본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

어휘의미론의 흐름과 특성

Historical Trends and Characteristics of Lexical Semantics

임지룡
한말연구학회|2012.12|한말연구 (Korean Language Research)|제31호|pp. 195-227|DOI 10.16876/klrc.2012..31.195

0

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

인지의미론cognitive semantics어휘의미론lexical semantics성분분석prototype theoryframe semanticscomponential analysis원형이론틀 의미론개념적 은유와 환유idealized cognitive modelmeaning-text theory의미-텍스트 이론이상적 인지모형생성어휘부역사-문헌 의미론구조주의 의미론생성주의 의미론신구조주의 의미론어휘장 이론관계의미론자연 의미 분석언어 접근법두 층위 의미론워드네트분포적 말뭉치 분석historical-philological semanticsstructualist semanticsgenerative semanticsneostructuralist semanticslexical field theoryrelational semanticsnatural semantics metalanguage approachtwo-level semanticsgenerative lexiconword netdistributional corpus analysisconceptual metaphor & metonymy

초록

This paper offers an overview of the historical trends and characteristics of lexical semantics, taking as the subject of the study historical-philological semantics, structuralist semantics, generative semantics, neostructuralist semantics and cognitive semantics, while broadly examining aspects of accommodation and development of lexical semantics in the field of Korean philology. The main contents are as follows. First, historical-philological semantics, spanning from 1830 to 1930, was a historical approach to lexical semantics, which placed an emphasis on the dynamic qualities and psychological aspects of individual lexical meaning. Research in this area conducted by Korean linguists flourished in the 1960s and remains incomplete. Second, structuralist semantics, which began in the 1930s, takes a synchronic perspective, seeing meaning and its structure as an autonomous system. Its primary mechanisms include lexical field theory, componential analysis, and relational semantics. Relevant research conducted by Korean linguists was at its height between the 1970s and the 1990s, and has been successful in the accommodation of lexical semantics. Third, generative semantics is the result of the merging of structuralist analysis with Generative Grammar, as performed by Katz and Fodor from the late 1960s to the 1970s. Research in this area in Korea was prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s, but has not succeeded in proving that this approach is appropriate to Korean linguistics. Fourth, neostructuralist semantics began in the 1990s, taking its origins in structuralist semantics, and then following its own unique course. The decompositional approach includes Natural Semantic Metalanguage, Conceptual Semantics, Generative Lexicon, and Two-Level Semantics, while the relational approach includes WordNet, meaning-text theory/lexical function, and distributional corpus analysis. Relevant research conducted in the Korean linguistics society in the 2000s has achieved significant success by adopting these methods to polysemy, synonym and corpus analysis. Fifth, cognitive semantics, which started in the 1980s as a reaction to the objective world-view and truth-conditional semantics, regards conceptual structure as embodiment, the representation of meaning as being encyclopedic, the conception of meaning as conceptualization, and the process of conceptualization as construal. The primary mechanisms of cognitive semantics include prototype theory, conceptual metaphor and metonymy, the Idealized Cognitive Model and frame semantics. Research in this area conducted by Korean academics from the 1990s up to the present day has produced a change in perception, through the application of this approach to the analysis of meaning, the extension of meaning, figures of speech, change of meaning, and semantic education. In conclusion, in the history of lexical semantics, historical- philological semantics has developed into cognitive semantics, while structuralist semantics has been succeeded by generative semantics and neostructuralist semantics. Domestically, Korean linguists have adopted these theories, contributing to an expansion of the horizon of lexical semantics.

Abstract

This paper offers an overview of the historical trends and characteristics of lexical semantics, taking as the subject of the study historical-philological semantics, structuralist semantics, generative semantics, neostructuralist semantics and cognitive semantics, while broadly examining aspects of accommodation and development of lexical semantics in the field of Korean philology. The main contents are as follows. First, historical-philological semantics, spanning from 1830 to 1930, was a historical approach to lexical semantics, which placed an emphasis on the dynamic qualities and psychological aspects of individual lexical meaning. Research in this area conducted by Korean linguists flourished in the 1960s and remains incomplete. Second, structuralist semantics, which began in the 1930s, takes a synchronic perspective, seeing meaning and its structure as an autonomous system. Its primary mechanisms include lexical field theory, componential analysis, and relational semantics. Relevant research conducted by Korean linguists was at its height between the 1970s and the 1990s, and has been successful in the accommodation of lexical semantics. Third, generative semantics is the result of the merging of structuralist analysis with Generative Grammar, as performed by Katz and Fodor from the late 1960s to the 1970s. Research in this area in Korea was prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s, but has not succeeded in proving that this approach is appropriate to Korean linguistics. Fourth, neostructuralist semantics began in the 1990s, taking its origins in structuralist semantics, and then following its own unique course. The decompositional approach includes Natural Semantic Metalanguage, Conceptual Semantics, Generative Lexicon, and Two-Level Semantics, while the relational approach includes WordNet, meaning-text theory/lexical function, and distributional corpus analysis. Relevant research conducted in the Korean linguistics society in the 2000s has achieved significant success by adopting these methods to polysemy, synonym and corpus analysis. Fifth, cognitive semantics, which started in the 1980s as a reaction to the objective world-view and truth-conditional semantics, regards conceptual structure as embodiment, the representation of meaning as being encyclopedic, the conception of meaning as conceptualization, and the process of conceptualization as construal. The primary mechanisms of cognitive semantics include prototype theory, conceptual metaphor and metonymy, the Idealized Cognitive Model and frame semantics. Research in this area conducted by Korean academics from the 1990s up to the present day has produced a change in perception, through the application of this approach to the analysis of meaning, the extension of meaning, figures of speech, change of meaning, and semantic education. In conclusion, in the history of lexical semantics, historical- philological semantics has developed into cognitive semantics, while structuralist semantics has been succeeded by generative semantics and neostructuralist semantics. Domestically, Korean linguists have adopted these theories, contributing to an expansion of the horizon of lexical semantics.

참고문헌 (69)

  1. 강범모, "생성어휘부 이론의 다의어 기술 방법과 그 적용: 동사 ‘사다’와 ‘팔다’", 어학연구, 38(1), pp.275~294 (2002), 언어교육원
  2. 강범모, "공기 명사에 기초한 의미", 개념 연관성의 네트워크 구성, 2010, pp.32, 1~28[DOI]
  3. 김민수, "국어의미론" (1981), 일조각
  4. 김보경, "한국어 신체어의 은유와 환유", 석사, 국어국문학과, pp.2001
  5. 김영관, "말뭉치에 기반한 어의 애매성 해결 방법", 석사, 컴퓨터공학과, pp.1999
  6. 김인호, "조선말력사의미론" (2005), 사회과학출판사
  7. 김종도, "인지언어학적 관점에서 본 은유의 세계" (2004), 한국문화사
  8. 김진식, "국어 유의어 연구", 어문연구, 20, pp.389~462 (1990), 어문연구학회
  9. 남경완, "틀의미론으로 분석한 ‘사다’와 ‘팔다’의 의미 분절", 언어, 29(1), pp.1~24 (2004), 한국언어학회
  10. 마성식, "國語 語義變化 類型에 관한 硏究", 석사, 국어국문학과, pp.1988
  11. 문귀선, "형식 의미론 입문" (2011), 한성대학교
  12. 박정운, "Charles J. Fillmore：틀의미론, In 인지언어학", pp.357~382 (2000), 한국문화사
  13. 배해수, "현대 국어의 생명종식어에 대한 연구 - 자동사적 표현 을 중심으로 -", 박사, 국어국문학과, pp.1982
  14. 신현숙, "한국어 현상－의미 분석" (1990), 상명여자대학교 출판부
  15. 沈在箕, "國語語義 變化의 構造的 硏究", 석사, 국어국문학과, pp.1964
  16. 梁泰植, "국어 차원 낱말의 의미구조", 박사, 국어국문학과, pp.1985
  17. 이기동, "단어의 의미와 범주화", 동방학지, 50, pp.289~332 (1986), 연세대학교 동방학연구소
  18. 이병근, "어휘함수를 이용한 한국어 어휘 관계의 기술", 어문연구, 37(3), pp.507~531 (2001), 서울대학교 어학연구소
  19. 이숭녕, "국어의 의미변화 시고：의미론 연구의 한 제언", 자유문학, 1, pp.236~242 (1956)
  20. 이운영, "한국어 명사의 다의적 해석 : 생성어휘부 이론에 입각한 연구", 박사, 언어학과, pp.2004
  21. 이을환, "국어의미변화고", 국어학, 1, pp.41~51 (1962), 국어학회
  22. 이진호, "개화기 국어 어휘 연구 : 신문 말뭉치의 고빈도 어휘 분석을 중심으로", 석사, 국어교육, pp.2002
  23. 임서현, "한국어 동사 '하-'와 사건", 개체유형 명사의 결합구조 : 생성어휘부 이론에 입각한 탐구, 서울대학교 대학원, pp.언어학과, 2004
  24. 임지룡, "국어 대립어의 의미 상관체계" (1989), 형설출판사
  25. 임지룡, "원형 이론과 의미의 범주화", 국어학, 23, pp.41~68 (1993), 국어학회
  26. 임지룡, "은유의 인지적 의미특성", 한국학논집, 22, pp.157~175 (1995), 계명대학교 한국한연구소
  27. 임지룡, "환유의 인지적 의미특성", 국어교육연구, 27, pp.223~254 (1995), 국어교육연구회
  28. 임지룡, "영상 도식의 인지적 의미 특성", 어문학, 60, pp.189~211 (1997), 한국어문학회
  29. 임지룡, "의미론 분야 연구사, In 국어국문학50년", pp.383~422 (2002), 태학사
  30. 임지룡, "해방 60년 우리말글 연구의 성과와 과제 -의미론 연구를 중심으로-", 우리말글, 34, pp.1~28 (2005), 우리말글학회
  31. 임지룡, "의미의 인지언어학적 탐색" (2008), 한국문화사
  32. 임지룡, "한국어 의미 연구의 방향", 한글, (282), pp.195~234 (2008), 한글학회
  33. 임지룡, "연결 도식과 그 은유적 확장", 한글, (276), pp.105~132 (2007), 한글학회
  34. 전수태, "시간 개념어의 반의 연구, In 한국어학의 이해와 전망", pp.267~317 (1997), 박이정
  35. 전재호, "의미변화 서설의 일단", 어문논총, 1, pp.19~44 (1962), 경북어문학회
  36. 조남호, "의미 변화 이론의 수용과 전개", 國語學, (43), pp.461~486 (2004), 국어학회
  37. 차준경, "국어 명사의 다의 현상 연구" (2009), 제이앤씨
  38. 천시권, "온도어휘의 상관체계", 국어교육연구, 12, pp.1~15 (1980), 국어교육연구회
  39. 최성배, "말뭉치를 이용한 단어 의미 중의성 해결", 석사, 전산학과, pp.2003
  40. 崔昌烈, "國語意味構造에 관한 연구 : 동사의 의미기능을 중심으로", 박사, 국어국문학과, pp.1980
  41. 최호철, "구조 의미론의 수용 양상과 국어 어휘 의미론의 과제", 한국어 의미학, 2, pp.11~39 (1998), 한국어의미학회
  42. 홍사만, "국어 어휘의미의 사적변천" (2003), 한국문화사
  43. 홍재성, "멜축의 의미ㆍ텍스트 대응 모형 연구", 인문논총, 43, pp.107~154 (2000), 서울대학교 인문학연구원
  44. Bierwisch, M, "Dimensional Adjectives：Grammatical Structure and Conceptual Interpretation" (1989), Springer
  45. 임지룡, "언어의 의미" (2002), 태학사
  46. Cruse,D.A, "The Handbook of Linguistics", pp.238~264 (2001), Blackwell
  47. Dramesteter, "단어의 생태：단어의 의미론적 연구" (1963), 대한교과서주식회사
  48. 김동환, "인지언어학 기초" (2008), 한국문화사
  49. Fillmore,C.J, "Grammatical Relations", pp.59~81 (1977), Academic Press
  50. Fillmore, C.J, "Toward a frame‑based lexicon：the semantics of risk and its neighbors, In Frames, Fields and Contrasts：New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization", pp.75~102 (1992), Erlbaum
  51. Geeraerts, D, "Theories of Lexical Semantics" (2010), Oxford University Press
  52. Jackendoff,R, "Conceptual semantics and Cognitive Linguistics", Cognitive Linguistics, 7, pp.93~129 (1996)
  53. Katz, J, "The structure of a semantic theory", Language, 39, pp.170~210 (1963)
  54. Kaufmann, I, "Semantic and conceptual aspects of the preposition durch, In The Semantics of Prepositions：From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing", pp.221~247 (1993), Mouton de Gruyter
  55. Lakoff,G, "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things：What Categories Reveal about the Mind" (1987), University of Chicago Press
  56. Langacker,R.W, "Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 1：Theoretical Prerequisites" (1987), Stanford University Press
  57. Lyons,J, "Structural Semantics" (1963), Blackwell
  58. Lyons,J, "Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics" (1968), Cambridge University Press
  59. Mel’čuk,A.C, "Lexical functions：a tool for the description of lexical relations in a lexicon, In Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processin", pp.37~102 (1996), Benjamin
  60. Mel’čuk, A.C, "Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain：recherches lexico‑sémantiques I-V" (1999), Presses de l’Université de Montréal
  61. Miller, G.A, "WordNet then and now", Language Resources and Evaluation, 41, pp.209~214 (2007)
  62. Nida, E.A, "의미분석론" (1990), 탑출판사
  63. Pustejovsky,J, "The Generative Lexicon.Cambridge" (1995), MIT Press
  64. Rosch,E, "Cognitive representations of semantics categories", Journal of Experimental Psychology：General, 104, pp.192~233 (1975)
  65. Sinclair, J.M, "Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary" (1987), Collins
  66. Stubbs,M, "Words and Phrases：Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics" (2002), Blackwell
  67. Ullmann, S, "의미론의 원리" (1979), 탑출판사
  68. Ullmann, S, "의미론：의미과학입문" (1987), 탑출판사
  69. Wierzbicka,A, "Semantics, Primes and universals" (1996), Oxford University Press

관련 논문AI추천

어휘의미론 연구의 현황과 전망 -어휘의미론 연구사를 중심으로-배도용우리말학회 · 우리말연구2007 · 제21호웹 말뭉치를 활용한 의미적 신어의 연구 동향과 쟁점최준, 남길임, 이수진한국사전학회 · 한국사전학2018 · 제31호인지의미론 연구의 현황과 전망임지룡우리말학회 · 우리말연구2007 · 제21호한국어의미론과 인지심리학의 접점 및 전망임지룡어문연구학회 · 어문연구2014 · 제79권 단어 형성 연구와 의미론의 성과정한데로한말연구학회 · 한말연구2023 · 제64권 제10호국내 인지의미론 연구 동향 및 전망: 생성형 AI 기반 범주화 및 키워드 분석을 중심으로이대현담화·인지언어학회 · 담화와 인지2025 · 제32권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)

한국의 사람 이름 연구사박동근pp. 5-32사과표현에서의 남녀 차이손세모돌pp. 33-74모바일 기반 의성어․의태어 교육 연구박진영, 심혜령pp. 75-106문법 설명 텍스트에 쓰인 비유적 표상의 양상－교양 문법서를 대상으로－이관희pp. 107-143상징어의 의미 영역 분류 연구(3)－감각, 감정, 생각을 나타내는 의태어를 중심으로－이영주, 김홍범pp. 145-171
원문 보기