한국어 술어 부류와 구문 습득
Korean Predicate Classes and Acquisition of Their Constructions
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Adjective(stative verb), intransitive verb, and transitive verb in Korean are used as a predicate in a sentence, and each type of predicate class requires a specific case marker within its construction. However, the mapping of semantic role of each argument and case marker is not consistent with each other. In cognitive and typological perspectives, the different case alignments from Korean such in ergative languages are case-marked based on another construal of events. Therefore, the learners of Korean as a second language could make some errors with the case markers. To find the acquisition of each construction using Korean predicate classes, we conducted a selective blank task with 157 items for fifty learners. The results showed that 1) in adjective constructions, learners acquired the animate subject arguments easier than the inanimate, 2) in intransitive constructions, learners poorly learned both animate and inanimate subjects, 3) in transitive constructions, learners understood more accurately inanimate objects with accusative markers than animate subjects with nominative markers. For more effective teaching of Korean, it is suggested to make distinctions between the predicate classes and the animate/inanimate arguments in each construction in order to make the functions of each case marker more explicitly noticeable for the learners as utilized in the input enhancement methods.
Abstract
Adjective(stative verb), intransitive verb, and transitive verb in Korean are used as a predicate in a sentence, and each type of predicate class requires a specific case marker within its construction. However, the mapping of semantic role of each argument and case marker is not consistent with each other. In cognitive and typological perspectives, the different case alignments from Korean such in ergative languages are case-marked based on another construal of events. Therefore, the learners of Korean as a second language could make some errors with the case markers. To find the acquisition of each construction using Korean predicate classes, we conducted a selective blank task with 157 items for fifty learners. The results showed that 1) in adjective constructions, learners acquired the animate subject arguments easier than the inanimate, 2) in intransitive constructions, learners poorly learned both animate and inanimate subjects, 3) in transitive constructions, learners understood more accurately inanimate objects with accusative markers than animate subjects with nominative markers. For more effective teaching of Korean, it is suggested to make distinctions between the predicate classes and the animate/inanimate arguments in each construction in order to make the functions of each case marker more explicitly noticeable for the learners as utilized in the input enhancement methods.
참고문헌 (25)
- 영근, "능격성과 국어의 통사 구조", 한글, 192, pp.43~76 (1986), 한글학회
- 고영근, "우리말 문법론" (2008), 집문당
- 김문오, "국어 자타 양용동사 구문의 의미구실 연구", 국어학, 30, pp.257~283 (1997), 국어학회
- 김의수, "중국어권 학습자 조사 습득에서의 오류와 원인 분석 －구조격 조사 ‘가’와 ‘를’의 대치 오류에 관한 생성문법적 접근－", 한국어교육, 20(2), pp.29~52 (2009), 국제한국어교육학회
- 김재욱, "한국어 학습자의 시제표현 문법형태의용법별 중간언어 연구", 언어과학연구, 1(32), pp.89~108 (2005), 언어과학회
- 박선희, "중국인 한국어 학습자의 과거시제 습득 연구", 한국어교육, 20(3), pp.79~110 (2009), 국제한국어교육학회
- 연재훈, "국어 중립 동사 구문에 대한 연구", 한글, 203, pp.165~188 (1989), 한글한회
- 연재훈, "한국어에 능격성이 존재하는가 -능격의 개념과 그 오용 -", 한글, (282), pp.125~154 (2008), 한글학회
- 이귀옥, "중국 조선족 아동의 한국어, 중국어 관계절 발달: 주어와 칭성을 중심으로", 이중언어학, (29), pp.247~268 (2005), 이중언어학회
- 이영진, "중국인 학습자의 언어간 영향과 교수방안 -타언어권과 대비되는 형용사 과거시제를 중심으로-", 한국어교육, 23(2), pp.281~300 (2012), 국제한국어교육학회[DOI]
- 이선영, "중국인 학습자의 한국어 격조사 처리 연구 : 그림-문장 검증 과제를 통하여", 이중언어학, (52), pp.317~345 (2013), 이중언어학회
- 정진희, "제2언어로서의 한국어 영주어와 영목적어 습득 연구", 석사, Teaching Korean as a Foreign Language, pp.2011
- Blake, B., "Case" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Braidi, S., "The Acquisition of Second-Language Syntax" (1999), Arnold
- Dixon, R, "Ergativity", Language, 55(1), pp.59~138 (1979)
- Donohue, M., "The Typology of Semantic Alignment" (2008), Oxford University Press
- Haegeman, L., "Introduction to Government and Binding Theory" (1991), Blackwell
- Hopper, P, "Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse", Language, 56(2), pp.251~299 (1980)
- Langacker, R., "Foundation of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Volume 1" (1987), Stanford University Press
- Langacker, R., "Concept, Image and Symbol (2nd)" (2002), Mouton de Gruyter
- García-Miguel, J, "Clause Structure and Transitivity, In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics", pp.753~781 (2007), Oxford University Press
- Silverstein, M, "Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity, In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages", pp.112~171 (1976), Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies
- Vendler, Z, "Verbs and Times", The Philosophical Review, 66(2), pp.143~160 (1957)
- Vendler, Z., "Linguistics in Philosophy" (1967), Cornell University Press
- Whaley, L., "troduction to Typology: the Unity and Diversity of Language" (1997), Sage Publications