한국어의 어휘 사동

박은석 ( Eun Sok Park ) 한국외국어대학교 언어연구소 2013 언어와 언어학 Vol.0 No.58

This paper analyzes lexical causatives in Korean. Lexical causatives in Korean consist of suppletive lexical causatives and identical lexical causatives. Suppletive lexical causatives in Korean consist of ``salhaehada`` and ``gireuda``, etc. verb sentences. Identical lexical causatives in Korean consist of ``heurida``, ``dallida``, ``umjigida``, ``geuchida`` and ``meomchuda``, etc. verb sentences. This paper analyzes and compares properties of these two types of Lexical Causatives, the implicativity, the kinds of causer, the intentionality of causer, the kinds of causee, the case of causee, the control of the causee, the predicates can be causativized and the direct/indirect causation. After analysing, This paper concludes that Korean suppletive causatives are more prototypical lexical causatives than Korean identical causatives.

한(韓),중(中)사동법의 대조

최규발 ( Kyu Bal Choi ),김은주 ( Eun Ju Kim ) 한국한문학회 2014 韓國漢文學硏究 Vol.0 No.56

사동(causative)이란 사동주가 피사동주로 하여금 어떤 행위를 하게 하거나 어떤 상황에 놓이게 하는 태(voice)의 일종으로 이러한 사동의 개념은 여러 언어에서 보편적으로 존재하며, 사동의 형식은 각 언어마다 다양한 양상을 보인다. 한국어와 중국어에 서도 이러한 사동의 개념이 존재하는데, 그 형식과 실현 양상에서는 다소 차이가 있다. 한국어에서는 주로 형태적 사동법, 어휘적 사동법, 통사적 사동법에 의해 사동이 실 현되며, 중국에서는 주로 어휘적 사동법과 통사적 사동법을 통해 사동이 실현된다. 한국어의 형태적 사동은 ``-이-, -히-, -리-, -기-, -우-, -구-, -추-`` 와 같은 사동 접미사를 통해 실현되며, ``어근+접미사``의 형태로 사동사를 형성한다. 반면 중국어에는 형태적 사동법이 존재하지 않지만 어휘적 사동을 통해 사동사를 형성한다. 이러한 사 동사는 한국어의 형태적 사동법과 유사한데, ``어근+어근`` 형태의 복합구조를 형성하여사동의 의미를 나타낸다. 한국어와 중국어는 사동문을 형성할 때 격의 이동과 행위자 논항의 추가 등에서 같은 양상을 보이지만 문장의 구조와 성분에는 다소 차이가 있다. 한국어에서 피사동주 는 ``가/이, 을/를, 에게, (-)로 하여금`` 등의 격조사로 표시되는데 반해 중국어의 경우 명시적인 격조사가 없기 때문에 주로 문맥이나 어순, 동사의 성질에 따라 문법적 관계를 형성한다. 사동 행위의 직접성과 간접성을 대조해보면, 한국어에서는 일반적으로 단형 사동이 직접 사동의 의미를 나타내고 ``(-)시키다`` 사동문과 장형 사동이 간접 사동을 나타낸다. 중국어의 어휘적 사동은 일반적으로 직접 사동의 의미를 나타내는 반면에 통사적 사동 은 직접 사동과 간접 사동의 의미를 모두 나타낼 수 있는데, ``使, 叫, .`` 사동은 간접 사동을 나타내고, ``給`` 사동만이 직접 사동을 나타낸다. This paper aims to develop a contrastive analysis between causative constructions in Korean language and Chinese language that have different language style. This paper mostly analyzes the characteristics of each causative constructions in Korean and Chinese and contrasts each of the causative constructions in both languages using syntactic and semantic analysis. Korean language and Chinese language have ways to express causation, but differ in a method of realizing it, which is analyzed by dividing the causative expression of Korean language into morphological causatives, lexical causatives, and analytic causatives and by dividing the causative expression of Chinese language into lexical causatives and analytic causatives. Whereas Korean morphological causatives are formed by ``root+suffixes(``-i-``, ``-hi-``, ``-li-``, ``-gi-``, ``-u-``, ``-gu-``, ``-chu-``)``, in Chinese language morphological causatives are not exist. Causatives in Chinese are mostly formed by lexical corporation ``root+root`` which is similar to Korean morphological causative. In forming causative sentences, both languages have similar patterns such as ``case movement`` and ``adding a subject argument``, but there is a slight difference between the both. Whereas in Korean language causee is expressed by case markers ``-ga/-i``, ``-eul/-reul``, ``-ege``, ``-eurohayeogeum``, in Chinese language grammatical relation is formed by context, word order, and character of verb, as there is no overt case marker. In contrastive analysis of directiveness of causatives, in Korean language short form causatives express the meaning of directive causatives, long form causatives and the causative construction formed by ``-sikida`` express the meaning of indirective causatives, while in Chinese language, lexical causatives are only express the meaning of directive causatives, analytic causatives can express the meanings of directive causatives and indirective causatives, ``shi(使), jiao(叫), rang (孃)`` are related with indirective causatives, and ``gei(給)`` is related with indirective causatives.

‘(X)시키다’ 사동 실현 방법 분류에 대한 재고찰-‘-시키다’는 형태적 사동이고 ‘시키다’는 어휘적 사동인가?-

김건희 한국어의미학회 2023 한국어 의미학 Vol.81 No.-

The purpose of this study is to re-examine the causative type classification of ‘(X)sikita’ causatives. In recent studies, ‘-sikita’ is classified as morphological causative and ‘sikita’ is classified as lexical causative, furthermore, lexical causative type is excluded in causative type classification. But ‘-sikita’ and ‘sikita’ are identical causative type. They are equal points like these, first ‘the sameness of valency’ which is the syntactic condition of causatives, second the separation or combination possibility of X and ‘sikita’, third the sameness of the basic counterpart of causative verb, ‘hata’, fourth the identical controllity of causee such as animacy and case marker. In particular, ‘-sikita’ is not causative affix in the viewpoints of the functional, derivational and formal difference with general causative affix, both the ‘-sikita’ and ‘sikita’ involve suppletion, there being no formal similarity between the basic verb and the causative counterpart, therefore ‘-sikita’ and ‘sikita’ are typical generic causative verb in lexical causative type.

한 중 사동법 대조 연구 - 한국어 어휘적 방법과 중국어 통사적 방법을 중심으로

유석,김건희 한국중원언어학회 2023 언어학연구 Vol.- No.67

The purpose of this study is to examine the correspondences between the korean lexical causative and the chinese syntactical causative. In the previous Contrastive studies of causatives in Korean and Chinese, the correspondences between the korean lexical causative and the chinese syntactical causative are mainly dealt with, but the research results never coincide and the research based on the chinese causative sentences are not made. In fact, the chinese syntactical causative verbs have primary verbal meaning beside causativeness, therefore the chinese causative verbs are different from the korean syntactical causative ‘hata’ in ‘-ge hata’. This study re-analyze the issues in the korean causatives and the chinese causatives and contrast the korean lexical causative ‘sikita’ and the chinese causative sentences based on the animacy of causer and causee. In order to examine the correspondence between the korean ‘sikita’ lexical causative and the chinese syntactical causatives, we perform contrastive analysis based on the four animacy type [±animacay] of causer and causee. In conclusion, there is confirmed that the differences of construction but the similarities of meaning between the korean ‘sikita’ lexical causative and the chinese syntactical causatives.

한국어와 튀르키예어의 사동 범주 대조 연구(Ⅰ)-기본동사의 형태적 사동을 중심으로-

김성주 국제언어문학회 2023 國際言語文學 Vol.- No.54

This paper compares the types of causative constructions at the historical stage of Korean and Turkic languages with the derivative phenomena of the morphological causative of the 100 basic verbs of modern Korean and modern Turkish language. The types of modern Korean include lexical, morphological, syntactic and NPsiki- causatives, while the latter includes lexical, morphological and syntactic causatives. Looking at the morphological causative derivation of 100 basic verbs in modern Korean and Turkish language, 48 in Korean and 92 in Turkish can be formed as morphological causative verbs. Ancient Korean has morphological and syntactic causatives, Pre-modern Korean has morphological and syntactic causatives and modern Korean has lexical, morphological, syntactic and NPsiki- causatives. In the case of Turkish language, ancient and Ottoman Turkic languages have only morphological causative, but modern Turkish has all lexical, morphological, and syntactic causatives, however the most powerful causative is still morphological one. 이 글은 한국어와 튀르키예어의 역사적 단계에서 사동문의 유형과 현대 한국어와 현대 튀르키예어의 기본 동사의 형태적 사동의 파생 상황을 비교한 논문이다. 현대 한국어 사동의 유형은 고유어 동사의 경우 어휘적 사동, 형태적 사동, 통사적 사동이 있고, ‘하다’ 동사의 경우 어휘적 사동, 통사적 사동, ‘(-)시키다’ 사동이 있다. 현대 튀르키예어 사동의 유형은 어휘적 사동, 형태적 사동, 통사적 사동이 있다. 현대 한국어와 현대 튀르키예어의 100개의 기본 동사의 형태적 사동 파생 상황을 살펴보면 한국어는 48개, 튀르키예어는 92개의 파생 사동소 형성이 가능하다. 고대 한국어는 형태적 사동, 중세한국어는 형태적 사동과 통사적 사동, 근대한국어는 형태적 사동, 통사적 사동, (-)시키다 사동이, 현대 한국어는 어휘적 사동, 형태적 사동, 통사적 사동, ‘(-)시키다’ 사동이 있다. 튀르키예어의 경우 고대 튀르크어와 오스만 튀르크어는 형태적 사동만 있고, 현대 튀르키예어는 어휘적 사동, 형태적 사동, 통사적 사동이 모두 존재하지만, 고대 튀르크어, 오스만 튀르크어, 현대 튀르키예어를 통틀어 가장 강력한 사동 형식은 여전히 형태적 사동이다.

On the Syntax and Semantics of the English Causative Make

장경철 한국영어학회 2008 영어학 Vol.8 No.4

This paper is centrally concerned with the syntax and semantics of the English causative make taking an adjective complement (e.g. make the room clean). It is argued that the complement immediately combines with the causative to form a predicate. The resulting complex predicate is a grammatical and semantic unit that is separable at surface for an object. In support of this argument, the paper offers idiomatic expressions (e.g. make sure/certain) and -ing nominals (e.g. the making safe of bombs). It also proposes an analysis of the causative make-plus-adjective (make-A) combination as a lexical construction that denotes the constructional meaning of direct causation. The construction is held in the lexicon as a template with causative-make and is unified with an adjective therein by means of fusion. The proposed model serves as a basis for an analysis of causative make-plus-noun (make-N) combinations (e.g. make Mark Captain) and for a solution to one old problem in the study of causative make-plus-verb (make-V) combinations (e.g. make Eve go).

AS使役に関する一考察

西隈俊哉(Nishiguma Shun-ya) 한국일본문화학회 2001 日本文化學報 Vol.11 No.-

In this study, I attempted to clarify the nature of Japanese causatives with the suffix “?as.” These causatives have two subcategories-lexical and productive causatives. However, some -AS causatives seem to belong to both categories. The -AS causatives have been classified in this study on the basis of tests for distinguishing the lexical causatives from productive causatives. In doing so, the following three subcategories have been noted: 1) contracted productive causatives ex. hatarak-as-u (make someone work) 2) contracted forms which can be associated with both the productive causatives and the lexical causatives ex. ugok-as-u (move something) 3) lexical causatives ex. ikas-u (make alive)

현대중국어 초래의미 ‘SVN1N2’ 구문의 사건구조 분석

金鉉哲(Kim, Hyun-cheol),周文生(Zhou Wensheng) 중국어문학연구회 2022 중국어문학논집 Vol.- No.137

Events include simple events and complex events. The causative SVN1N2 structure can be considered as a demonstration of complex events. In this essay, the causative SVN1N2 structure will be analyzed from three aspects: causing events, causative relationships and causative events. This structure has three subordinate structures: ①gain and loss causing structure, ②consequence causing structure, and ③beneficial causing structure. Among the causing events, the first two structures(① and ②) can be only initiated by entitive causer, and the third structure obtains both entitive causer and eventive causer. From the semantical dimension, since the SVN1N2 structure contains causative expressions, these expressions can be represented by syntactic causations and lexical causations. The causative events of three subordinate structures mentioned above are represented differently in the syntactic manners. That is, the gain and lost causing structure only can be represented in the form of number+quantifier+noun, meanwhile the consequence causing structure and the beneficial causing structure have three different representations respectively.

動詞の形態素

孔美熙(Kong, Mi-Hee) 대한일어일문학회 2014 일어일문학 Vol.61 No.-

This study is about an analysis of whether there is any morphological features-as of a verb by classifying the surface by semantic and syntactic aspects. In an aspect of syntactic, with the general theory of the Cruse (1993) and Kuroda (1973), from a test of interconnection between that was applied as an analytical reference point of morpheme-as a verb that has not been mentioned so far and state change adverb voluntary and, the results of the analysis through that test of the presence or absence of co-occurrence of the “by itself”, the modified test of state adverb, that ambiguity test of recursive noun, I can put meanings that whether morpheme-as of a verb is transitive or abbreviation for causative can be clarified in terms of syntactic feature. As for the semantic feature, it was found that there can be a case of morphological-as of a verb classified as abbreviation for causative and transitive and as lexical causative. When it is classified as a transitive verb, there was a characteristic lexical intransitive corresponding in non accusative verbs primarily, in the case of the inanimate noun with no intention of the subject of the intransitive that were many. Also, if it is used as abbreviation for causative, as a non capacity verbs that acts the corresponding function, there was a characteristic lexical of animate noun that has the will and action of the subject followed. Finally, if it is used in lexical causative, as a case of the transitive verb with a corresponding intransitive verb that represents a causative meaning while being transitive, although there may be causative form of intransitive corresponding form of -(s) aseru, I found that morpheme -as of this verb is far from a shortened form of the -(s) aseru. In other words, it is distinguished from those shorthand-as causative form -aseru unpaired intransitive that represents a causative meaning.

한국어의 ‘시키다’ 사동 구문

최정진(Choi, Jeong-jin) 한국어문학회 2016 語文學 Vol.0 No.134

Although it has been accepted that the verb ‘siki-’ is a representative causative verb, there has been some misunderstandings on the syntactic features of siki- constructions. A significant misunderstanding is in analysing siki- constructions only as a kind of lexical causative constructions. However, there are at least three kinds of constructions, which can be described from the prototypical perspectives on the constructions. In this context, this paper suggests three types of causatives for (X)siki- constructions; syntactic, psuedo-syntactic, and lexical causatives.