국어 문장 서술의 두 방식
Set-up for a Sentence without a Predicate
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, this pager tried to confirm that there is a limit to the basic premise that sentences are predicated by the verb stem. Second, this paper tried to summarize that the predicative of Korean sentences is formed of two ways. Traditionally, the predicate of the sentence has been explained mainly on the stem. However, there are examples that function as sentences even in the absence of a stem. A sentence is a constituent meaning one viewpoint and one reference situation of a speaker. In Korean, 'predicative' can be set 'an attribute that something commands arguments or adjuncts and then that something completes one situation into one grammar unit under the viewpoint of the speaker'. This paper focuses on "something". Some of sentence components in the Korean language are not in concord with the stem, but are sometimes in concord with the ending. But the ending has the main grammatical function as the ending. Therefore, it can not be said that only the ending plays the function of the predicate. The verb stem is the primary predicate and the ending is the secondary predicate. At this point, it should be assumed that the predicate is validated by at least one of the two. However, there are a lot of examples in the Korean language that the predicate is done without the ending as well as the stem. These sentences can not be restored by specifying the stem or ending of the predicate. One common feature of these examples is that there is a saturation category of nouns, adverbs, quotations, clauses, etc. in the place of the predicate. These sentences complete the sentence by putting a predicate element on the saturation category. Accordingly, the predicate of Korean sentences can be divided into two kinds. It is the segmental predicate and the non-segmental predicate. The non-segmental predicate do not take segmental positions in syntactic structures. It is realized through the saturation category. And the segmental predicate can be divided into two parts: stem and end. This paper hope that the setting for non-segmental predicates can contribute fundamentally to the study of the performative-intonation or to the method of syntactic analysis.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, this pager tried to confirm that there is a limit to the basic premise that sentences are predicated by the verb stem. Second, this paper tried to summarize that the predicative of Korean sentences is formed of two ways. Traditionally, the predicate of the sentence has been explained mainly on the stem. However, there are examples that function as sentences even in the absence of a stem. A sentence is a constituent meaning one viewpoint and one reference situation of a speaker. In Korean, 'predicative' can be set 'an attribute that something commands arguments or adjuncts and then that something completes one situation into one grammar unit under the viewpoint of the speaker'. This paper focuses on "something". Some of sentence components in the Korean language are not in concord with the stem, but are sometimes in concord with the ending. But the ending has the main grammatical function as the ending. Therefore, it can not be said that only the ending plays the function of the predicate. The verb stem is the primary predicate and the ending is the secondary predicate. At this point, it should be assumed that the predicate is validated by at least one of the two. However, there are a lot of examples in the Korean language that the predicate is done without the ending as well as the stem. These sentences can not be restored by specifying the stem or ending of the predicate. One common feature of these examples is that there is a saturation category of nouns, adverbs, quotations, clauses, etc. in the place of the predicate. These sentences complete the sentence by putting a predicate element on the saturation category. Accordingly, the predicate of Korean sentences can be divided into two kinds. It is the segmental predicate and the non-segmental predicate. The non-segmental predicate do not take segmental positions in syntactic structures. It is realized through the saturation category. And the segmental predicate can be divided into two parts: stem and end. This paper hope that the setting for non-segmental predicates can contribute fundamentally to the study of the performative-intonation or to the method of syntactic analysis.
참고문헌 (34)
- 강범모, "술어 명사의 의미 구조", 언어학, (31), pp.3~30 (2002), 사단법인 한국언어학회
- 고영근, "우리말 문법론" (2008), 집문당
- "표준국어대사전(재개정)" (2019), 국립국어원[URL]
- 김세중, "국어의 명시적 수행문에 대하여", 한글, 196, pp.309~328 (1987), 한글학회
- 김건해, "상징부사의 비서술성에 대한 연구", 한국어학, 19, pp.91~112 (2003), 한국어학회
- 남기심, "표준 국어문법론" (2014), 탑출판사
- 남윤진, "현대국어의 조사에 대한 계량언어학적 연구" (2000), 태학사
- 목정수, "상징부사(의성·의태어)의 서술성과 기능 동사", 한국어학, 12, pp.89~118 (2000), 한국어학회
- 서울대학교 동아문화연구소, "국어국문학사전" (1974), 신구문화사
- 엄정호, "조사의 범주 특성", 형태론, 2(1), pp.43~58 (2000)
- 오주영, "화용론과 의미해석: 화행, 전제, 함축" (1998), 경성대학교 출판부
- 우형식, "동사의 결합가 기술에 대한 방법론적 접근", 한글, 225, pp.73~98 (1994), 한글학회
- 유동석, "국어의 매개변인 문법" (1995), 신구문화사
- 유목상, "한국어문법 이론", pp.220~232 (1990), 일조각
- 윤용선, "현대국어 ‘-로’의 용법에 대한 一考察", 인문과학연구논총, (32), pp.43~71 (2011), 인문과학연구소[DOI]
- 이관규, "(국어 교육을 위한)국어 문법론" (2016), 역락
- 이병규, "한국어 술어명사문 문법" (2009), 한국문화사
- 이선웅, "국어 명사의 논항 구조 연구", 박사, 국어학, pp.2004
- 이선희, "복합술어 구문에 대하여", 말, 18 (1993), 연세대학교 한국어학당
- 이숭녕, "중세국어문법" (1981), 을유문화사
- 이진병, "문 구성에서 청자를 설명하기 위한 호격어 설정", 우리말연구, (55), pp.26~60 (2018), 우리말학회
- 이필영, "국어학신연구", pp.521~533 (1986), 탑출판사
- 이현희, "중세 국어 구문 연구" (1994), 신구문화사
- 이홍식, "문법 연구와 자료(이익섭 선생 회갑 기념 논총)", pp.7~46 (1998), 태학사
- 李勳, "敍述語 槪念에 대한 비판적 檢討", 어문연구(語文硏究), 30(4), pp.57~76 (2002), 한국어문교육연구회
- 임채훈, "‘(으)로서’ 문장 성분의 文章意味 構成", 어문연구(語文硏究), 40(4), pp.85~103 (2012), 한국어문교육연구회[DOI]
- 임홍빈, "국어문법론·Ⅰ" (1995), 한국방송통신대학교출판부
- 정태구, "논항구조와 영어 통사론" (2001), 한국문화사
- 최웅환, "상징어의 통사적 정보에 대한 해석", 배달말, 22, pp.101~120 (1997), 배달말학회
- 최웅환, "국어 문장의 형성 원리 연구" (2000), 역락
- 최현배, "<깁고 고침> 우리말본" (1971), 정음문화사
- Fillmore, C. J, "Universals in Linguistic Theory" (1968), Holt, Rinebart and Winston
- Ross, J. R, "Readings in English Transformational Grammar", pp.222~720 (1970), Ginn and Company
- Tesnière, L, "Eléments de Syntaxe Structurale" (1959), C. Klincksieck