본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

存在型アスペクト形式試論 -古典日本語と現代韓国語の共通性をめぐって-

A contrastive study of existential aspect forms -On the commonality between Classical Japaneseand Modern Korean-

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류일본어와문학

초록

Contrasting the Classical Japanese and Modern Korean aspectual forms that originated from existential verbs, this paper argues that there is a parallel relationship between the two languages in that both have intentionality as a factor in the choice of aspectual form. First, referring to An and Fukushima (2005) and Kim, Kyung-ae (2006), we confirm the similarity between Classical Japanese and Modern Korean as well as the difference between -ko iss- and -e iss- in Modern Korean. We go on to reveal that there are commonalities in the uses of aspectual forms in Classical Japanese and Modern Korean. One of the similarities between the two languages is that a factor in the choice of aspectual form is whether or not the relevant action or state is maintained by the subject, though the use of the two forms in Korean is not restricted by animacy or genericity. We suggest that the restrictions on animacy and genericity observed in Classical Japanese reflect the semantic difference between the existential verbs iru and aru.

Abstract

Contrasting the Classical Japanese and Modern Korean aspectual forms that originated from existential verbs, this paper argues that there is a parallel relationship between the two languages in that both have intentionality as a factor in the choice of aspectual form. First, referring to An and Fukushima (2005) and Kim, Kyung-ae (2006), we confirm the similarity between Classical Japanese and Modern Korean as well as the difference between -ko iss- and -e iss- in Modern Korean. We go on to reveal that there are commonalities in the uses of aspectual forms in Classical Japanese and Modern Korean. One of the similarities between the two languages is that a factor in the choice of aspectual form is whether or not the relevant action or state is maintained by the subject, though the use of the two forms in Korean is not restricted by animacy or genericity. We suggest that the restrictions on animacy and genericity observed in Classical Japanese reflect the semantic difference between the existential verbs iru and aru.

참고문헌 (11)

  1. 安平鎬, "中世末期日本語と現代韓国語のテンス・アスペクト体系:存在型アスペクト形式の文法化の度合い", 日本語の研究, 1(3), pp.139~154 (2005), 日本語学会
  2. 金京愛, "現代韓国語のアスペクト形式<-ko iss->の意味分析:日本語の「-ている」との比較の観点から", 京都大学言語学研究, 25, pp.187~215 (2006), 京都大学大学院
  3. 金水敏, "日本語存在表現の歴史", pp.276~ (2006), ひつじ書房
  4. 此島正年, "国語助動詞の研究 : 体系と歴史", pp.246~247 (1973), 桜楓社
  5. 坪井美樹, "佐伯梅友博士喜寿記念国語学論文集", pp.537~560 (1976), 表現社
  6. 野田高広, "「今昔物語集」のアスペクト形式Vテイル・テアルについて", 日本語の研究, 6(1), pp.1~14 (2010), 日本語学会
  7. 野田高広, "日本語史の新視点と現代日本語", pp.82~103 (2014), 勉誠出版
  8. 福嶋健伸, "日本語のテンス・アスペクト研究を問い直す", pp.285~304 (2021), ひつじ書房
  9. 柳田征司, "室町時代語資料による基本語詞の研究", pp.219~ (1991), 武蔵野書院
  10. DeLancey, Scott, "Tense-Aspect: Between semantics & pragmatics", pp.167~183 (1982), John Benjamins
  11. Igarashi, Y., "Topics in the constraint-based grammar of Japanese", pp.81~97 (1998), Kluwer

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)