한·중 존재문의 구문 확장 대조 연구
A Contrastive Study on Construction Extension of Existential Sentences in Korean and Chinese
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This dissertation studies existential sentences in Korean and Chinese. Through comparing construction extension, their common and different points are summarized. Meanwhile, the common and different points are concluded to be related to humans’ cognitive competence and conceptualization of languages’ users. The explanations in cognitive linguistics are as follows:1. The construction’s extension of the prototype of existential sentences in two languages happens through metaphor and metonymy. Meanwhile, some common and different points are found in the process of extension. 2. The orders of two languages show iconicity. However, the strength of iconicity in Korean is weaker than its in Chinese because of Korean grammatical restriction. 3. The syntactic structures of existential sentences in Korean and Chinese are restricted by cognitive styles of languages’ users. Therefore, existence is prominent and becomes trajector in Korean. However, space is prominent and becomes trajector in Chinese. 4. The difference of range and predicate of existential sentences in Korean and Chinese is because language users’ construal comes separately from source-path- goal schema and container schema. 5. The reasons why the same scene is expressed by different constructions are because speakers’ different perspective.
Abstract
This dissertation studies existential sentences in Korean and Chinese. Through comparing construction extension, their common and different points are summarized. Meanwhile, the common and different points are concluded to be related to humans’ cognitive competence and conceptualization of languages’ users. The explanations in cognitive linguistics are as follows:1. The construction’s extension of the prototype of existential sentences in two languages happens through metaphor and metonymy. Meanwhile, some common and different points are found in the process of extension. 2. The orders of two languages show iconicity. However, the strength of iconicity in Korean is weaker than its in Chinese because of Korean grammatical restriction. 3. The syntactic structures of existential sentences in Korean and Chinese are restricted by cognitive styles of languages’ users. Therefore, existence is prominent and becomes trajector in Korean. However, space is prominent and becomes trajector in Chinese. 4. The difference of range and predicate of existential sentences in Korean and Chinese is because language users’ construal comes separately from source-path- goal schema and container schema. 5. The reasons why the same scene is expressed by different constructions are because speakers’ different perspective.
참고문헌 (37)
- 고석주, "‘있다’의 의미에 대한 연구 - 어휘개념구조 표상을 중심으로 -", 한말연구, (20), pp.1~25 (2007), 한말연구학회
- 김기혁, "국어 지정문과 존재문의 상관성", 한글, (271), pp.51~76 (2006), 한글학회
- 김동환, "인지언어학과 의미" (2005), 태학사
- 김동환, "인지언어학과 개념적 혼성이론" (2013), 박이정
- 김상대, "‘있다’의 의미에 대하여", 인문논총, 2, pp.5~31 (1991), 아주대학교 인문과학연구소
- 김영미, "「있다」의 의미에 대한 고찰", 석사, 국어국문학, pp.1995
- 김윤정, "현대중국어 공간전경화 구문 연구", 중국학연구, (53), pp.23~52 (2010), 중국학연구회
- 남양우, "한어존재문에 대응하는 조선어표현에 대하여", 중국조선어문, 6, pp.46~50 (2014), 길림성민족사무위원회
- 朴良圭, "所有와 所在", 국어학, 3, pp.93~117 (1975), 국어학회
- 謝禮, "한국어 존재문의 의미와 통사 연구", 석사, 국어국문학과 국어학전공, pp.2014
- 송창선, "국어통사론" (2010), 한국문화사
- 신선경, "「있다」의 어휘 의미와 통사 구조 연구", 박사, 국어학, pp.1998
- 임지룡, "인지 의미론" (1997), 탑출판사
- 임지룡, "의미의 인지언어학적 탐색" (2008), 한국문화사
- 장미라, "‘있다’의 의미 확장과 다의어 체계", 인문학연구, 9, pp.95~120 (2005), 경희대학교 인문학연구소
- 전영철, "한국어 존재문의 구성", 언어학, (27), pp.261~280 (2000), 사단법인 한국언어학회
- 정태구, "국어 존재구문의 의미와 사건구조", 언어, 32(4), pp.779~801 (2007), 한국언어학회
- 조재형, "‘-에’와 ‘-에서’의 기본의미 비교 고찰", 언어, 39(4), pp.1021~1041 (2014), 한국언어학회
- 陳庭珍, "漢語處所詞作主語的存在句", 中國語文, 8, pp.15~19 (1957)
- 金櫻, "漢語存在句在韓語中的對應形式", 碩士, 語言學及應用語言學, pp.2009
- 季所成, "日漢存在表達方式句法的認知考察", 中日比較硏究, 146, pp.50~55 (2010)
- 柳英綠, "韓中翻譯敎程" (2009), 延邊大學出版社
- 播文, "現代漢語存在句硏究", 博士, pp.2003
- 宋玉柱, "現在漢語特殊句式" (1991), 山西敎育出版社
- 沈家煊, "句法相似性問題", 外語敎學与硏究, 93, pp.2~8 (1993)
- 王葆華, "存在构式“着”, “了” 互換現象的認知解釋", 外語硏究, 90, pp.1~5 (2005)
- 王勇, "漢語存在句的构式語法硏究", 語言硏究, 3, pp.62~70 (2010)
- 張健, "英、漢語存在句的句法象似性探討", 四川外語學院學報, 2, pp.129~132 (2002)
- 山梨正明, "인지문법론: 문법의 게슈탈트성" (2012), 영남대학교출판부
- Dirven, R., "인지문법론" (2009), 박이정
- Freeze, R., "Existential and Other Locatives", Language, 3, pp.553~595 (1992), Journal of the Linguistic Society of America
- Goldberg, A., "구문 문법" (2004), 한국문화사
- Hannay, M., "English Existential in Functional Grammar", Foris Pubns USA, ~ (1985)
- Johnson, M., "마음 속의 몸: 의미·상상력·이성의 신체적 근거" (2000), 철학과 현실사
- Lakoff, G., "인지의미론: 언어에서 본 인간의 마음" (1994), 한국문화사
- Langacker, R. W., "인지문법의 토대Ⅱ" (1999), 박이정
- Langacker, R. W., "문법과 개념화" (2003), 박이정