be regarded as a collocation for two cognate object constructions only.
Abstract
This paper defines the cognate object construction as a construction where the roots of both a verb and an object are identical, and categorizes cognate object constructions into three different types according to the characteristics of the predicate of a sentence. When the predicate of a sentence is a transitive verb, which only takes a cognate object, subordinate words, or several specific words as an argument, it is regarded as Type 1 cognate object construction. Secondly, when the predicate of a sentence is a transitive verb that is not particularly limited in terms of selectional restriction, it is categorized as Type 2 cognate object construction. Finally if the predicate of a sentence is originally an intransitive verb but takes cognate objects optionally, then it is Type 3 cognate object construction. Afterwards, this paper analyzes each construction to examine how it is different from a typical type of transitive construction. As a result, it was clear that the syntactic characteristics of Type 2 cognate object construction is closer to that of typical transitive construction. However, the semantic characteristics of objects in Type 1 and 3 cognate object constructions are different from general objects, and the characteristics of the predicate and/or syntactic characteristics of a construction are very much different from typical transitive constructions. The reason why the two types of cognate object constructions are different from a typical transitive construction is because the predicate and the cognate object of two types of cognate object constructions are similar to one constitution. Thus this paper concluded that the structure can be regarded as a collocation for two cognate object constructions only.
참고문헌 (45)
- 꼴의 연어 구성에 대한 연구, "사전편찬학연구", 1997, 191~224
- 고영근, "우리말 문법론" (2008), 집문당
- 김광해, "국어 어휘론 개설" (1998), 집문당
- 김진해, "연어 연구" (2000), 한국문화사
- 김진해, "왜 연어인가?이론과 현실 사이 - 밥을 먹다 와 눈을 뜨다 를 중심으로", 형태론, 7(1), pp.163~169 (2005), 형태론
- 김진해, "연어 관계 제자리 찾기: 국내의 이론적 논의에 대한 재검토를 중심으로", 한국어학, 37, pp.229~260 (2007), 한국어학회
- 문금현, "국어의 관용 표현 연구" (1999), 태학사
- 박철우, "국어의 보충어와 부가어 판별 기준", 언어학, 34, pp.75~111 (2002), 사단법인 한국언어학회
- 박철우, "한국어 정보구조에서의 화제와 초점" (2003), 역락
- 박철우, "국어 분열문의 통사구조", 한말연구, 22, pp.77~96 (2008), 한말연구학회
- 서상규, "한국어 정보 처리와 연어 정보", 國語學, 39, pp.321~353 (2002), 국어학회
- 서정수, "동사 “하-”의 문법" (1975), 형설출판사
- 성창섭, "영어 동족목적어 구문 연구", 언어와 언어교육, 12, pp.1~9 (1996)
- 양정석, "이중주어문과 이중목적어문", 연세어문학, 20, pp.1~64 (1987)
- 연재훈, "타동성의 정의를 위한 원형이론적 접근", 언어, 22(1), pp.107~132 (1997)
- 우형식, "동사의 결합가 기술에 대한 방법론적 접근", 한글, 225, pp.83~108 (1994)
- 우형식, "국어 타동구문 연구" (1996), 박이정
- 유현경, "동사 ‘살다’의 타동사 용법에 대하여, in:국어 문법의 탐구Ⅳ", pp.59~75 (1998), 태학사
- 를’의 연구, "국어 격조사 ‘을", pp.1988, 국어 격조사
- 이병규, "문장 구성 성분의 항가 의존성 검토. in: 국어문법의 탐구Ⅲ", pp.173~215 (1996), 태학사
- 이병규, "잠재 논항의 개념 정립. in: 국어문법의 탐구Ⅲ", pp.123~174 (1998), 태학사
- 이선희, "복합술어 구문 연구", 석사, pp.1993
- 이선희, "조사 {-를}의 의미와 그 문법적 실현", 박사, pp.1999
- 이익섭, "국어문법론강의" (1999), 학연사
- 이호승, "국어 복합서술어 연구", 박사, pp.2004
- 이홍식, "문장의 주성분 연구" (2000), 월인
- 임규홍, "국어 분열문에 관한 연구", 어문학, 48, pp.155~175 (1986), 한국어문학회
- 임홍빈, "한국어 연어의 개념과 그 통사·의미적 성격", 國語學, 39, pp.279~311 (2002), 국어학회
- 정희원, "한국어의 대조화제와 화제, 초점 - 정보구조적인 관점에서", 박사, pp.2001
- 정희정, "서술성 명사의 통사적 특성", 사전편찬학연구, 7, pp.115~148 (1997)
- 한송화, "현대 국어 자동사 연구" (2000), 한국문화사
- 홍재성, "한국어 자동사", 타동사 구문의 구별과 사전, 1989, pp.63, 179~229
- 홍재성, "동사 ‘먹다’의 사전적 처리를 위한 몇 가지 논의", 새국어생활, 2(4) (1992)
- 홍재성, "약속의 문법: 서술명사의 어휘․통사적 기술과 사전", 동방학지, 81, pp.213~252 (1993)
- 홍재성, "기능동사 구문 연구의 한 시각", 인문논총, 41, pp.135~173 (1999)
- 홍종선, "한국어 연어 관계 연구" (2001), 월인
- 金亨貞, "韓国語における<ワ(wa)>格補足語の分布及び特性", pp.1~20 (2006), 朝鮮語研究会発表文(大阪)
- Austin,P, "Transitivity and cognate object in Australian language", Syntax and semantics, 15, pp.37~48 (1982)
- Fillmore,C.J, "The case for case, In: Universals in Linguistic Theory" (1968), Holt, Rinehart and Winston
- Givón,T, "Syntax: a functional typological introduction Vol. 1" (1984), John Benjamins
- Hopper & Thompson, "Transitivity in grammar and discourse", Language, 56, pp.251~299 (1980)
- Jayaseelan,K.A, "Complex predicates and Ɵ-theory", Syntax and Semantics, 21 (1988)
- Jones,M.A, "Cognate objects and the case-filter", Journal of Linguistics, 24, pp.89~110 (1988)
- Massam,D, "Cognate objects as thematic objects", Canadian Journal of Lingustics, 35, pp.161~190 (1990)
- Nakajima,H, "Adverbial cognate objects", Linguistic Inquiry, 37, pp.674~684 (2006)