Conditionals and the Semantic Feature of the Marker-myen in Korean

Chang-Bong Lee 담화·인지언어학회 2009 담화와 인지 Vol.16 No.3

This paper aims to analyze the semantic feature of the marker -myen in Korean grammar and discuss its crosslinguistic implication for the study of conditionals in general. Against Bak (1987, 2003), we claim that the fact that -myen can mark a realis situation over p should not be interpreted simply to mean that even the realis situation can be a conditional target. We observe that in these examples the speaker still carries a kind of irrealis attitude over p-myen q subjectively at a given discourse context, which are still characterizable by the extended notion of irrealis. This leads us to argue that all the conditional speaker attitudes are still defined within the irrealis domain as orginally characterized in Akatsuak (1985). We also argue that -myen can be best viewed as a marker of irrealis speaker attitude in Korean grammar. Based on these lines of counter-argument against Bak (2003), we further argue that from both empirical and theoretical perspectives our theory of conditionals has edge over Bak‘s (2003) claim that the core meaning of conditionals is 'supposition.'

현대중국어 ‘再’와 기타 중복부사와의 혼용오류 분석 및 결합동사 유형 연구

홍소영 중국어문학회 2023 中國語文學誌 Vol.- No.84

본 논문에서는 현대 중국어 ‘再’의 중복성과 이와 유사한 의미를 나타내는 ‘又’, ‘也’, ‘还’와의 혼용 오류 조사를 진행하였다. 설문조사 결과, 학생들은 ‘再’가 나타내는 이연태, 미연태 의미에 대한 이해가 부족하였는데, 학생들의 오답률이 높았던 예문들은 ‘이연태와 미연태 의미로 인한 了자와의 결합여부’ 문제나 혹은 ‘再’가 미연태가 아닌 이연태 의미를 나타내거나’, ‘가설 상황에서의 再 용법’ 등 모두 ‘再’의 상적의미와 관련이 있는 예문들이었다. 본고에서는 ‘再’가 나타내는 미연태와 이연태 의미를 재고찰해 보았는데, 연구 결과 ‘再’는 주로 미래시제에서 미연태 사건에 사용되지만, 비 미래시제에서는 ‘가설문, 습관문, 一V再V’ 구문들에 미연태, 이연태 사건 모두를 서술하는데 ‘再’가 사용될 수 있다는 점을 알 수 있었다. 그리고 ‘再’는 동작, 동태동사와 가장 자유롭게 공기하며, 정태, 순간, 비순간, 심리상태 동사와도 대체로 잘 어울렸지만 속성, 동작상태 동사와의 결합에는 일정한 제약이 있었다. 이처럼 ‘再’자문의 중복의미에는 사건 발생에 대한 시제와 상적 의미, 동사의 의미적 자질, 문장유형 등과도 관련이 있으며, 따라서 중국어 학습자들은 이러한 요소들에 대한 올바른 이해를 전제로 할 때, 일상생활에서 ‘再’자문을 정확하게 사용할 수 있으리라 생각한다. This paper conducted an investigation into the error on the mixed use of repetition adverbs such as ‘也(yě)’, ‘还(hái)’, ‘又(yòu)’ that represent the repeatability or other similar meanings of modern Chinese ‘再(zài)’. The survey shows that students lack the understanding of the ‘aspect’ meaning that ‘再(zài)’ represents. The sample sentences in which the students gave the incorrect answers at a high rate are all for exceptional situations other than the general such as ‘combination with ’了(le)’ due to the meaning of realis and irrealis’, ‘再(zài)’s represented meaning of realis not irrealis’, ‘the usage of ‘再(zài)’ in hypothetical situations’ and etc. As a result of the study, ‘再(zài)’ is mainly used in the future tense to refer to events that have not yet happened, but ‘再(zài)’ used in the non-future tense can be used to describe both realis and irrealis events in ‘the hypothetical sentences, the habitual sentences, and 一V再V sentences’. In addition, it was concluded that ‘再(zài)’ is most freely combined with action verbs and dynamic verbs, and generally goes well with statitive verbs, semelfactive verbs, non-semelfactive verbs, and psychological verbs, but there are certain restrictions in the combination with attribute verbs or action and statitve verbs. As such, the repetition meaning of the ‘再(zài)’ sentences is influenced not only by the word ‘再(zài)’, but also by the tense and aspect meaning of the event, and the semantic properties of the verb, so it can be said that ‘再(zài)’ sentences can be accurately used in daily life under the premise of properly understanding these factors in Chinese learning.

중국어 ‘會’의 기능분화에 대한 유형론적 고찰

劉亞菲(Liu Yafei) 중국어문학연구회 2017 중국어문학논집 Vol.0 No.104

According to the research through corpus, it is easy to find that ‘hui’ does not show the basic meaning of ability or possibility. In concessive, protasis and result clauses ‘hui’ is used in the main clause and links the two clauses to show it is the conclusion from the subordinate clause. In presupposed usage, the event or state used after ‘hui’ is opposite with what the speaker has expected, so ‘hui’ can emphasize the speaker’s attitude towards the event or state. When ‘hui’ is found in the sentence that has habitual explanation, it shows that the speaker thinks it is the characteristic of an extended period of time. And also ‘hui’ can be used to express the future tense. Finally, all of these functions are the next stage of epistemic modality from the grammarlization view and should be count as the category of irrealis.

제주방언의 ‘-ㄴ다’와 관련 어말형식들의 대립에 대하여

정성여 한국방언학회 2013 방언학 Vol.0 No.17

The purpose of this paper is to define the contrast of sentence-final forms in the Jeju dialect as well as the function and usage of the morpheme -nta in that dialect through a comparison with the peripheral forms, -amccye/emccye, -ta(/ce), -khiye, -l keye, -l ke talmta, etc. Although the Jeju dialect -nta seems similar to the modern standard usage of -nta(e.g. ka-nta), -nunta(e.g. mek-nunta) representing the present tense, it definitely differs in terms of its function and usage, as well as distribution. Consequently, this paper demonstrates 3 points. (1) The Jeju dialect –nta is not a form used to express the present tense. (2) It is one form of epistemic modality employed for making judgments on the basis of speaker’s knowledge about the factivity of the proposition concerned, and also for transmitting propositional content to the listener with a high degree of confidence. (3) The contrast of sentence-final forms in the Jeju dialect is sensitive to the mood distinction between realis and irrealis. 이 논문은 제주방언의 ‘–ㄴ다’를 중심으로 그 기능과 용법을 고찰하고, 또 그 주변형식 ‘-암쪄/엄쪄’, ‘-다(/저)’, ‘-키여’, ‘-ㄹ거여’, ‘-ㄹ거 닮다’ 등과의 비교를 통해, 이들 어말형식들의 대립 체계를 밝히고자 함을 목적으로 한다. 제주방언의 ‘-ㄴ다’는 형태상으로 보면 현대표준어의 현재시제를 나타내는 ‘-ㄴ다’(예: 간다), ‘-는다’(예: 먹는다)와 비슷하나, 그 기능과 용법 및 분포에 있어서는 전혀 다르다. 결론적으로 본고에서는 다음과 같은 주장을 한다. (1)제주방언의 ‘-ㄴ다’는 현재시제를 나타내는 형식이 아니다. (2)그것은 해당 명제의 사실성에 관해서 화자의 지식을 근거로 판단하는 인식적 양태범주와 관련하며, 그 사용에 있어서는 확신을 가지고 그 명제내용을 청자에게 전달하는 경우에 사용된다. (3)제주방언의 어말형식의 대립 체계는 현실과 비현실의 서법 차이를 토대로 이루어진다.

한국어 목적 범주에 대한 소고

노광위 ( Lu Guang-wei ) 인하대학교 한국학연구소 2018 한국학연구 Vol.0 No.51

목적 범주는 지향성, ‘목적-행위’ 또는 ‘행위-목적’의 의미관계, 비현실 등 세 가지 근본적인 의미특징을 가진다. 그리고 이 세 가지 의미특징을 의미기초로 목적 범주를 수립할 수 있다. 한편 이 세 가지 의미특징의 유무에 따라 한 문장이 목적 범주를 표현하는지 여부를 판단할 수 있다. 본고에서 판단한 결과 한국어 목적관계 연결어미나 연결구성에 의해 구성된 목적관계 접속문과 어떤 목적을 이루려고 한다는 뜻을 나타내는 동사 ‘위하-’에 의해 구성된 목적관계 단문이 목적 범주를 표현할 수 있는 것으로 나타났다. 그리하여 연결어미 혹은 연결구성 ‘-(으)러, -(으)려고, -고자, -기 위해/위해서, -느라고, -게, -도록’과 동사 ‘위하-’ 등은 한국어 목적 범주의 목적 표지로 볼 수 있다. The purpose category possesses three fundamental semantic features: intentionality, the semantic relationship of “Purpose-Action” or “Action-Purpose”, and irrealis. Moreover, these three semantic features can be used as the semantic foundation to establish the purpose category. In addition, whether a sentence possesses these three semantic features or not can be regarded as a criteria to tell this sentence reflects the purpose category or not. The findings of this research showed that the purpose conjunctive sentence which formed by linking Korean connective ending of purposive relationship or connective expression of purposive relationship has the function of reflecting the purpose category. Besides, the purpose conjunctive simple sentence, which is connected by verb “weile(for)” that expresses the meaning of a purpose, is also able to reflect the purpose category. Therefore, we can regard the connective ending or the connective expression as the purposive marker of the Korean purpose category, such as “-(eu)reo, -(eu)ryeogo,-goja,-gi uyhaj/uyhajseo,-neurago,-ge,-dorok” and the verb “uyha-”.

Epistemic constraint on the modal disjunctive particle in Korean: the condition of minimal variation and irrealis value on the anti-specific disjunction

( Arum Kang ) 한국어의미학회 2017 한국어 의미학 Vol.57 No.-

In this paper, I establish a new type of modal disjunction system in Korean. Thus far, (i)na has been considered as a typical modal disjunctive particle. Introducing inka as a new type of modal disjunctive particle, I propose that the class of Koran modal disjunctive particles is not homogeneous, and there should be fi ne-grained distinction system. Considering that (lack of) epistemic knowledge of the speaker is one of the possible dimensions of variation within the class of modal disjunction, my proposal on the use of inka is identified as an irrealis marker (Mauri 2008) which specifies alternative disjuncts with irrealis value. I further show that the epistemic constraint of inka on the irrealis value is characterized as a condition of minimal variation and uncertainty of anti-specific disjunction in the sense of Giannakidou and Quer (2013).

현대중국어 서법과 서법 체계 구현 양상

진준화 한국중국언어학회 2019 중국언어연구 Vol.0 No.84

Chinese mood is deeply reflected in the linguistic philosophical concept of 'realis/irrealis, factive/non-factive'. This concepts, coupled with the speaker's view of the current reality or situation in the world, can be seen as a sentence. In other words, chinese mood is a discourse category in which the sentence type and sentence form are determined according to the demand of the style, as the 'realis/irrealis' expressed through the interaction with the modality of the speaker's view based on the logic and semantic veracity of the real world. Also, chinese mood can be divided into realis mood and irrealis mood. The realis mood is directly reflected in the reality or situation in which the speaker's view is logically and meaningfully factive or non-factive. irrealis mood can be understood as an indirect projection of the speaker's point of view to a real world entity or situation in which the speaker's point of view is logically either factive or non-factive. 중국어 서법(语态, mood)은 인도유럽어의 ‘직설법, 명령법, 가정법’의 형태·통사적 서법관이 아닌 ‘서실법, 서상법’의 의미·화용적 서법관으로 중국어의 서법을 바라보아야 하고 이러한 관점에서 중국어 서법(语态, mood)을 이해해야 한다. 중국어에서 서법은 ‘서실/서상, 사실/비사실’이라는 언어 철학적 개념이 깊이 있게 반영되어 있으며, 이들 개념이 현재 세계의 실체 혹은 상황에 대한 화자의 시각과 맞물려 문장으로 실현된다고 볼 수 있다. 즉, 서법은 현실 세계의 논리 의미적 진실성을 바탕으로 화자의 시각을 전경처리 하여 표현 되어진 ‘서실과 서상’이 양태와의 상호작용을 통해 형성된 서술방식으로, 화행의 요구에 따라 문장 유형과 문장 양식이 결정되는 담화화용범주이다. 또한, 서법은 서실법과 서상법으로 나눌 수 있다. 서실법은 화자의 시각이 논리 의미적으로 사실 혹은 비사실인 현실세계의 실체 혹은 상황에 직접 투영된 것으로, 서상법은 화자의 시각이 논리 의미적으로 사실 혹은 비사실인 현실 세계 실체 혹은 상황에 간접 투영된 것으로 이해할 수 있다.

-으니' 접속문의 서법 체계에 대한 연구

강계림(KANG, Kay-Lim) 형태론 2014 형태론 Vol.16 No.1

유형론적으로 서법(mood) 표지가 다른 문법 표지와 의무적으로 공기하는 경우 공동 표시(joint marking) 방식으로 분류된다. 공동 표시 방식이 접속문에서 실현될 때, 서법 표지가 선행절에 나타나고 의무적으로 공기하는 다른 문법 표지는 후행절에서 나타나는 경우가 있다. 본고에서는 연결어미 '-으니'에 의한 접속문을 대상으로 하여 이러한 현상을 구체적으로 살펴보았다. '-으니'의 용법은 크게 인과, 지각, 배경으로 나뉘는데, 인과 및 지각 용법 내에서 과거 표현 '-었으니, -었더니'가 후행절의 문법 범주에 따라 배타적으로 실현된다. 즉, 연결어미 '-으니'가 과거 시제 '-었-'과 결합할 때 ∅와 '-더-'가 각각 서상법(irrealis)과 서실법(realis) 표지로 대립한다. 서실법 표지 '-더-'는 후행절이 과거 및 현재 시제, 미완결상(imperfective)일 때 나타난다. 반면 서상법 표지 ∅는 미래 시제, 명령 및 청유, 의무양태 등의 후행절과 공기한다. 이러한 '-더-'는 중세 한국어의 과거 비완결상 표지로 기능하다가 '-으니' 앞에서 서실법(realis) 표지로 발달한 것으로 볼 수 있다. 반면 ∅는 '-더-'와의 대립에 의해서 서상법(irrealis) 의미를 획득 하였다. 한편 배경 용법의 '-으니'에서는 후행절의 문법 범주와 관계없이 '-었더니'가 제한되기 때문에 서법 대립을 상정할 수 없다. According to Language Topology, Mood marker, which co-occurs with other grammatical categories, is classified to Joint Marking. With Joint Marking in conjunctive sentences, Mood marker occurs in the antecedent clause and the co-occurring grammatical category that determines the choice of realis and irrealis occurs in the following clause. We investigated this Joint Marking looking at '-uni' conjunctive sentence. There are three meanings of '-uni', Cause, Perception, Background. With Cause and Perception meanings, the forms '-eossuni' and '-eossdeoni' exclusively occur depending on the opposition between ∅ and '-deo-'. If the following clause is past, present or imperfective, Realis marker '-deo-' occurs in the antecedent clause. On the contrary to this, if the following clause is future, imperative, hortative, or deontic modality, Irrealis marker ∅ occurs. '-deo-' has developed from a past imperfective marker in Middle Korean to a Realis marker in current Korean. Consequently, ∅ got the function of Irrealis by competing '-deo-'. Meanwhile, with Background meaning, '-eossdeoni' always doesn't occur without reference to the following clause grammar category. Therefore we can't presume Mood system in '-uni' conjunctive sentences with Background meaning.

仮定条件副詞「万一、もし、仮に」との一考察 ―韓国語の「만일(manil)」の比較考察を含めて―

정병민 한국일본어교육학회 2024 日本語敎育 Vol.- No.107

本稿は仮定条件副詞「万一、もし、仮に」の仮定のレベルを明らかにするため、非現実のスケールの位置付け、条件の接続表現・文末表現との共起関係、「もし」の複合形である「もしも」「もしかすると」「もしかし【たら/て】」の用法(ひょっと【すると/したら/した】も共に)を確認した。そして韓国語の「만일(manil)」の仮定のレベルを確認するために日本語の「万一」の意味と比較考察を行った。 まず、「万一」は「予測的条件文」「認識的条件文」の領域で使われ、「反事実的条件文」「純然たる仮定」のような仮定のレベルが高い領域で使われないことから3つの仮定条件副詞の中で仮定レベルが最も低いことを確認した。 次に、「もし」は「総称的条件文」「予測的条件文」「認識的条件文」「反事実的条件文」の領域で使われ、「と」「ては」「には」のように現実性がある条件の接続表現と状況を描写する文末表現が共起できることを確認した。 また、「仮に」は「予測的条件文」「認識的条件文」「純然たる仮定」の領域で使われ、「反事実的条件文」として使われるためには「今ごろ」「今のところ」のような仮定の世界を構築したことを明示する表現が必要であることを確認した。「仮に」は「と」「ては」「には」のような条件の接続表現とは共起できず、文末表現「〜とする」と共起できることから仮定のレベルが「もし」より高いことを確認した。 次は、「もし」の複合形である「もしも」「もしかすると」「もしかし【たら/て】」と「ひょっと【すると/したら/して】」の意味も明らかにした。「もしも」は「もし」に「累加」を表す「も」がついているため、非現実のスケールの全ての領域で使われることを確認した。「もしかすると」「もしかし【たら/て】」は「もし」に疑問を表す「か」がついている形であるため、後続説(主節)に必ず疑問・推測の表現が共起することを確認した。使われる領域は「予測的条件文」である。「ひょっと【すると/したら/して】」は「もしかすると」「もしかし【たら/て】」とほぼ同じ意味で使われるが、「もしかすると」「もしかし【たら/て】」の現実性は「ひょっと【すると/したら/して】」より若干高い。 本稿では日本語の「万一」と韓国語の「만일(manil)」の比較考察を行った。「만일(manil)」は「萬一」という漢字を使っているにも拘らず、ほとんど全ての領域で使うことができるため「もしも」と似ている副詞だと言える。 そして、今まで同じ仮定条件副詞として扱われてきた「万一、もし、仮に」の非現実のスケールでの位置付けを確認し、これらの副詞が異なる仮定のレベルを持っていることを確認した。 This paper discusses the levels of hypotheticality expressed by the Japanese adverbial phrases "moshi", "manichi", and "karini", which all introduce conditions. It also compares the use of "manichi" in Japanese with the Korean "manil" to understand the levels of hypotheticality. This paper identifies that "manichi" is used for predictive, and cognitive conditionals and is not used for higher levels of hypotheticality such as counterfactual conditionals or pure hypotheses. This makes "manichi" the least hypothetical of the three. Furthermore, "moshi" can be used in a variety of conditional sentences, including general, predictive, cognitive, and counterfactual conditionals. "moshi" can co-occur with expressions that imply a degree of realis, such as "to", "tewa", and "niwa". On the other hand, "karini" is used in predictive, cognitive, and purely hypothetical sentences but requires explicit expressions like "imagoro" or "imanotokoro" to be used as counterfactual conditionals. "karini" does not co-occur with the same expressions of irrealis as "moshi" but can be used with the hypothetical expression "〜to-suru", indicating a higher level of hypotheticality than "moshi". The compound forms of "moshi", such as "moshimo", "moshikasuruto", and "moshikashi+【tara/te】", as well as "hyotto+【suruto/shitara/shite】" are also clarified. "moshimo" is used in all areas of the irrealis scale due to the added "mo", which expresses accumulation. "moshikasuruto" and "moshikashi+【tara/te】" include the question marker "ka", so they always co-occur with expressions of question or speculation and are used in the realm of predictive conditionals. "moshikasuruto" and "moshikashi+【tara/te】" have a similar meaning but convey a slightly higher degree of realis than "hyotto+【suruto/shitara/shite】". This paper concludes with a comparison of "manichi" in Japanese and "manil" in Korean. Despite using the same Chinese characters, "manil" can be used in almost all areas, similar to "moshimo". Finally, this paper reviews the placement of these adverbs on the irrealis scale of hypotheticality and confirms that they each possess different levels of hypotheticality.

wenn-부문장을 포함하지 않는 단문 형식의 비현실적 “조건,결과문”에 관하여

김백기 ( Paig Ki Kim ) 한국외국어대학교 언어연구소 2010 언어와 언어학 Vol.0 No.49

This paper observed a specific phenomenon with respect to the characteristics of ‘irrealis’-sentences in German texts. The ‘irrealis’-sentences mean the sentences which have a logical relationship between ‘condition and consequence’, although they do not contain a wenn-clause. Lots of German grammarians have studied this phenomenon, namely focused on the ‘condition-consequence’ sentence, but they have dealt with it just in isolated sentences and ignored the contextual conditions. That is the reason why they did not explain and describe its characteristic completely. Taken the awareness of such methodological problems as a starting point, this paper tried to explain the ‘irrealis’-sentences without a wenn-clause in view of the concerned contexts. The following factors of these sentences were treated: the conditions of their realization, the formal construction and the contextual structure.