본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

유형론적 관점에서 본 한국어와 중국어의 어순 비교

Typological Comparisons of Chinese andKorean Word Orders

전정예
한말연구학회|2013.06|한말연구 (Korean Language Research)|제32호|pp. 177-211|DOI 10.16876/klrc.2013..32.177

0

조회

0

다운로드

7

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

KoreanChinese중국어word order어순한국어language contact언어접촉유형론language typology

초록

Since the appearance of Greenberg’s seminal work on word order typologies (1963), languages have been characterized in terms of his three sets of criteria, 1) the existence of prepositions as against postpositions; 2) the relative order of subject, verb, and object (VSO, SVO, or SOV), and 3) the position of qualifying adjectives in relation to the noun. Based on these criteria, it has usually been assumed that Chinese is basically a SVO language and prepositional, which is similar to English. However, unlike Greenberg’s expectations and his proposed universals, it presents several exceptional properties, as follows：i) Chinese is prepositional as well as postpositional; ii) the governing noun follows the genitive; iii) the relative expression precedes the head noun; iv) in comparison of superiority, the order is standard- marker-adjective; and v) some adverbials are postverbal. These properties fit SOV languages, like Korean, which means that Chinese has perplexing word order properties. It can be summarized that Chinese can be seen as an SVO language, like English, but its many word order properties are similar to Korean, which is a SOV language. There are two explanations for these features of Chinese word order: intra-linguistic and extra-linguistic analyses. The first analysis assumes that Chinese is in the process of gradual change from being an SVO language to being an SOV language. The latter analysis presumes the language contact between Altaic languages and Chinese. In this explanation, the language is sandwiched between Altaic languages and its original form, and is gradually Alticized. In other words, it retains the properties of Altaic languages. What future studies need to perform in terms of Chinese word order typology is much broader and deeper analyses of these two possibilities.

Abstract

Since the appearance of Greenberg’s seminal work on word order typologies (1963), languages have been characterized in terms of his three sets of criteria, 1) the existence of prepositions as against postpositions; 2) the relative order of subject, verb, and object (VSO, SVO, or SOV), and 3) the position of qualifying adjectives in relation to the noun. Based on these criteria, it has usually been assumed that Chinese is basically a SVO language and prepositional, which is similar to English. However, unlike Greenberg’s expectations and his proposed universals, it presents several exceptional properties, as follows：i) Chinese is prepositional as well as postpositional; ii) the governing noun follows the genitive; iii) the relative expression precedes the head noun; iv) in comparison of superiority, the order is standard- marker-adjective; and v) some adverbials are postverbal. These properties fit SOV languages, like Korean, which means that Chinese has perplexing word order properties. It can be summarized that Chinese can be seen as an SVO language, like English, but its many word order properties are similar to Korean, which is a SOV language. There are two explanations for these features of Chinese word order: intra-linguistic and extra-linguistic analyses. The first analysis assumes that Chinese is in the process of gradual change from being an SVO language to being an SOV language. The latter analysis presumes the language contact between Altaic languages and Chinese. In this explanation, the language is sandwiched between Altaic languages and its original form, and is gradually Alticized. In other words, it retains the properties of Altaic languages. What future studies need to perform in terms of Chinese word order typology is much broader and deeper analyses of these two possibilities.

참고문헌 (64)

  1. 김방한, "역사－비교언어학" (1988), 민음사
  2. 金麗琴, "한국어와 중국어의 부사어 어순 비교 연구", 석사, 국어학, pp.2007
  3. 김충실, "중한 목적어 구문의 어순대조", 언어와 문화, 6(1), pp.69~87 (2010), 한국언어문화교육학회
  4. 남궁양석, "현대 중국어 어순의 정보구조와 초점" (2008), 한국학술정보
  5. 박정구, "중국어 어순 유형론 연구의 성과와 전망", 중국학보, (54), pp.37~64 (2006), 한국중국학회
  6. 박정구, "유형론적 관점에서 본 중국어 분류사의 발전 및 그와 한국어의 관련성", 國語學, (63), pp.391~412 (2012), 국어학회[DOI]
  7. 송경안, "언어유형론 1" (2008), 월인
  8. 손금추, "한·중 어순에 대한 유형론적 연구 : 명사구, 합성명사, 부치사구를 중심으로", 박사, 한국어학, pp.2011
  9. 수혜총, "한·중 시간부사의 대조 연구", 석사, 국어국문학, pp.2011
  10. 신미섭, "현대 중국어 어순 연구", 박사, 중어중문학, pp.2010
  11. 안씬, "한국어와 중국어의 어순 대비 연구", 석사, 국어학, pp.2009
  12. 안연령, "한·중 관형어의 대비 연구", 석사, 국어학, pp.2011
  13. 왕남, "중국인 초급 학습자를 위한 한국어 어순 교육 연구", 석사, 외국어로서의한국어교육전공, pp.2012
  14. 왕수위, "한국어 단위 명사와 중국어 양사의 대비 연구", 석사, 한국어문학, pp.2007
  15. 윤유정, "한국인의 중국어 어순오류 유형에 대한 소고― <HSK動態作文語料庫>에 기초하여", 중국어문학논집, (66), pp.71~107 (2011), 중국어문학연구회
  16. 李苑雨, "現代 中國語 語順의 類型硏究", 석사, 현대문법, pp.1985
  17. 이혜진, "중국어와 한국어의 어순 비교와 그에 따른 중국어 독해 지도 방안", 석사, 중국어교육, pp.2010
  18. 전정예, "국어의 어순과 통사적 제약", 한말연구, 1, pp.155~160 (1995), 한말연구모임
  19. 전정예, "언어와 문화" (1998), 도서출판 박이정
  20. 전정예, "언어변화이론" (2005), 도서출판 박이정
  21. 전정예, "언어학특강" (2006), 도서출판 경진
  22. 戴浩一, "以認知爲基礎的漢語功能語法刍議, In 功能主義與漢語語法", pp.140~ (1994)
  23. 조희무, "중국어의 주요 기본 어순과 유형론적 특징 - 부사어 어순을 중심으로 한 한국어·영어와의 비교를 통하여", 중국인문과학, (29), pp.81~113 (2004), 중국인문학회
  24. 최건, "유형학적 관점에서 본 한중 차등비교구문의 차이", 중국언어연구, (31), pp.155~181 (2010), 한국중국언어학회
  25. 최금자, "한·중 양보 표현에 대한 대비 연구", 석사, 국어학, pp.2011
  26. 태평무, "중국어와 한국어의 어순대비연구" (2005), 신성출판사
  27. 한국중국어언어학회, "중국어 어순연구" (1998), 송산출판사
  28. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, "Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP", Linguistic Inquiry, 30 (1999), MIT Press
  29. Chomsky, Noam, "Aspects of the Theory of Syntax" (1965), MIT press
  30. Comrie, Bernard, "Language Universals and Linguistic Typology" (1981), The University of Chicago Press
  31. Croft, William, "Typology and Universal" (1990), Cambridge University Press
  32. Dryer, Matthew S., "The Greenbergian word order correlations", Language, 68(1) (1992)
  33. Dryer, Matthew S., "Word order in Sino-Tibetan Languages from a typological and geographical perspective (Draft)", ~ (1999)
  34. Fries, Charles C., "On the Development of the Structural Use of Word Order in Modern English", Language, 16 (1940)
  35. Givón, Talmy, "Historical syntax and synchronic morphology：an archaeologist’s field trip", Chicago Linguistic Society, 7 (1971)
  36. Givón, Talmy, "On Understanding Grammar" (1979), Academic Press
  37. Givón, Talmy, "Syntax：A Functional－Typological Introduction (Vol.1)" (1984), Benjamins
  38. Greenberg, Joseph H., "A Quantitative Approach to the Morphological Typology of Languages" (1960), IJAL
  39. Greenberg, Joseph H., "Universals of Language" (1963), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  40. Greenberg, Joseph H., "Language Typology" (1974), Mouton
  41. Haiman, John, "Iconicity in Syntax", Proceedings of a Symposium in Iconicity in Syntax (1983)
  42. Haiman, John, "Iconicity in Syntax" (1985), John Benjamins
  43. Hashimoto, Mantaro J., "北方漢語的구构發展", 言語硏究, (1) (1983)
  44. Hashimoto, Mantaro J., "Language Diffusion on the Asian Continent：Problem of Tpological Diversity in Sino-Tibetan", The 8th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Linguistics (1975)
  45. Hashimoto, Mantaro J., "Language diffusion on the Asian continent: Problem of Tpological Diversity in Sino-Tibetan", Computational Analyses of Asian and African Languages, 6, pp.49~65 (1976)
  46. Hashimoto, Mantaro J., "Complementary methods in universal grammar：A Reply to Coopmans", Language, 61(3), pp.569~587 (1985)
  47. Hawkins, John A., "A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency" (1995), Cambridge University Press
  48. Hawkins, John A., "Implicational universals as predictors of word order change", Language, 55 (1979)
  49. Hawkins, John, A., "Word Order Universals" (1983), Academic Press
  50. Lehmann W.P., "A Structural Principle of Language and Its Implications", Language, 49, pp.47~66 (1973)
  51. Lehmann W.P., "Toward an Understanding of the Profound Unity Underlying Language, Syntactic Typology", ~ (1978)
  52. Li, Meng-Chen, "An ingestigation of word order change on Chinese", 亞太地區語敎學硏會論文集 (1979)
  53. Li. C.N., "An Enxplanation of Word Order SVO→SOV", Foundation of Language, 12, pp.201~214 (1974)
  54. Li. C.N., "The semantic fuction of word order ：a case study i Mandarin, In Word order and word order change", pp.165~195 (1975), University of Texas Press
  55. Li. C.N, "표준중국어문법" (1996), 아카데미
  56. Light, Timothy, "Word Order and Word Order Change in Mandarin Chinese", Journal of Chines Linguistics, 7, pp.149~180 (1979)
  57. Rijkhoff, J., "The Noun Phrase" (2002), Oxford University Press
  58. Sun, Chao-Fen, "On the So-called SOV Word in Mandarin Chinese： A Quantifie Text Study and Its Implicaion", Journal of Chines Linguistics, 7, pp.149~180 (1979)
  59. Tai, James. H-Y., "Chinese as a SOV language", Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp.659~671 (1973)
  60. On the Change form SVO to SOV in Chinese, Paper from the Parasession on Diachronic Synx, "Tai, James. H-Y.", CLS, 291~304 (1976)
  61. Vennemann, Theo, "Explanation in syntax" (1973), Seminar Press
  62. Vennemann, Theo, "Treoretical Word Order Studies：Results and Problems", Papiere zur Linguistic, 7 (1974)
  63. Vennemann, Theo, "Typology, Universals and Change of Language" (1981), Mouton
  64. 屈承熙, "漢語詞序与詞序變遷中的問題, In 言語學論集：理論, 適用及漢語語法" (1983), 台北文鶴出版社

관련 논문AI추천

중국어 동사 수식어의 어순 변천과 그 유형학적 의미박향란영남중국어문학회 · 중국어문학2016 · 제72호语序类型学视角下的汉韩介词联系项对比오선자대한중국학회 · 중국학2020 · 제71호중국어의 주요 기본 어순과 유형론적 특징 - 부사어 어순을 중심으로 한 한국어·영어와의 비교를 통하여안기섭, 조희무중국인문학회 · 중국인문과학2004 · 제29호고대중국어 어순 연구 현황조은정한국중문학회 · 중국문학연구2015 · 제59호유형론 관점에서 본 중국어 학습을 촉진시키는 긍정적 전이 자질 - 한국어와 중국어의 어순 일치성을 중심으로 -이정심한국중문학회 · 중국문학연구2016 · 제65호基于中韩副词种类及句法位置对比的语序偏误探讨유준방, 한용수중국어문연구회 · 중국어문논총2019 · 제92호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)

모바일 소셜미디어의 사회문화적 영향력 활용방안－언어교육을 위한 상호작용을 중심으로－김언조pp. 5-34보조용언 ‘쌓다’에 대한 연구－‘대다’와의 비교를 중심으로－목지선pp. 35-6118대 대통령 후보자토론회의 어휘 분석 연구박건숙pp. 63-97<표준어 규정> 무용론에 대한 비판적 접근박동근pp. 99-132조선시대 윤음 언해본에 나타난 어찌마디 연구윤혜영pp. 133-176
원문 보기