현대중국어 양상부사 연구 - 양상부사의 특징, 범위, 하위분류를 중심으로

李娜炅(Lee, Na-kyung),崔宰榮(Choi, Jae-young) 중국어문학연구회 2022 중국어문학논집 Vol.- No.136

This study mainly investigated modality adverbs in Modern Chinese. To investigate the characteristics, subclassification, and scope of Chinese modality adverbs, We have studied on ‘concepts of modality and mood’ and ‘subclassification of modality adverbs and mood adverbs’ through previous studies. After that, We presented the perspective of this paper, and reclassified 324 adverbs that presented in previous studies based on ‘modal meanings’. It has come to the following conclusions: First, in previous studies, the concepts of modality and mood are mixed. In the field of Western grammar, some scholars claim that modality is the semantic field, mood is the grammar field. This reflects the characteristics of ‘inflectional language’, but Chinese is ‘isolated language’. So at the time of accepting the concepts of modality, it can be seen that the concepts were mixed. In order to solve this problem, this paper distinguished concepts of modality(情態), mood(语氣₂), tone(口气). Second, in previous studies, each scholar’s classification for modality adverbs and mood adverbs didn’t match. However, researching on the adverbs suggested in previous studies, all of them can be distinguished as dynamic modality, deontic modality, epistemic modality, tone, etc., but tone doesn’t mean modality. So modality adverbs are generally divided into dynamic modality, deontic modality and epistemic modality. Also recently some scholars claim that ‘evaluative modality’ should be classified as a category of modality, but none of the adverbs can be found to indicate the meaning of evaluative modality. Third, after collecting a total of 324 adverbs of modality adverbs and mood adverbs in previous studies, 211 adverbs were excluded for two reasons(not included or presented in a different meaning in XIANDAI HANYU CIDIAN(『现代汉语词典(第7版)』), not indicated the meaning of modality). The remaining 113 adverbs were reclassified into dynamic modality(will), deontic modality, and epistemic modality. Adverbs with multiple modality in the same word were indicated by ‘Bi(必)₁, Bi(必)₂, Bi(必)₃’, and a total of 156 adverbs were classified in this paper. The results of the reclassification are as follows. There are a total of 29 dynamic modality adverbs accounting for about 19% of the total modality adverbs, and a total of 46 deontic modality adverbs accounting for about 29%, and a total of 81 epistemic modality adverbs accounting for about 52%. As the classification results, epistemic modality adverbs are the largest number of modality adverbs.

진술부사에 관한 일고찰(2) -진술부사 소속어 변별을 중심으로-

한규안 대한일어일문학회 2020 일어일문학 Vol.87 No.-

This paper identifies problems of the existing theories with the classification of modal adverbs based on formal concord phenomenon, and redefines them first as adverbs modifying "proposition+mood," which constitutes a sentence, and also identifies them as adverbs that fall into the category of "ji" defined by Tokieda. Building on these new methodologies, this paper considers whether adverbs previously assumed by many scholars as modal adverbs meet the new criteria of modal adverb and reclassifies them as follows: (1) While 「全然(zenzen)」「決して(kessite)」 are supposed to be classified as modal adverbs based on the correspondence with negative expressions, 「全然(zenzen)」 is redefined as a degree adverb because it modifies the stativity of 「predicate+ない(nai)」 and implies the meaning of degree by itself. In contrast, 「決して(kessite)」 modifies "proposition+mood" which forms a sentence by itself and also corresponds to "ji" by Tokieda in its linguistic nature. Thus, it is classified as a quasi-modal adverb since some of the examples are included in phrases modifying nouns, even though it has characteristics of a modal adverb. (2) The words 「もちろん(mochiron)」「むろん(muron)」「事実(jijitsu)」「実際(jissai)」 modify propositions and do not have the characteristics of Tokieda's "ji." Also, they simply represent an narrator's annotation to what is being described. Therefore, they can be identified as annotative adverbs. (3) 「なぜ(naze)」 and 「どうして(dousite)」 modify propositions, and the focus of inquiry shifts when they are added to a sentence, which disqualify them as a modal adverb. Instead, they are classified as interrogative adverbs. (4)「おそらく(osoraku)」 and 「たぶん(tabun)」 modify "proposition+mood" that constitutes a setence corresponding with diverse modal expressions, and this qualifies them as "ji" as well as modal adverbs. Yet, as some of the examples are included in phrases modifying nouns, they should be defined as quasi-modal adverbs. (5)「どうぞ(douzo)」 and 「どうか(douka)」 modify request sentences and have the linguistic nature of Tokieda's "ji." Also, none of the examples is contained in phrases modifying nouns, which qualifies them as modal adverbs.

진술부사에 관한 일고찰(1) -「もし」「万一」「きっと」를 중심으로 -

한규안 대한일어일문학회 2020 일어일문학 Vol.86 No.-

This paper attempts to analyze the problems with the establishment of a modal adverb and their causes, focusing on the problems of the conventional theory of setting up words classified as a modal adverb on the basis of a formal concord phenomenon. Also, this study aims to reconsider the location of the modality and the function of the modal adverb. It then attempts to establish appropriate locations of words that fail to meet the new definition of the modal adverb, i.e. "moshi, manichi" and "kitto," which many scholars traditionally assign as modal adverbs based on the phenomenon of concord. This paper defines modal adverb as a word modifying a single independent sentence(i.e. proposition+mood) and an equivalent to what Tokieda defines as "ji." Based on this, "moshi, manichi" fall short of this new definition, but they are instead conditional adverbs, while "kitto" is defined as a quasi-modal adverb, referring to words that have charateristics of a modal adverb but are not fully established as such because examples included in noun modifiers have collected.

한·중 인식 양태 표현과 양태 부사의 결합양상 대조 - 확실성 정도를 중심으로

정미홍 한남대학교 한남어문학회 2020 한남어문학 Vol.41 No.-

본고는 한·중 인식 양태 표현과 양태 부사의 결합양상을 검토하여 이의 공통점과 차이점을 찾아내고, 한국어 인식 양태의 확실성 정도를 깊이 밝히 는 데에 목적이 있다. 여기서 한국어와 중국어 인식 양태 표현과 양태 부사 와 결합할 때 확실성 정도를 따라 규칙적인 공기관계가 이룰 수 있는지를 확인하기 위해 의미 중심적 접근방법을 통해 살펴봤다. 한국어 인식 양태 표현은 화자의 추측을 나타내며 확실성 정도도 함께 드러낸다. 중국어 인식 양태 표현은 화자의 추측을 표현하지만, 확실성 정 도를 표현할 때 정태동사 앞에 오는 양태 부사를 통해 실현하는 경우가 많다. 한국어 인식 양태는 확실성 정도가 낮은 부사와 결합할 경우에 확실 성 정도가 높은 부사와 결합할 수 없는 반면에, 중국어 인식 양태 중에 ‘要’ 와 ‘会’는 양태 부사와 결합할 때 확실성이 낮은 부사나 확실성이 높은 부사 나 모두 제약을 받지 않는 것으로 가장 큰 차이점으로 보인다. 이외에 한국 어 인식 양태와 중국어 인식 양태는 양태 부사와 결합할 때 그 확실성 정도 를 따라 규칙적인 공기관계가 이루어지는 점은 서로의 공통점으로 보인다. The purpose of this paper is to examine the combined patterns of Korean-Chinese recognition epistemic modality and modal adverbs to find commonalities and differences between them, and to clarify the degree of certainty of Korean epistemic modality. Here, when combining Korean and Chinese epistemic modality and modal adverbs, we examined through a semantic-oriented approach to see if a correspondent relationship can be achieved according to the degree of certainty. The epistemic modality of the Korean represents the speaker's guess and also reveals the degree of certainty. Epistemic modality in Chinese expresses the speaker's conjecture, but when expressing the degree of certainty, it is often realized through modal adverbs preceding the static verb. Korean epistemic modality can not be combined with highly certain adverbs when combined with low certainty adverbs, whereas ‘要’ and ‘会’ among Chinese epistemic modality are adverbs with low certainty or high certainty when combined with modal adverbs. That is the biggest difference between Korea epistemic modality and Chinese epistemic modality. In addition, other of the Korean epistemic modality and the Chinese epistemic modality form a correspondent relationship according to the degree of certainty when combined with modal adverbs, it seems to be a common point of each other.

부정부사의 하위 범주화 - 소극적 부정부사와 형식적 부정부사를 중심으로 -

이정택 한국문법교육학회 2022 문법 교육 Vol.46 No.-

Recently all the negative modal adverbs are considered ‘negative polarity items’ in Korean grammar. But some of negative modal adverbs cannot be categorized as such. Namely, ‘별로’, ‘별반’, ‘별달리’, ‘그다지’, ‘과히’ and ‘여간’ are not negative polarity items. Because both of the original meanings and the actual current meanings of them used in the negative sentences are far from extreme negation. The five words ‘별로’, ‘별반’, ‘별달리’, ‘그다지’, ‘과히’ entail passive affirmations only in the negative sentences containing action verbs. They cannot do so in state verb negative sentences. But the function of these words is always the same one, expressing speaker’s mode that the negation is a little bit weak. In other words, they are modalities and their functions is weakening negation. As the function of them is like this, we can confirm that these 5 words are negative modal adverbs even though the original meanings of them have nothing to do with negation. The adverb ‘여간’ makes the negative sentence containing it get the active affirmative meaning. But still we can take ‘여간’ for negative modal adverb, because in some usages it’s meaning is totally different from it’s original one and has been derived from it's strong syntactic solidarity with negative expressions. I mean this affirmative meaning has come from the habitual syntactic co-existences with negative expressions. But we should pay attention to the fact that the separate usage of ‘여간’ cannot entail negation, because the actual meaning of the superficial negative sentence is active affirmation. As I mentioned above, the five words including ‘별로’ are modalities and mean speaker’s passive negations. So we can make a category named ‘the passive negative adverb’ for these words as a subcategory of the negative modal adverb modifying negative expressions(I will call this ‘negative modifying adverb’ bellow). As the adverb ‘여간’ can make speaker’s active affirmative predictions in negative sentence patterns, we can build another subcategory of the negative modifying adverb, named ‘the superficial negative adverb’. These two subcategories and ‘polarity negative adverb’ form the category of negative modifying adverb. There remains another negative adverb category to which ‘안’ and ‘못’ belong. These two negative adverbs make negative expressions together with affirmative action or state verbs. So we can make another category of negative adverb to which ‘안’ and ‘못’ belong, named 'the adverb of making negation'. Finally the adverb of making negation and the negative modifying adverb together make up the whole negative adverb category.

현대 중국어 부사 취(就)의 의미기능 재고(再考)

허설영 ( Seol Young Heo ) 고려대학교 중국학연구소 2015 中國學論叢 Vol.49 No.-

In this study, following conclusions can be gotten as the result of reconsidering the meaning and function of adverb ‘jiu(就)’ through existing researches and BBC Corpus research. First, ‘jiu’ can be divided into time adverb, evaluation form adverb (speaker judges time, quantity, amount of time etc subjectively), conjunctive adverb, scope adverb, and modality adverb. Second, adverb ‘jiu’ becomes subjectivization from verb ‘jiu’, and metaphor mechanism is applied in the course. Also, through metaphor characteristics appeared in the grammaticalization process, adverb ‘jiu’ could be deduced as being derived like time adverb ‘jiu’, evaluation form adverb ‘jiu’, adjunctive adverb ‘jiu’, scope adverb ‘jiu’, and modality adverb ‘jiu’ in order. And, subjectivity strength of ‘jiu’ displays time adverb ‘jiu’ < evaluation form adverb& adjunctive adverb ‘jiu’ < scope adverb& modality adverb ‘jiu’ sequentially. In addition, grammaticalization process of ‘jiu’ shows uni direction instead of being spritted into two categories like quick connection and exclusiveness. Third, principle meaning contained in time adverb, that is quick connection, is insufficient to explain various aspects meant by remaining adverbs ‘jiu’. Exceeding psychological standard of the speaker which is subjective meaning derived from time adverb ‘jiu’ belongs to basic meanings of several form adverbs ‘jiu’. While degrees of grammaticalization regarding such subjective meaning of ‘jiu’ have been deepened, it has been developed to evaluation foam adverb, conjunctive adverb, scope adverb, and modality adverb respectively.

상고한어 양상부사의 범위

윤순일 고려대학교 중국학연구소 2017 中國學論叢 Vol.58 No.-

In this paper, we have investigated the scope of modal adverbs in ancient chinese. We have also described our classification of semantic category in ancient chinese modal adverbs. It can be classified into five major categories: epistemic, deontic, dynamic, judgmental and evaluative modalities. The differences between classification of modality in chinese adverbs and that in chinese auxiliary verbs are as follows:(1)The former added judgmental modality as a root category. (2)The former added evaluative modality as a root category. (3)About speaker’s degree of certainty, the former adopted a two-level system. Our semantic classification of ancient chinese adverbs does not include meanings of interrogative adverbs, exclamatory adverbs and modest and respective adverbs.

경상방언의 양태부사 '함부레'에 대한 연구

목지선 한국어문학회 2024 語文學 Vol.- No.164

이 글은 경상방언 부사 '함부레'의 쓰임을 네 가지로 나누어 특성을 분석하면서 이들의 의미 관련성에 대해 고찰하였다. 그리고 본격적 논의에 앞서 부사 유형이나 의미 면에서 경상방언 '함부레'는 중앙어 부사인 '함부로'와는 서로 다름을 밝혔다.이 글에서는 '함부레'의 용례 148개를 분석하였는데 '함부레'는 시간부사로도 쓰이지만 양태부사로 훨씬 활발하게 쓰이고 있었다. 그리고 시간부사로 기능할 때도 '대비, 준비, 방비' 등의 양태적 의미를 포함하고 있어 시간부사로만 보기는 어려웠다. ‘함부레'는 양태부사로 쓰이면서 시간의 의미가 퇴색되고 양태적 의미가 강화되는데, 가장 강력한 대비는 발생 가능성을 차단하고 다른 일이 발생할 여지를 없애는 것과 같기 때문에 양태부사 '함부레'는 발생 가능성이나, 여지ㆍ빈틈이 없다는 의미를 나타낸다. 그리고 부정적 결과를 방지하고 차단하기 위한 당부나 금지를 의미를 강조하는 의미로 기능이 확대되었다. 뿐만 아니라 부정 명령문과의 결합이 강해지면서 금지나 만류 등의 의미를 드러내며 소형발화처럼 기능한다. This paper analyzed the characteristics of 'Hambure', the Gyeongsang dialect adverb by dividing it into four types. Through this analysis, the semantic relationship between them is also examined. Before discussing the main subject, the Gyeongsang dialect 'Hamburo' is different from the standard Korean adverb 'Hamburo' because of the different types and meanings of adverbs. In this paper, 138 'Hambure' were analyzed. The results show that 'Hambure' is used much more as an modal adverbs than a time adverb. Even when it functions as a time adverb, it has the same modal meaning as 'preparation, defense'. Therefore, it was difficult to see 'Hambure' as only a time adverb. The meaning of 'Hambure' as a time adverb gradually disappears and its modal meaning is strengthened. The strongest contrast is like blocking the possibility of occurrence and eliminating room for something else to happen. Thus, the modal adverb 'Hambure' means that there is no possibility of an event at all or complete. Furthermore, its meaning extends to the meaning of conveying a request or prohibition to prevent and block negative consequences. In addition, as the combination with negative commands strengthens, it functions like a minor utterances, revealing the meaning of prohibition or dissuasion.

중국인 학습자를 위한 한·중 부정 양태부사 대조 연구

왕 원(Wang Yuan),박덕유(Park Deokyu) 학습자중심교과교육학회 2019 학습자중심교과교육연구 Vol.19 No.15

본 연구에서는 한국어와 중국어 부정 양태부사를 중심으로 한국어 부정 양태부사 유의어와 이들에 대응되는 중국어 부정 어기부사와 묶어서 예문으로 제시하는 방법을 통해 의미·통사적 관계에서의 문장에서의 위치, 결합 문형, 호응관계 등이 어떻게 대응되는지 고찰하였다. 이들 대응관계 분석을 통해 한·중 부정 양태부사의 공통점과 차이점을 몇 가지 찾을 수 있다. 공통점으로 첫 번째는 모두 각자 비슷한 의미와 용법을 가진 유의어 양태부사가 있으며 서로 ‘일 대 다’, ‘다 대 일’의 의미 대응관계를 가지며, 두 번째는 다양한 부정 표현과 호응하여 함께 쓰일 수 있다는 점이다. 세 번째는 ‘금지, 권유’의 의미를 가진 부정표현 ‘-지 말다’나 ‘别 + V’와 결합할 수 있는 부정 양태부사가 다른 부정 표현보다 결합에 있어 제약을 받는다는 점이다. 차이점으로 첫 번째는 중국어 부정 어기부사는 부정의 의미 외에도 다른 여러 가지 의미를 갖고 부사 외에 다른 품사로도 쓰일 수 있으며, 두 번째는 한·중 부정 양태부사가 모두 부정 표현과 결합하여 쓰이지만 결합하는 부사의 유무, 부사가 결합하는 형태에서 차이가 있다는 점이다. 나아가 본고의 연구 결과를 바탕으로 중국인 한국어 학습자를 위한 부정 양태부사 교수·학습 방향을 제시하는 데에 의의가 있다. In this study, we try to figure out the real corresponding relationship of the negative modal adverb between Korean and Chinese by analyzing the syntactic and semantic aspects of Korean negative modal adverbs. By analyzing these corresponding relationship, we can find some similarities and differences between Korean and Chinese negative modal adverbs. In common, first they all have synonyms of similar meanings and usages, and they have a semantic correspondence relation of ‘one to many and ‘many to one’. The second can be used together in response to various negative expressions. The third is that the combination with negative expressions of the meaning of ‘prohibition, suggestion’ will be limited, such as the expressions ‘-지 말다’ and ‘别 + V’. As a difference, first in addition to the meaning of negation, Chinese amodal adverbs have various meanings and can be used as other parts of speech besides adverbs. Second, both Korean and Chinese negative modal adverbs are used in combination with negative expressions, but there is a difference in the presence or absence of combined adverbs, and the form in which adverbs combine. The purpose of this study is to present the learning direction of negative modal adverbs for Chinese Korean learners based on the results of this study.

汉韩反诘语气副词二语习得比较

오선자(Wu, Shan-Zi)(吴,善子) 대한중국학회 2020 중국학 Vol.73 No.-

反诘语气副词在汉韩两种语言中都是比较特殊的一类,句法位置灵活,语义虚灵,因此是对外汉语教学和韩国语教学的难点之一。本文以中韩两国学生为考察对象,对其在使用汉韩反诘语气副词情况进行了问卷调查,并从句法和语义两个角度考察了汉韩反诘语气副词的偏误情况。句法分布偏误有句首错序偏误和句中错序偏误,句法组合偏误有语气词错用偏误和助动词错用偏误,语义偏误有反诘义理解偏误和现实与非现实义理解偏误。其中句法组合的偏误率最高,这是因为汉韩两种语言的差异在反诘语气副词组合特征上体现得最多,学生受到母语的影响产生诸多的偏误,这部分是汉韩反诘语气副词教学的重点和难点,对偏误率高的个别反诘语气副词需要进行针对性教学。 Rhetorical modal adverbs are a special kind in both Chinese and Korean languages. They have flexible syntactic positions and empty sematic meanings. Therefore, they are one of the difficulties in teaching Chinese as a foreign language and Korean language. Taking Chinese and Korean students as the research object, this paper makes a questionnaire survey on the use of Chinese and Korean rhetorical modal adverbs, and analyses the errors of Chinese and Korean rhetorical modal adverbs from the perspective of syntax and semantics. The syntactic distribution errors include the wrong ordering at the beginning and middle of the sentence. The syntactic combination errors include the misuse of modal particles and auxiliary verbs. The semantic errors include the misunderstanding of rhetorical meaning and the misunderstanding of realistic and non-realistic meaning. Among these, the error rate of syntactic combination is the highest. This is because the differences between Chinese and Korean are reflected most in the combination characteristics of rhetorical modal adverbs. Students are influenced by their mother tongue and have many errors. This part is the key and difficult point in the teaching of rhetorical modal adverbs. It is necessary to carry out targeted teaching for individual rhetorical modal adverbs with high error rate.