강조사(intensifieur) 파생어에 대한 소고

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze evaluative intensified derivatives in French and Korean within the framework of evaluative morphology. Evaluation is divided into objective evaluation (measurement of size or quality) and subjective evaluation (subjective recognition such as affection and disparagement). Evaluative intensifiers act on the cultural standards of the referent indicated by the stem as operators, or act on the speaker in the context, ultimately intensifying the distance between the speaker and the referent in a positive or negative manner. In the morphosemantic template that provides regularity to the construction process of evaluative intensified derivatives, objective evaluation and subjective evaluation overlap in eight cases, and this template is accompanied by morphopragmatic utterance conditions. As the contrast in the template clearly shows, the construction processes of intensified derivatives in French and Korean have similarities and differences. French demonstrates seven combinations of measurement evaluation and subjective recognition evaluation, while Korean shows five combinations. The combination that is absent in both languages is the combination of positive measurement evaluation and positive subjective recognition evaluation. In French, there are cases where affection is expressed regardless of measurement evaluation, but this is not present in Korean. Affection in Korean is expressed only when the evaluation target is measured as small. Additionally, in French, there are cases where disparagement is expressed for a target evaluated as small, which is not found in Korean. French evaluative prefixes show either superlative positive/negative evaluation or non-superlative positive/negative evaluation. In contrast, Korean evaluative prefixes seem to show only superlative positive/negative evaluation. The construction of evaluative intensified derivatives is uniquely regular and predictable, as the morphosemantic-pragmatic structure is used as a basis in the construction process. This regularity and predictability are distant from the extra-grammatical morphology where lexical creation occurs. The characteristics of the lexical creation process related to extra-grammatical morphology, such as the intention of creation and crude manipulation, do not appear in the construction process of evaluative intensified derivatives. Unlike derivatives in central grammatical morphology, evaluative intensified derivatives proceed with semantic construction separately from the formal construction and are not constructed in an additive manner. There are also cases where the derived word becomes the stem again and is used in a new derivation process. The complex construction process in terms of morphosemantics and the resulting low productivity, the semantic construction process that does not parallel the formal construction process, and the non-additive manner of semantic construction constitute the marginality of evaluative intensified derivatives. The morphopragmatic utterance condition of evaluative intensified derivatives appears to have a default value of “none” and is set only very exceptionally.