漢語動詞の使役文 -「sikida,ge hada」形との對應關係を中心に-

권승임 韓國外國語大學校 外國學綜合硏究센터 日本硏究所 2014 日本硏究 Vol.0 No.60

Causative construction of Chinese character verb Korean has a "sikida" form as Chinese verb-only format in addition to the form "ge hada". Furthermore, it is also derived in the form of a causative construction of general verb to "ge hada" form. In this paper, while keeping in mind the overall picture of Chinese character verb in Korean, to target the causative form of the two, practice comparative analysis of semantic feature and the establishment of each format. Further, as a result of the analysis to a double causative construction, it is possible to present the following conclusions. 1) It is divided into [A-2] type and [A-1] type by causative form of Chinese character verb "sikida", "saseru" form to become a transitive construction or causative construction. [A-2] type is subclassified to [A-2-1]type which becomes transitive verb in the corresponding spontaneous causative construction and [A-2-2] Type representing a similar meaning of "Chinese character word + suru" form "Chinese character word + saseru" form. 2) In the case of Korean "sikida" form, in [K-A-1] type, "sikida" form represents the meaning of the causative and transitive verb, "ge hada" form represents the meaning of the typical causative. The [K-A-2-1] type, "sikida" form represents the meaning of the transitive verb, and "ge hada" form represents meaning of spontaneous causative construction. The [K-A-2-2] type, "sikida" form represents the meaning of the transitive verb, and "ge hada" form becomes to make sense of the indirect event realization. 3) In case of Korean, double causative construction is established, so "sikige hada" form is established from the transitive construction [K-A-1] type, [K-A-2-1] type, and [K-A-2-2] type. 4) For Japanese, double causative is not satisfied from [J-A-1] type, "saseruyounisuru" form is derived from [J-A-2-2] type and [J-A-2-1] type.

漢語動詞の使役文 : 「sikida·ge hada」形との対応関係を中心に

權勝林 韓國外國語大學校 外國學綜合硏究센터 日本硏究所 2014 日本硏究 Vol.0 No.60

Causative construction of Chinese character verb Korean has a "sikida" form as Chinese verb-only format in addition to the form "ge hada". Furthermore, it is also derived in the form of a causative construction of general verb to "ge hada" form. In this paper, while keeping in mind the overall picture of Chinese character verb in Korean, to target the causative form of the two, practice comparative analysis of semantic feature and the establishment of each format. Further, as a result of the analysis to a double causative construction, it is possible to present the following conclusions. 1) It is divided into [A-2] type and [A-1] type by causative form of Chinese character verb "sikida", "saseru" form to become a transitive construction or causative construction. [A-2] type is subclassified to [A-2-1]type which becomes transitive verb in the corresponding spontaneous causative construction and [A-2-2] Type representing a similar meaning of "Chinese character word + suru" form "Chinese character word + saseru" form. 2) In the case of Korean "sikida" form, in [K-A-1] type, "sikida" form represents the meaning of the causative and transitive verb, "ge hada" form represents the meaning of the typical causative. The [K-A-2-1] type, "sikida" form represents the meaning of the transitive verb, and "ge hada" form represents meaning of spontaneous causative construction. The [K-A-2-2] type, "sikida" form represents the meaning of the transitive verb, and "ge hada" form becomes to make sense of the indirect event realization. 3) In case of Korean, double causative construction is established, so "sikige hada" form is established from the transitive construction [K-A-1] type, [K-A-2-1] type, and [K-A-2-2] type. 4) For Japanese, double causative is not satisfied from [J-A-1] type, "saseruyounisuru" form is derived from [J-A-2-2] type and [J-A-2-1] type.

한국어 사동 유형으로서의 ‘(-)시키-’ 사동

김성주 한민족문화학회 2019 한민족문화연구 Vol.67 No.-

‘(-)Siki-’ causative construction is a type of Korean causative construction that fulfills both formal and semantic characteristics of general causative construction. It has been classified as a type of Korean causative construction since Choi(1937). However, it has not been recognized as a type of Korean causative construction in Lee & Im(1983) and Nam & Ko(1985/2014) as well as Nam et al.(2019). In addition, relatively recent Korean grammar books such as Ku et al.(2015) and Yoo et al.(2018) have handled it in a smaller way compared to the ‘-i-’ causative. From the viewpoint of the formal typology of causative construction, the (-)siki- causative construction belongs to the middle category between the morphological and the syntactic causative. When divided into on direct and indirect causation, on one hand in the semantic point of view of the causative construction, the ‘-siki-’ causative construction can be interpreted either in direct or indirect causation, but is closer to the direct causation than the indirect one. From the point of view of manipulative and directive causation, it can be basically interpreted as both of them. The modern Korean causative construction is largely classified according to whether the basic verb is a native or Sino-Korean verb. In most Korean grammar books, the type of Korean causative construction is divided into the morphological and syntactic causative construction. However, ‘-i-’ causative constructions are used in the morphological one of the Korean language, and ‘-siki-’ causative constructions are used in the case of Sino- Korean verbs. ‘(-)시키-’ 구문은 사동문의 형식적 특성과 의미적 특성을 모두 지니고 있는 한국어의 사동문이며, 내용을 완비한 최초의 근대적 한국어 문법서라 할 수 있는 최현배(1937)에서부터 한국어 사동의 유형으로 분류되었다. 그러나 이익섭․임홍빈(1983), 남기심․고영근(1985/2014)과 같이 영향력 있는 한국어 문법서 중에서는 ‘(-)시키-’ 사동을 인정하지 않고 있으며, 이러한 경향은 최근의 남기심 외(2019)에서도 유지되고 있다. 또한 비교적 최근의 한국어 문법서라 할 수 있는 구본관 외(2015), 유현경 외(2018)에서도 ‘(-)시키-’ 사동은 형태적 사동에 비해 상대적으로 소략하게 다루어지고 있다. 범언어의 사동을 어휘적 사동, 형태적 사동, 통사적 사동으로 나눌 때, ‘(-)시키-’ 사동은 형태적 사동과 통사적 사동의 중간 범주에 속한다. 의미의 관점에서 사동을 직접 사동과 간접 사동으로, 또는 조작적 사동과 지시적 사동으로 나눌 때, ‘(-)시키-’ 사동은 주로 직접 사동으로 해석되고, 조작적 사동과 지시적 사동의 관점에서는 조작적 사동과 지시적 사동 양쪽으로 해석된다. 현대 한국어 사동은 원동사가 고유어 동사인가 한자어 동사인가에 따라서 크게 구분되는데, 대부분의 문법서에서 한국어의 사동 유형은 형태적 사동과 통사적 사동으로 분류된다. 그런데 한국어의 사동은 고유어 동사인 경우 형태적 사동문이 사용되고, 한자어 동사인 경우에 ‘(-)시키-’ 사동문이 사용되며, 통사적 사동은 양자에 모두 사용된다. 즉 ‘(-)시키-’ 사동은 주로 ‘한자어+하-’ 동사의 어근을 사동으로 표현하는 데 사용된다.

사동구성의 긴밀성과 피사동자 격 표시

김기혁 한글학회 2009 한글 Vol.- No.283

This paper aims to clarify the difference and similarity of the category between morphological and syntactic causative construction in Korean. Conjunctive Sentence can be changed into embedded Sentence. When the adverbial connectives, for example ‘-ke’ are used, the changing is easier in Korean. The predicate of the main or embedding clause can be changed into ‘-ha-’(do). The predicate construction of ‘-ke ha-’ makes new causative expression. In Korean, the case marker of causee in morphological causative construction is expressed in accusative case and dative case maker in ditransitive predicate sentence but it is not expressed in nominative case. Because the predicate of morphological causative is a single verb, it can not be expressed in nominative case. However, the predicates of syntactic causative have two functions like single verb and double verbs. The case marker of causee in syntactic causative construction is expressed not only in accusative case and dative case maker, but also in nominative case. We can infer the development of the causative construction from non causative construction to the causative verbs. Morphological causative was more productive than syntactic causative construction in the history of Korean causative. There were many causative verbs in 15th century compared to those in modern Korean. And the accusative case marker of causee was more productive than that of dative case marker. It is well known that there is semantic distinction between direct causation and indirect causation. Korean is different with the paradigm case in respect to the case maker of oblique case. Accusative and dative causee are in use, but nominative case maker are not in use. And oblique case maker is not natural in modern Korean, with the expression ‘-ro hayeokum’(by doing that). However in 15th century, oblique (instrumental) case was used. And the change of causee’s case marker from accusative to dative is one of the special phenomenon in the typology of causation. 이 글은 범언어적으로 존재하는 어휘적, 형태적, 통사적 사동구성의 범주적 본질과 사동구성의 유형적 차이를 제시하고, 이러한 차이의 원인과 결과 그리고 그 실제 쓰임을 연구함을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위하여 먼저 사동의 범주를 확정하는데, 사동의 범주는 간접 사동과 직접 사동으로 구분됨을 논의한다. 통사적 사동구성은 두 문장의 연결인 접속문에서 두 서술어의 긴밀성이 강화되는 내포문을 거쳐 보조동사 구성이 형성된 것으로 추론된다. 종속 접속과 내포 사이의 변환 관계가 자연스러움에 비해, 인용문이나 희망 구성, 사동구성 등은 뒤섞기나 자리바꿈이 부자연스럽다. 통사적 사동인 ‘동사+게 하다’ 구성은 긴밀성으로 인해 접속문이나 내포문 구조로의 환원이 불가능한 새로운 문법 구성이 된다. 통사적 사동에서 주어로 나타나는 피사동자는 행위성이 크고, 상대적으로 사동자의 사동의 힘은 약하다. 목적격 즉 대격 표시로 나타나는 피사동자는 행위성이 약하고, 여격의 쓰임이, 대격의 쓰임보다 무표적이라는 점에서 여격에서 대격으로의 교체로 볼 수 있다. 그러나 역사적으로 형태적 사동에서 여격 표현보다 대격 표현이 빈번하였다는 사실은 대격 표현의 이중 타동구성이 국어에 먼저 존재한 문장 구조였다고 해석하게 한다. 현대 한국어의 통사적 사동은 피사동자의 주격, 대격, 여격 표지가 있지만, 형태적 사동에서 대격과 여격 표시만 있고 주격 표지가 없는 점은, 언어 유형론에서 표준적 현상은 아니다. 한국어에서 도구격이 잘 쓰이지 않는다는 점도 유형론적 관점에서 표준적 현상은 아니다.

‘得’자 초래문의 초래자 논항의 실현 및 기제

金鉉哲(Kim, Hyun-cheol),何?(He Qian) 중국어문학연구회 2020 중국어문학논집 Vol.0 No.123

This paper takes the Chinese Causative “de” sentence as the research object and studies the causative “de” sentence from the perspective of construction. This paper has three main research objectives. Firstly, to determine the prototype of causative “de” sentence construction. Secondly, it tries to explore the derivation interaction between the event causative construction and the entity causative construction. Thirdly, it tries to analyze the classification and derivation relationship of the entity causative “de” construction. This paper analyzes and summarizes the construction types of causative “de” sentence from the perspective of events, explores the derivation interaction between event causative construction and entity causative construction, and analyzes the classification of entity causative “de” sentence and the derivation relations among the subclasses.

現代漢語致使性“得”字句的構式分類及衍生機制

金鉉哲,何? 중국어문학연구회 2020 중국어문학논집 Vol.0 No.122

This paper takes the Chinese Causative "de" sentence as the research object and studies the causative "de" sentence from the perspective of construction. This paper has three main research objectives. Firstly, to determine the prototype of causative "de" sentence construction. Secondly, it tries to explore the derivation interaction between the event causative construction and the entity causative construction. Thirdly, it tries to analyze the classification and derivation relationship of the entity causative "de" construction. This paper analyzes and summarizes the construction types of causative "de" sentence from the perspective of events, explores the derivation interaction between event causative construction and entity causative construction, and analyzes the classification of entity causative "de" sentence and the derivation relations among the subclasses.

‘把’구문의 분류 문제 재고-‘사동성’을 중심으로-

이윤경,최재영 한국외국어대학교 중국연구소 2023 中國硏究 Vol.97 No.-

본고에서는 현대중국어 ‘把’구문의 문법의미를 규정하고 이를 바탕으로 새로운 의미 분류를 시도하였다. ‘把’구문의 문법의미를 규정하기 위해 먼저 기존의 견해를 ①처치설, ②사동설, ③처치설과 사동설의 이원론 등 세 가지로 나누어 살펴본 후, 이를 통해 기존 견해인 처치설과 사동설은 ‘사동성’이라는 공통된 문법의미에 기반하고 있으며, 단지 사동자의 행위자성에 차이가 있음을 제시하였다. 이어서 ‘把’구문을 사동범주를 구성하는 하나의 구성원으로 보고, 사동자의 행위자성 측면에서 ‘의도성 사동 把구문’과 ‘비의도성 사동 把구문’으로 나누어 세부적인 통사구조와 특징에 대하여 고찰하였다. 다음은 BCC코퍼스 문학영역에서 추출한 예문 416개를 대상으로 고찰한 결과이다. 첫째, 주어의 행위자성에 기반하면 ‘의도성 사동 把구문’은 [+의도성]을, ‘비의도성 把구문’은 [-의도성]의 의미자질을 가진다. 둘째, ‘의도성 사동 把구문’은 의도를 가지고 실행한 결과에 따라서 ‘타동성의 강화’ 유형과 ‘위치이동·속성변화’ 유형 두 가지로 분류할 수 있다. 셋째, '타동성의 강화'유형은 다시 8개의 하위 문형으로 분류할 수 있고, '위치이동·속성변화’ 유형은 다시 3개의 하위 문형으로 분류할 수 있다. 넷째, '비의도성 사동 把구문’은 주어의 의미역이 '원인자'인 문형과 '경험자'인 문형 2개로 분류할 수 있는데, 주어의 의미역과 무관하게 모두 의도하지 않은 결과를 나타내므로 '원인/경험자-의도치 않은 결과' 유형으로 귀납할 수 있다. 다섯째, ‘의도성 사동 把구문’과 ‘비의도성 사동 把구문’은 각각의 구조, 주어의 유정성, 목적어의 한정성, 행위자성, 타동성 등에서 상이한 특징을 갖는다. This paper aimed to define the grammatical meaning of the ‘BA(把)’ construction in Modern Chinese and based on this, attempted a new semantic classification. To define the grammatical meaning of the ‘BA(把)’ construction, this paper examined three existing perspectives: ① the disposal perspective, ② the causative perspective, ③ the dual perspective of disposal and causative. Through this examination, it was suggested that both the disposal and causative perspectives are grounded in a common grammatical meaning of ‘causative’ with the only difference being the agentivity of the causer. In light of this, the paper regarded the ‘BA(把)’ construction as one constituent of the causative category and divided it into two categories based on the agentivity of the causer: ‘intentional causative BA(把) construction’ and ‘unintentional causative BA(把) construction’. The analysis is based on 416 examples extracted from the BCC corpus in the literary domain. The results of the study are as follows: First, based on the agentivity of the subject, ‘intentional causative BA(把) construction’ has the semantic feature [+intentionality], while ‘unintentional causative BA(把) construction’ has the semantic feature [-intentionality]. Second, ‘intentional causative BA(把) construction’ can be classified into two types: ‘transitivity reinforcement’ type and ‘location shift/attribute change’ type, depending on the intended outcome of the action. Third, ‘unintentional causative BA(把) construction’ can be classified into two types: those with the semantic role of ‘causer’ and those with the semantic role of ‘experiencer’, as they all indicate an unintended result regardless of the semantic role of the subject, so they can be reduced as ‘cause/experience-unintended result’ types. Fourth, the paper analyzes the structures, frequency, animacy of the subject, definity of the object, agentivity, transitivity, and occurrence of an event of the two types, as shown in the table below.

≪좌전(左傳)≫ 치사성(致使性) 겸어구문의 분류 및 구문론적 해석

박원기 ( Park Wonki ) 중국어문연구회 2018 中國語文論叢 Vol.0 No.87

The causative pivotal cxn of Chinese has existed since the age of inscriptions on bones and tortoise carapaces. It has come to the period of Zuozhuan and has continued to change and expand. At first, it was formed through constructionalization, and through constructional changes, it became the current figure. At first it was formed in ‘command/dispatch/summons’ type, where it expanded to other forms such as ‘causative’ type, ‘title’ type and ‘appointment’ type. ‘Causative’ type was formed through metaphorical expansion. In this course, the causative pivotal cxn was established in a definite construction, since then, more verbs have joined it. At first, the overt causative verbs are mainstream, later, the implicit causative verbs became involved in this too. Butwithin the causative pivotal cxn of Zouzhuan, there is not implicit causative verbs, and only four types of causative verb type, goal type, result type, goal-result type exist. They became a sort of sub-schema within a larger schema - the causative pivotal cxn of Chinese. Lunyu is contemporary with Zouzhuan, so we compared it to Zouzhuan and concluded the following conclusions. Fist of all, the participating verbs of two literatures were nearly alike. ‘Shi1’, ‘Shi2’, ‘Qing’ have high token frequency rates in these two literatures, and neither were implicit causative verb type. Its existence implies the maturity of the causative pivotal cxn. Through the construction coercion, the thematic role of a atypical verbs change, eventually they became members of this construction. The implicit causative verb type of Chinese has been born for centuries since Zuozhuan. We can discover the development process of an implicit causative verb type by studying the literatures of the Age of the Warring states.

≪사기(史記)≫ 치사성(致使性) 겸어구문의 구문론적 해석

박원기 ( Park Wonki ) 중국어문연구회 2017 中國語文論叢 Vol.0 No.83

The causative pivotal cxn of Chinese has existed since the age of inscriptions on bones and tortoise carapaces. It has come to the period of Shiji and has continued to change and expand. At first, it was formed through constructionalization, and through constructional changes, it became the current figure. At first it was formed in ‘command/dispatch/summons’ type, where it expanded to other forms such as ‘causative’ type, ‘title’ type and ‘appointment’ type. ‘Causative’ type was formed through metaphorical expansion, and these are all formed through constructional changes. In this course, the causative pivotal cxn was established in a definite construction, since then, more verbs have joined it. At first, the overt causative verbs are mainstream, later, the implicit causative verbs became involved in this too. therefore, within the causative pivotal cxn of Shiji, there were five types of causative verb type, goal type, result type, goal-result type, and the implicit causative verb type. They became a sort of sub-schema within a larger schema ― the causative pivotal cxn of Chinese. In the Shiji, the participant role of causative verbs and the overt causative verbs harmonize with a thematic roles of the constructions in each type of constructions. This is a good adherence to the rules fusion of Goldberg. However, the implicit causative verbs have caused a discrepancy with the thematic roles of the constructions, and it caused a ‘coercion’, resulting in a creation of new thematic roles. All these phenomena demonstrate that analyzing the language using the constructional point of view conforms to the actual aspect of the languages.

현대중국어 사동구문 비교 분석 연구

김윤정(Yoonjeong Kim) 한국중어중문학회 2008 中語中文學 Vol.42 No.-

This paper aims to reconstruct the causative system of current Chinese and to analyze the features of Chinese causative constructions through a multi-sided comparison Some constructions with rang, sh?, ling or jiao are regarded as canonical Chinese causative constructions. recently. however. there has been much research on the causativity of the b?-construction. This paper will take this new research into account and use it in its reconstruction of the current Chinese causative system and its examination of the features of Chinese causative constructions. By this, it will be help Korean learners to improve their understanding about Chinese causative constructions, furthermore, it can reduce the mistakes of Korean learners in using causative constructions. This paper is formed by following discussions: (1) to clear the range of Chinese causative constructions and reconstruct the Chinese causative system including the b?-construction; (2) to argue the causativity of b?-construction based on the similarity of semantic structures between b?-construction and causative construction; (3) to resort Chinese causative constructions by such criteria as frequency, typicality and the semantic roles of causee.