저작자표시 - 비영리 - 동일조건변경허락 2.0 대한민국 이용자는아래의조건을따르는경우에한하여자유롭게 이저작물을복제, 배포, 전송, 전시, 공연및방송할수있습니다. 이차적저작물을작성할수있습니다. 다음과같은조건을따라야합니다 : 저작자표시. 귀하는원저작자를표시하여야합니다. 비영리. 귀하는이저작물을영리목적으로이용할수없습니다. 동일조건변경허락. 귀하가이저작물을개작, 변형또는가공했을경우에는, 이저작물과동일한이용허락조건하에서만배포할수있습니다. 귀하는, 이저작물의재이용이나배포의경우, 이저작물에적용된이용허락조건을명확하게나타내어야합니다. 저작권자로부터별도의허가를받으면이러한조건들은적용되지않습니다. 저작권법에따른이용자의권리는위의내용에의하여영향을받지않습니다. 이것은이용허락규약 (Legal Code) 을이해하기쉽게요약한것입니다. Disclaimer
언어학박사학위논문 한국어조사 이나 의의미와쓰임 년 월 서울대학교대학원 언어학과 류병률
-., -, -,.,. NP- / Lee, et al. (2000) (2002), / / -., -. - NP- NP NP- NP-., 21 (2003, 2007) - /.,,.,. /.. NP- NP-( ): ( 2, 1 ) (i) [NP- 2 NP] (ii) [NP- 2 NP]- 1 : - i -
(iii) [NP- 1 ] [NP- 1 ]:, - -. ( ) ( ).,,,. Wh N-,,,, -. N-, -,, Neg -,, -., -., /.,,,.,,. ( -, - ) ( - *(- ), - (- ), - (- ), - (- ) ). :,,,, /, / /,, /, / /, / : 2002-30039 - ii -
목 차 1 장서론 1 1.1 연구의대상과방법 1 1.2 문제제기 : -이나 의통합적의미해석 3 1.3 논문의구성 4 2 장조사 - 이나 의의미에관한기존연구 6 2.1 보조사 -이나 의의미연구 7 2.1.1 소극적선택 8 2.1.2 자유선택 10 2.1.3 어림과대략 14 2.1.4 놀람과넉넉함 16 2.1.5 양보 18 2.1.6 보조사 -이나 의의미정리 24 2.2. 접속조사 -이나 의의미연구 25 2.2.1 가림과아우름 ( 혹은안가림 ) 25 2.2.2 불리안이접 27 2.2.3 임의선택과연접해석 28 2.2.4 열거 30 2.2.5 접속조사 -이나 의의미정리 32 2.3 조사 -이나 의통합적연구 33 2.3.1 가림 : 최현배 (1961) 33 2.3.2 선택과나열 : 양인석 (1973) 34 2.4. 요약과문제제기 37 3 장보조사 - 이나 의척도해석 39 3.1 개관 39 3.2 척도와구성요소 43 3.2.1 척도 43 3.2.2 순서와하한가 44 3.2.3 대체항집합 47 3.3 척도의형식구조 49 - iii -
3.3.1 선형 (= 완전 ) 순서척도 49 3.3.2 비선형 (= 부분 ) 순서척도 52 3.3.3 척도유형의정리 55 3.4 인식양상의개연성척도 56 3.5 의무양상의의무성척도 60 3.6 희구양상의원망성척도 64 3.7 결론 69 4 장접속조사 - 이나 의두가지구문과세가지의미 71 4.1 접속조사 -이나 의두가지구문 72 4.1.1 직렬접속구문과병렬접속구문 73 4.1.2 -이나 구문의실제분포 74 4.1.2.1 21세기세종계획성과물 (2003) 에서의실제분포 75 4.1.2.2 21세기세종계획최종성과물 (2007) 에서의실제분포 78 4.2. 직렬구문의분포와세가지의미 : 이접, 연접, 임의선택 80 4.2.1 논리연산자가개입하지않은구문 82 4.2.1.1 수식명사구 82 4.2.1.2 논항명사구 83 4.2.1.3 분류사구 (ClP) 86 4.2.2 논리연산자동반구문 86 4.2.2.1 임의선택해석 87 4.2.2.2 연접해석 90 4.2.3 직렬구문의의미해석 : 화용론적중의성 91 4.3 병렬구문의분포와두가지의미 : 연접과임의선택 92 4.3.1 논리연산자가개입하지않은구문 92 4.3.1.1 동격명사구와연접해석 92 4.3.1.2 논항명사구와임의선택해석 93 4.3.2 논리연산자동반구문 94 4.3.2.1 연접과개체합해석 95 4.3.2.2 임의선택해석 96 4.3.3 병렬구문의두가지의미와두가지형식 98 4.3.3.1 내포접속구조와나열구조 98 4.3.3.2 운율구조 101 4.4 접속조사 -이나 구문의통합적해석 109 - iv -
5 장접속조사 - 이나 와보조사 - 이나 의통합적해석 111 5.1 두 - 이나 구문의구조와의미적상관성 111 5.2 - 이나 접속구문의초점과척도해석 114 5.3 두 -이나 조사와논리연산자 116 5.3.1 누구나 와 아무나 117 5.3.2 Wh N-이나 와연접 / 전칭해석 121 5.3.3 아무 N-이나 와양보접속 / 임의선택해석 123 5.3.4 요약 127 5.4 조사 - 이나 의통합의미 : 척도함축 129 6 장결론과전망 136 참고문헌 140 Abstract 150 < 표목차 > 표 1. Gazdar의절함축 (Gazdar s clause implicature) 44 표 2. 세종계획성과물 (2003) 에서표본추출된 -이나 접속구문의분포 75 표 3. 논리연산자가개입하지않은 -이나 접속구문의분포 76 표 4. -이나 접속과논리연산자결합의분포 77 표 5. 세종계획최종성과물 (2007) 에서표본추출된 -이나 접속구문의분포 78 표 6. 논리연산자가개입하지않은 -이나 접속조사구문의분포 79 표 7. -이나 접속과논리연산자결합의분포 79 표 8. 논리연산자와직렬구문해석과의관계 91 표 9. 길이의증가요인과부여점수 105 표 10. 가능한조합들과부여점수 106 표 11. (24) 과 (25) 예문쌍들에서측정대상부분의길이측정값 ( 단위 : ms ) 107 표 12. 연접 / 전칭해석과논리연산자혹은화용론적지식 123 표 13. 임의선택해석과논리연산자혹은화용론적지식 126 표 14. 임의선택과연접해석의척도구조비교 134 - v -
< 그림목차 > 그림 1. 다양한부분순서의그림들 45 그림 2. (3) 에서의부분순서와완전순서의그림 46 그림 3. ( 화자가 ) X시간기다려야할의무성 50 그림 4. 오늘모임에 X가올 개연성 52 그림 5. X가그일을할수있을 개연성 52 그림 6. X가 올 개연성 53 그림 7. 체온이 X가넘을 개연성 (scale of likelihood) 57 그림 8. 선생님께서시를 X수외울개연성 57 그림 9. 화자가 X를먹으니한심하다 에서의판단척도 58 그림 10. 화자가 X시간기다려야할의무척도 61 그림 11. 청자가 X를내야할의무성 62 그림 12. 청자가 X를열심히할의무성 1 62 그림 13. 청자가 X를열심히할의무성 2 62 그림 14. X를하고싶을 원망성1 65 그림 15. X를하고싶을 원망성2 65 그림 16. X를타고싶은마음 의원망성1 66 그림 17. X를타고싶은마음 의원망성2 67 그림 18. (24a) 개나소나 ( 다 ) 의음향실현 103 그림 19. (25a) 개나소나 ( 돼지도 ) 의음향실현 103 그림 20. X가오면준비해야할의무성 ( 원장님, 부모님,... ) 130 그림 21. X를따라가지말아야할당위성 ( 엄마 / 아빠 /...) 131 그림 22. X나 Y 가모두다최고여야할개연성 132 그림 23. X 가자기자식을사랑해야할개연성 132 그림 24. 임의선택과연접해석의척도구조비교 132 - vi -
1 1.1 -. -. - -. - -, (2009a, 2009b) 21 (Corpus). - - or ( ).. or (speech acts). 1) (Horn-scale), (permission) (free choice). 2) - or (Horn-scale). 3) 1) Horn, L. R. 1989, 2000, 2004, Gazdar G. 1979, Chierchia 2003, 2006, Krifka, M. 2006 etc. 2) Free choice Kamp 1981, Dayal 1997, von Fintel 2000, Horn 2000, Giannakidou 2001, Sauerland 2004, Schulz and van Rooij 2004, Simons 2005, Spector 2003, Fox 2007, Condoravidi 2008, Alonso 2009, and Paul Portner 2010. Alonso 2005, 2009, Fox 2007. Fox 2007 Alonso-Ovalle 2005 Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002 Chierchia 2004 covert exhaustivity operator Chierchia 2004, Groenendijk and Stokhof 1984, Krifka 1995, Landman 1998, Aloni, M & Van Rooy, R. 2002 only 3). (2000) any Giannakidou ( ) ((non)veridicality) S. Nam (1994), H. Lee - 1 -
, -. -., - 21 (2003) 21 (2007) -. 1079 -. - -. -. (Corpus) -., - -.,.. Wh- N-.. 5. -., -, -. (1996), and Lee, C. (1996, 1997). (2000) ( ) (free choice = 'just any X'). - 2 -
1.2 : - -,. (1) a.! b.! (2)? (,, ) -. (1) - (, ) -, (2) - (= ) -,,,,,. or 4) (1) -,, (2) - ( ),,,,,,,. ( ),. 4) or,,, -. A B, - or. - or. - 3 -
-, -., (2) -. -,., (1) - - -, - (a) (b),. 1.3 - -. 1 -, 2 -., -. 3 -, - - (lower bound). -, -,. - 4 -
4 -,. N- N(- ),,. - -, /. 5 3 4 -., - - -. -, - ( ) ( / / ). 6. - 5 -
2 - -. (Noun Phrase NP) (Noun N) (Classifier Phrase ClP). - NP-, NP- NP, NP- NP- NP- NP- (NP- )* 4. NP-,,,,,,. -,., (i) NP- NP, (ii) NP- NP- (iii) NP- NP- (NP- )*. -.. (1) a.. ( 1995) b.. ( 1995) c.. ( 1978, 1992) d.. ( 1993; 2005) (2) a.. ( 2005; 2006) b..( 2006) c.. ( 1978, 1992) d.. ( 1993; 2005) e.. ( 1978, 1992; 1992) - 6 -
(1) NP- (2) NP- NP(- ). 5) (2) -. (1973) N- N N- N-, (1995), -. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 -,. -. -. 2.1 - NP-. (1985), (1992) -. (1949). -.,,,, (2002) (1a), (2a). (1978) (2) (1). (1977) (1a) ( ). (1a) ( ). (1a). - 7 -
5. 2.1.1 (1961) - (= ) ( 2.1.3 ), (1973), (1979), (1977), (1983), (1993), (1999) -. 6). (3) a. ( ). b.. c.. d.. (2002) (a), (b). (1978) (a), (b). (1977) (c) ( ). 7) (1973) (d) (rather, at least). 8) ( ). (4) a.. 6) (1999) -,,. Zwarts(1995) -. (1977) -. 1 2 ( ). ( 1993, 2000) (, 1983). - 8 -
b.. c.. d.. e.. f.. g.. (4) ( ). (a) (1995) 9), (b) (1992) 10) (c) (1996). (d) (e) (2000),, 1. (f) (g) (2005). (f), (g). (1977). (5) a.. b.. (1983, 1995) -,,. -.,,,,,, -. (i) a.. b.. c.. 1 :,,..( ). ( )?( )? ( ) [( ) 1 ] [,, ].. - 9 -
c. {, * }. d.. (5) -.,. (a), (b), (c, d) ( ). (2008) - ( ). 11) (6) a.,. b.. c. {, * }. (6) - - (b) - -. (c) -. 2.1.2 (1995) (indefinite pronoun) 12) -,. - (,,,,,, ), (, ),,,,. (2008) 8.1.4 12) - 10 -
(1973) which-class( / / / -( ) ) what-class(, N-, N-,, ),,, wh-ever(, N-, / / - ). (1999) - wh-form. (7) a.. b.. c.., wh-form (referent). 13) wh-form - (open set) A B. (b) A B (c) A B. A B - A B. 14) (b) - 2.2. (1995) Wh N-. (8) a.. b.. c.. d.. 13) Lee, C. (1997, 1999). Lee, C. (1997) (set of possible answers) Hamblin (1973),. 14) (b) (c) (c). - 11 -
(8) Wh( / ( )) N-.. (1995).. (9) -. (9) a.,. b.,. c.. d.. (9) / / -. (a) (b) (1995), (c) (2000) - (indefinite) / / /. (d) (2005) ( ),,,. 15) Wh N-. N-. (1990) N-. 16) (10) a.? b.,.,,. 16).. (some X),. - 12 -
b'.,. c. (?). d. /? e. /. f.,,, /.. (c),. (d) (e) / / (disjunction), (f). (1990). 17) (11) a.,. b.. c.. (2000) (11) - (indefinite) / (free choice). ( ).,. 17) (1977), (1978), (1993), (2000) -. - (11). - 13 -
2.1.3 - (1961) (1978), (1985), (1993), (1992), (1999) 18) (2000) -. (12) a.. c.. b. ( )? d.. (12),,,,,,. (1992),, (1993), (2000). (2002), (, )? -,. (1995).,, ( ) - ( ). (13) a.? b.? c.? d.? (13) /. (1981) (a) - 18) (1999) -,,,, wh-form. - 14 -
(1961) (b) -. (1981) - - - -, -.. (1996) (c). 19) (d) (2005). (2000),,. (14) a.? b.? c.? d. #.( ) (14) - (a) (b), (b) - (a)., - (c) (d) : (d).. (a) (b),. - (1977, 1993), (1983, 2002), (2005), (1981). (2002) [- ] [ ]. 20) (2005) (1981) - / /. 19) (1996) ( ) - p. 345-15 -
(15) a.. b.. c.. d.. e.. (15) (a) (1996: 938) -, /, (2002) ( ). (c) (2005). (15) - - ( ) (equality) (,,... ). -.,. 2.1.4 (Classifier Phrase ClP) -,,,,. - (ClP),. (1973) - (numeral), (rather), (at least). - 16 -
(16) a.,. b., 10. c. 10. d.. e.. (1992) (a) (b) 2. 21) - ( ) ( -, - ). (1983, 2002) (c) -. (1993), (1993). (2000) (d). (1983) (e), (1995), -. (1999) (c) (e),. (17) a.. b. 1000 c.? d.. (1977) (17) -. - - 17 -
, - -. (b). (c) (1996), (d) (2005). -. (1981) (1961), (2000). (18) a. 5,000. b.. c. ( ). d.. (18) -. (1981) (a).. (b) (1961), (2000) (c) (10 / ). (d). 2.1.5 양보 - (1961), (1973), (1977), (1981), (1992), (1993), (1995), (1996), Lee C.(1996, 1999, 2003), (1983, 2002), Lee, Chung, and Nam (2000), (2002), (2005). - - 18 -
(1961), (1981), (1993), Lee C.(1999, 2003), (2002). (19) a. { / / }? ( ) b.. ( ) c.. ( ) d.. ( ) e. (/ ). (Lee, C.) (19) -,. (1992) (a) -. 22) (b) (1981) -. (c) (1961). (d) - ( ),,. 23) Lee C. (1996, 1999, 2003) (e) (FC) -. - - (1973). 22) - -. 23) (1993) (19d),.,,. - 19 -
(20) a. ( ):. b. ( ): {, * }. c. ( ):. d. ( ): {, * }. e., {, }. f., {, }. (20) (b, d) (e, f) - -. (e) - -, ( ).. (1973) - -. - -. (primary choice).. - -. (f). ( ),. -,. -,. - -. (1973) -, -. (20) - (e) (f) -. - 20 -
(21) (1983, 2002), (1995), (2005), (1981). - -. (1981). (21) a.. b.. c. / / /. d.. e. 100 1,000! (21) N+ ~ ( / ). (a) (1995), (b) (1999), (c) (1993) (2002:291). (d) (2005) (e) (1981). -, -.. ( ),,,. - -. - (1977) -. (22) - - (, ), (, ) - 21 -
(a) (b) -. -. (23) a. { / / }. b. c. (/ ). d. { / / }. e. { / / }. f. { /* /* }. g. {* / / }. h. {* / / }. (23) -. (1992), (1996), (1983) {-, -, - },,, (a-f) (g-h). 24) - - -. (a~e) - - -. (c) Lee, C. (1996, 1999, 2003) (FC) - (concessive). -. (1999), (2000), Lee, Chung, and Nam (2000). (1999) -. 25) (1973), (1993),, (= ) 4,. 24) - [ ]: > > -,, [ / ]: > > >. 25) Fauchonnier(1975)., -, -, -, -, - (1983), (2004). - 22 -
, (2000),.,, (possibility)., Lee, Chung, and Nam (2000) / (concession), -. (2002), -( ) - + + (24),,. 26) (24) a.. b.. (a), (scalar implicature),. (x ). (b) (x ),. -. 26) Lee, C. (2003) concession (arbitrariness NPIs (scale) - 23 -
2.1.6 - - -.,,,, 5.., 27),,., - ( ) (the second best choice)., -.., - - -., -,,,,.,. 3 -, (2002). -,, - -,, - 27). - 24 -
, -. - / /, - / /. -. 5. 2.2. - -. or, - / /,. or,, -. - ( ),, ( ),. 2.2.1 ( ) (1992)... - (... 1 ) (... 2 ). (25) a.. b.. - 25 -
(25) (1992) (a) (b). ( ). (1992),., (= ). (1995),. 28) -,,,, -. (26) a.. ( ) b.... c.. (27) a.. ( ) b.. c.. d.... ( / ) (1995) (26) -, (27) -.. -. (27d),. - 26 -
(28) a.... b.. c.. d.. (28),,,. (26), (27) (28). (1995),.,, 4. 2.2.2 Lee, Y. S. (1995). Lee, Y. S. (1995) or, -,. Gazdar (1979).. (29) a.. 'Mary or Bill came (but not both)' b.. 'Mary or Bill came.' c.. 'Mary and Bill came.' (29a) - 27 -
, (b) - 3, (i), (ii), (iii). (c). 2.2.3 - ( ) ( ). 29) (30) a., 363! b.! c.!! (30) -.. (a) 363.. Lee, Chung, & Nam (2000).. (1995) (1977) - or (individual-level predicate) (modal context) (= ) -. 30) 29) Condoravdi (2008). 30),, (anti-additive) or and.. (i) A functor is anti-additive iff f(x Y) = f(x) f(y). (Ladusaw 1995: 325) - 28 -
(31) a.. (Lee, C. 1997:222) b.. c.. (31) -,,,, (1999) -. ( ) - ( ),. (2000) (32) - or - -. (32) a..(a or B) You will receive a phone call or fax tomorrow. b.. (A and B: he liked both fishing and hunting) #My father liked fishing or hunting. c..(a and B) #I have apples or pears. (2000) (32) (a) - or, # (b), (c) or -. or and, (a) (b),,., (a) - 29 -
, (b). or,. - (a) or, (b) and, - and, (b) and.. (33) a.,. b.. c. /. (34) a. /. b.. c.. and., (disjunction, ) (conjunction, ) -. 2.2.4 (2009). : 31) 31) (2009) (conjunction) - 30 -
(35) a. a'. #{[ ] + [ ]} b. b'. {[ ]+[ ]} -, -, - (a) - (b).. -,. (36) a. :. b. :,. c. :,,. (36) -. (a, b), - (b, c)., -. (1987) / -. 32) (37) a.. b.. c.. (disjunction), (adversative). -, -. 32),,,,.,,,,,. - 31 -
(37') a.. b.. c.. (37a) (37'a) -. (b). -. (c) -. -. 2.2.5 - -. -,., (1992) -, (1995).,. Lee, Y. S. (1995), - / -,. -, NP- NP-. - - 32 -
. 2.3 - -, (1961). 2.3.1 : (1961) (1961), ( 格調詞 ), ( 接續助詞 ), ( 補助詞 ), ( 感動助詞 ). 33) -. (38) a.. b.. c.,. ( ) (39) a.. b.? c.? ( ) (40) a.! b. (!). ( ) 33) (1961) p.611 (12 (1985)). - 33 -
(38) ( 選擇補助詞 ), (39), (40) ( 感動助詞 ) ( ), ( ). ( ) ( ), (40) (e, f),. 2.3.2 : (1973) (1973) -. (1973) [NA] rather( ), at least( ) : (41) Semantics of na( ) : (Ⅰ).. (Ⅱ).. : (compensates). :. (i.e. ( = the second best choice).) (Ⅰ),. A- B(- ) (42) (43) - : (42) Closed set a.. 'Let us meet on Saturday or on Sunday.' - 34 -
b.. (43) Open set(n-tuple case); a.. 'Let us meet on Saturday or on Sunday (or some other day).' b.. (or something like that) (42),. (a). (b),., (43),. (42) (43) (or). (43a),., (43b),,. (44) Open set(antonym case); (and) a. John. (always = ) b.. (44a) (n-tuple), (44b) (antonym). (a),,, (exhaustively).,.. - 35 -
. A- A- B-... Z-.. ( ). 34)., (45) a.. b.. c.,. (45) (a) (b), (c) ; (a), (b) 1 (c).,. (c),.. (Ⅰ),.,,.. 34) X- /, ( ), such as. - 36 -
2.4., -. - 1,,,, 5.., -. - or.,. (1992) (1995),. - - (= ) 2. (1961), (1973)., -.. - 37 -
. A B, ( ).,.,,,,,,,. (= ). - - -,. -. ( ) -,,. - Wh N- N-, - /. - 38 -
3 - -. - 2.1,,,, 5. -. -. -,,.,. 35) 3.1 - -. 36) - 35) 2 -,,,, 5, - 3. 36) (modality). (modals).,,,.,.,,, - 39 -
-.. (1) a. 10. b.. c.. d.. (1) 2 -,,,,., (a) 10 (classifier phrase) -, (b), (c), (d). (a) 10 10 - X X. 10 X- 10 ( (lower bound) ). 37) (b) ( ) - X 3 6. (L. ) (M. ) (modal logic). 37) - -. Lee, C. (2003) 3 /?/?, (about). - 40 -
. 38) (c) X,,. (d) X X,. (1),. -. (2) a.. ( 1973) b. ( / )! c. ( )! (2),, -,,,,. (2) (1).. (2002). (2) / ( ), 38),. Lee, C. (1996) Question Marking(?) (surprise). - 41 -
. (2a), X, (,, )., (optative/bouletic modality). (2a). (2b) X! (,,, ), ( ). (2c) - X! ( ). (2), -. 39) -. -. (linear) (non-linear),. 3.2 -, ( ). 3.3. -, 3.4 (2002) / 39), - ( ), -,. - 42 -
( ), 3.5 / ( ) 3.6 / ( ). 3.2 -, -. - (ClP)-. - (linear order), (total order), - (non-linear order) (partial order). -.,,. 3.2.1 Horn(1976) (scale) Grice(1967: 45) (Maxim of quantity). (entail), (denial). Gazdar(1979) Grice, (Scalar Quantity Implicature) (Clausal Quantity Implicature). 40), ( ). - 43 -
(2002) - -. (2002),, -. -, Horn. 3.2.2 ( ).,. (binary), (Reflexivity), (symmetry), (connectedness). 41) -. - -. - (numerals) (liner) (total order) -. - 40) 표 2. Gazdar (Gazdar s clause implicature) <strong form> <weak form> <weak form implicate> p and q p or q {Pp, P~p, Pq, P~q} (P = it is possible...) Since p, q if p, then q {Pp, P~p, Pq, P~q} A knows p A believes p {Pp, P~p, Pq, P~q} A realized p A thought p {Pp, P~p} A revealed p A said p {Pp, P~p} 41) 3.2.2 Partee et al. (1990). (transitive) (reflexive) (antisymmetry) (weak orders) (irreflexive) (asymmetric) (strong or strict). - 44 -
,. (partial order), a b ( ). (partially ordered set, poset).,., a b, a b b a. S R. (DEFINITION) 1. <S, R> R S (partial order) iff: 1. (Transitivity): x y z((rxy & Ryz) Rxz) 2. (Reflexivity): x(rxx) 3. (Antisymmetry): x y((rxy & Ryx) x=y) (DEFINITION) 2. <S, R> R S (total order) iff: 1. R S (partial order). 2. (Connectedness): x y(x y (Rxy Ryx)) [a, b, c, d]. 1. - 45 -
[ 1]. [ 1 (1)] a b c d c b a c, b d a d. (2) (4) a b a c c d b c. (3) b d a d a c c b d, a b.. ( : ).. S ={a, b, c, d} S. (3) R 1 = {<a, b>, <a, c>, <a, d>, <b, c>, <a, a>, <b, b>, <c, c>, <d, d>} R 2 = {<b, a>, <b, b>, <a, a>, <c, c>, <d, d>, <c, b>, <c, a>} R 3 = {<d, c>, <d, b>, <d, a>, <c, b>, <c, a>, <a, a>, <b, b>, <c, c>, <d, d>, <b, a>} 그림 2. (3) [ 2] (3) (diagrams). R 1 R 2, R 3. / / /. - 46 -
3: <A, R>, 1. A x (minimal), x A ( : R 1 a; R 2 c d; R 3 d). 2. A x (least), x A ( : R 1 a; R 3 d). 3. A x (maximal), x A ( : R 1 c d; R 2 a, d; R 3 a). 4. A x (greatest), x A ( : R 3 a). (greatest element), (least element)..,,.,. 3.2.3, -. 2 - -. 42) - (= ) (= ). - 42) ( ) (1961) (1973). - 47 -
. -., -,,.. (4) (Out of all delicious foodstuffs that his mother prepares) Max only eats [HAMburgers] F (4) [HAMburgers] F. only, [ F ]., only.. -. (5) ( ) [ ] F! (5) - (=, ) ( ).,,.... - X /( ) X-, -., ( ). - 48 -
3.3 3.2, ( /, / ). - -, -.,.. - /. (Classifier Phrase, ClP), ( ).. -,... 3.3.1 (= ) -..,.. (6) a. 5! b. 5! - 49 -
그림 3. X X (6) 5 -. [ 3] (a) 5 ( ) X-. 5 5 1, 2,... 5, 6,.... 5. 43). 5 4, 1 ( ). 5 6, 6 7. (6b) 5 X-, (6a). -. (7) a.. b.. c.. 43) (1995). - 50 -
d.,. e.. (7) -,,,,. (ClP)-. -,.. - -. (8) a. ( )? b.. c.. (8),. (a) 2 (2000),. (a) -,. (b) (c) (a).,. X.. (c). - 51 -
(8) /,. -. -. 3.3.2 (= ) - 3.3.1 /. -. - (,,,...). (9) a.! 그림 4. X b.. 그림 5. X - 52 -
c.? 그림 6. X [ 4] (9a) ( ) X- / X -..,,...,.. -.,,,...,,,...,,,...,. [ 4].,.,,. [ 5] (9b) X-..,. [ 5]. [ 6] (9c) - 53 -
. /,.. (10) a.. b.. c.. d.. e.? f.. (10),,,,, -. -... (a) X-,,,,.. (b-d) /, (e-h) - /. 3.4. (11) a.. b.. c.. d.. - 54 -
(12) a.. b.. c.. d.. (11) (12)., /. (11a), X. - - 5. 3.3.3 3.2. 5 2-3.2 ( ). -,. -,. ( - ) ( - ) (2002), / / - 55 -
., -. 3.5 -. -. 3.2 -, ( ), 3.3. - (mood). 44). -, /. Lee, Chung, and Nam (2000) / / /, (polarity sensitive items). (veridical) (non-veridical) (non-episodic) /. (2002) - -. - / (epistemic modality). 45) 44) (1977) (1993) (2003). - 56 -
(13) a. 39. b.. c.. 그림 7. X (likelihood) 그림 8. _X (13a) [ 7] X- X 39. 36.5~37 36 37, 37 36, 37 38, 39. 46) (13b) [ 8] X- X- 1. 98 45) (epistemic)... 46) (a), 39, 40(ClP). - 57 -
99 100. (13c) 3.3.1, -,. X-, ( )., ( ). (13) 39, 100, -.. -. -. (14) a.. b.. c.. 그림 9. X (14),, -, - 58 -
,,,,,,. (a) [ 9] X. ( :,,,... ). (,,... ),. [ 9],. 47) (b),,,, X-.,,. (c). (2002), /. X -., X 47),.,,,...,... ( ). - 59 -
..,,,,, -, /. 3.5 -. 48) (15) a. A., 100. B. 100? b.! c.! 그림 10. X (a) (1973) 48) Jespersen (1924) (deontic).,,..., (action). -,,, ~ - ~ / / - ~ /. - 60 -
,,,,,. - 100 X-., (a). 100 (... 200,... 150,... 110,... 50,... 10 ) 100 (90... 10 ), 100 (110... 200...). 100. (b) - X!. -.,,...,,,,...,,,...,,.... (c) [ 10] X-!., -,, 6. (15) - (1973) (rather), (at least), (2002), (2000), (1983, 1995),. (15) -. -. - 61 -
(16) a.. b.. c.? d.. 그림 11. X (= ) 그림 12. X 1 그림 13. X 2 [ 11] (a) X X. ( ). X - 62 -
. (,,...,,...,,...,,...),. -. (b). (c), -. (d) X. ( ). [ 12] -,,,.... [ 13].. 49) (16),,,, (= ) / -. 49).. - 63 -
3.6 -. (optative/bouletic modality). 50). (17) a. ( ) ( )? ( ) a'. ( ) ( )? (17a) 2 3.4 - -. (a').,.. (a'),..., 50). Palmer(2001; 115). Jespersen (1924). (desiderative) (optative) (volitive). - 64 -
,,.. (18a) -. (18) a.. a'.. b. * 100. b'. 100. c. * 100. c'. 100. 그림 14. X 1 그림 15. X 2 (18) X., [ 14] - 65 -
. 3.4,,. (18),. [ 14] [ 15]. 51),. (b) * 100 (c) * 100 -, (b') 100 (c') 100 -. (19) -. (19) a.. b.. c.. d.. e.. 그림 16. X 1 51). - 66 -
그림 17. X 2 (19),,,, - (,,,, ).. (a) /. - ( ). X (= ),,,,...,. (b) [ 16] - X... /., [ 17] KTX,,,....,. - 67 -
(c) -. (d) - X. - ~. 52) (e) X. (,,,,,,,,,,... ) -, - 3. 3.4 - - (2002), 3.5 3.6. 52) 2 Jespersen(1924) ( ) ( ). - 68 -
3.7 -, -,. - -, -., -. /, /, / /. (2002) /., -,. -,,,,, /,,, /, / /. - -, - - (= ) - (= ),,. -. - 69 -
(20) a.. b.,. c. / / /. d.,. (20) ~ ~ / - / / -. as if. -,,., -. - 70 -
4 - -. - 2.2 (1992), (1995), or, (2000). 53). -, -.. A- B- -, A- B -,. 53) - (A- B, A- B- ) or (A or B; either A or B) (Head). (Personal Commentary PC) ( - or ) Chomsky (1981). (parameters), (Head parameter), - -. -, A B *A B - or ( A B( ), A B( ), A ( ) B(( ) ) ) A B A B., Eckardt, R. (2007) (principle). - 71 -
4.1 - -. -, 2.4. (1) a.! b.. c.. d.. (1) (a, b) A- B- (c, d) A- B.. (a) ( ). (b),., (b) ( ). - (individual sum). (c). (d). (a)~(c),., - 72 -
( ). (1),,. 2 -. -. 4.1 - (A- B- ) (A- B), - 2003 2007 21 (corpus). 4.2 - ( ). 4.3 ( ) - -. 4.4 -. 4.1.1 -. -, ( A- B ),, - ( A- B- ). A- B- C- - 73 -
. (2) a. 8 9. b. 3 ~ 4. c.. d. (2) A- B. 4.2. - (a), (b) (c) (d). (3) a.. b.. c.. b.. (3) A- B-. 4.3., -, (a) (b) (c), (d). -. 4.1.2 - -. - - 74 -
. 21 (2003) 250 -. 21 (2007) -.. 4.1.2.1 21 (2003) - 21 (2003) - 250. 54) 250. (,,, ) -. 250 23 26 4 128 181 10( ) 16 4 39 69 표 3. (2003) - [ 2] 181, 69. 23, 10, ( ) 26 16,, 128 39. 55) 21 (2003) ( - ): - 11,000 250. - 75 -
53 30. ~ 11 12 13 7 6 0 4 53 10 ( ) 5 3 6 2 4 30 표 4. - [ 3] -,.,. 53, 30. 56),. 3. (4). 4 5 30 3 6. (a). 8 (b). 11 6 30. 12, 13,,.... " " ; 1. (c) (d),. 3 4. 56) - 76 -
(4) -,,. (A- B) ( ),,.. (4). (c).,.. [ 4] 21 (2003). ( ) ( ) 128 1 1 0 11/4 58 4(4) 1 14 0 3 31 39 1 0 1 5 12(9) 1 0 1 1 2(5) 1 표 5. - [ 4] 128 39.,,,. 9 2 3. ( / ), ( / / ), ( - / ), ( / ) ( / / ( ) ) - 77 -
. ( ).. 4.1.2.2 21 (2007) 21 (2007) - 4031 -, - (,, ), (, ), ( ), (,,, ), ( ) 1052 -. 1052 755 299. (2003) 250 21 (2007) - 755. 755 (2007 ) (2003 ) (,, ). 243.. 755 ( ) 103 236 22 29 104 205 699 14 7 0 7 22 6 56 표 6. (2007) - [ 5] 699, 56,, /.,, ( ), - 78 -
. 104, 22, 205 6, 103 14. 2003, 2007 243 A ((B) ) (,, ). 4.2 4.3. - 360 33. 395 126 211 36 ~ 360 27 77 63(5) 73 60(4) 29 35 22 2 2 2 7 표 7. - [ 6] -.. 104, 205, 29 360, 22, 6, 7 35., (4). -. 339 21 360 etc 21 5 6 1 38 8 1 11 1 236 6 3 (2) 0 7 0 3 2(1) 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 표 8. - - 79 -
[ 7] 339 21,,,. 3 1. / / -, / ( - ), / -, - / / -, / / / -,, - 3. -. 4.2, 4.3. 4.2 :,,.,. 21 (2003) (2007), -. 21 (2003) 250 - (2007) 755-1005. 125 880 -. [ 3] [ 6] 53 360 413, 467.. - 80 -
(5) a.! b. ( ( ))! c. ( ) ( ) ( )! (5) ( ). (a).! -, ( )!., ( ) ( )!. (b) - /. (c) - ( ) ( ) ( ).,. (,, ). A- B (P), A(P) B(P), ( ) A(P) B(P) ( ) A(P) B(P) 3.. - 81 -
4.2.1. [ 3] [ 6],.,. 4.2.1.1. - A- B( ) ( / / ) ( A- B N ). 21 (2003) 23 21 (2007) 92. 57) (6) a.. b.. c.. d.. (a) ( ) ( ) 3. (b) 57) A B. 3 (,, ).. - 82 -
, ( ). (c) A B N ( ). (d) A- B N., ( ),. 4.2.1.2 - (- / ) (- / ).. (7) a. 10 GNP 1 5 1,. b..".. c.. d.,.... e.. 2+4. - 83 -
(a) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ).. (b) ~. (c). (d) ( ). (e) ( ) ( / ). -., 3. - ( A- B( / ) ).,,,. (8) a., ` '., - 84 -
. b. ` '.,. c.. d.? (8). (a).. (= ). (b) ( ) ( ). ~. (c) ( ). (d) ( ). - 85 -
4.2.1.3 (ClP) -. (9) a.? b., c. (9). (a).,. (b).. (c).,. 4.2.2 -.. (Negation) -, -,,, -,,, - 86 -
, -,,,, -. 4.2.2.1. (Negation) -, -,,, -,,,, -. - -. (10) a.. b.. c.. (10) - -. (a) A- B -. (not both).. 58) 58) (Neg) Fox (2007) /. (ⅰ) We didn't give every student of ours both a stipend and a tuition waiver. 1. basic meaning: x[p(x) Q(x)] x [P(x) Q(x)] x[ P(x) Q(x)] x P(x) x Q(x) - 87 -
(b) -. -. (c) -. -.. (11) a.. b.. c.. (11),. (a) -. - ( ) ( ).. (b). (= ). (c) - ( ). - (,, Neg).. 2. Free Choice Inference: x P(x) x Q(x) - 88 -
(12) a. ~? b. ~. c.. d.. (12),, ~ / -. (a), (b) ~. (c). (d) ( ). A B / ( / ). [ 4] [ 6] A- B. 59) -, -,,, -,, / - -. 59) 21 (2003) -,, (2007). A- B (like). 259 A- (B) / 29 A- / 65 A- B, 142 A-. /. Nam (2012) and/or the like,, (class) -. - 89 -
4.2.2.2 -. -,, ( ). (13) a. ~. b.. c.. d.. e.. f.,... (13) - (a)~(c). (a). (b)., -. (c) -. - (d).. (e).. (f),. -. - 90 -
4.2.3 :, (,, ) [ 6],,,,. -,.. -, ( ), -, -, -, Neg,, -,,, / -., -,..,,, - -, -, Neg,, -,,, / - 표 9. 논리연산자와해석과의관계. - 91 -
4.3 :. 21 (2003 ) (2007). - 1005 125. [ 3] [ 6] 30, 35 65, [ 4] [ 7] 39, 21 60.. 4.3.1. [ 3] [ 6] 30(10, 16, 4) 35(22, 6, 7). - -. -,.. 4.3.1.1 (N) ( A- B- N ) ( A- B- ( ) N ). (14) a.. b.. - 92 -
c... (14). (a) X. X ( ).,. (b), ( ). (c).. 4.3.3. 4.3.1.2 ( A- B- ).. (15) a. b.. c.. (15). (a) - 93 -
. -.. (b) -. (c),.. (16) a.. b.. c.! d.. (16) (A- B- ). (a), (b), (c) (d) -.,,, (= ), (= ), (= ) (= ). 4.3.2 [ 4] [ 7] - - 94 -
.., - -,, -. 4.3.2.1, ( ), -, ( ),,.... (17) a.. b. ~, c.. (17) -. (a) -. (b) (c), (c). (d). (, ). (18) a.... b.. c., - 95 -
d.. (18) (,, ). 60),,...., (c) (d) -. (c) (d),, ( ). (= = ). 4.3.2.2 - -,,,, / -. (19) a.. b.. c.,... 60),., (a),. - (individual sum). - 96 -
(19) -. (a). (b) 3 -. (c) - (... ). A- B-. (20) a. ~. b.! (20) N( / ) N( ), A- B-. (a) -. 61) (b). A B -. A- B- -. -, - -. 61) 21 (2003) 21 (2007) [ 4] 236 A- B. [ 6] 7 A- B- ( ) ( ) ~. - 97 -
4.3.3, (,, ) (,, ).. -. A B - -...,.. 4.3.3.1, 4.3.3.2. 4.3.3.1. -, -,,, /, -, - 98 -
,,, -, /..... - - -... (21) a.. b.?. c.. d.. e. ". (22) a.. b., c.. d.! e.. (21a) -. (b) - ( ). (c). (d) -. (e) - ( ). - 99 -
(21) (22a) -. (b),. (c). (d). (e). (21), (22). 62). (23) a. [A- ] [B- ] : = b. [A- B]- : - = 62) (1973) N N N N. (22b),., (PC), (PC) (Head parameter: Head-initial NP[A &1[& B]] Head-final NP[A &1[B &]] ). -, -, - (head-first), - (head last).. - 100 -
4.3.3.2 (21) (22). (22b) (21b)..,.,.. (1997),. 63),,,.,.. 63) (1997). (pause),.. (pause),. (tune)... - 101 -
(24) a.! b.. c.. d.. e. f.! h.?. i.! j.. (cf..) k. ( ). l.... m.! (25) a.. b. ( )! c. d.! e.. f., h.... i.... j.. k.. l.. m.,... (24), (25). (24), (25). (24) (25) A- B-. (24) - 102 -
,,,... (25). -, (24) (25). -.,.,. [ 18] [ 19]. 그림 18. (25a) ( ) 19. (25a) ( ) - 103 -
. (24a) 724ms, (25) 945ms. (24a), (25a),,,,. (24a) (25a), -. (24) (25),,,.. (24) (25) A B. (24j) A-. ㅏ,,.,, (,,), (α), (β),.. (α) - 104 -
(β) (γ) (γ), (α) (β) (+)., (+). 64) < 9>. (α) +1 (β) +1 (δ) +0.5 (ε) +1 표 10., ( ) ( ). A- A, B- B {A, A, A } {B, B, B }. 64),.,,,,.,,, (+). - 105 -
(+) < 8>. A,, A, A B B. α β δ ε A B +1 0 +1 A B +1 +1 +2 A B +1 +1 +2 A B +2 +1 +0.5 +3.5 A B +2 +2 +0.5 +4.5 A B +2 +2 +0.5 +4.5 A B +2 +1 +1 +4 A B +2 +2 +1 +5 A B +2 +2 +1 +5 표 11. - < 9> A A, A A, A A. A B A B A B A B. -,,., -,. - 106 -
< 10>. 529 1117 724 945 907 1484 885 1127 882 1429 875 1143 645 1075 637 844 758 1178 836 1008 1202 1616 795 1440 737 1331 886 1181 1220 1695 1119 1467 799 1408 1255 1734 1041 1148 표 12. (24) (25) ( : ms ) ( Shapiro-Wilk : W=0.9419, p=0.2851) t-, (t(18)=10.4427, p<0.001). 65) ), 65) (25c),., - 107 -
,.., ( ),,. - -, -,.,.,. (24c),, (25c). (25j), (24j). - 108 -
4.4-21 -. - A- B A- B-., 3. -, -,,, -,,, -,,,, -.,. -.. - 109 -
., -, - -... /. ( /( )...).,..... [[A- ] [B- ] ([C- ],...)], [[A- B]- ]. - 110 -
5 - - - -. 3 4 -. 5.2 -.. 5.3.. 5.4 /.. 5.1 두 - 이나 구문의구조와의미적상관성 - -. 4 NP- NP(- ) 3 NP-. -. NP- - -., NP- NP - NP-.. 1 2. - 111 -
: NP- 1 : NP- NP-( ) (i) [NP- 2 NP] (ii) [NP- 2 NP]- 1 (iii) [NP- 1 ] [NP- 1 ] (i) (ii) (iii). (ii) (iii). (ii) 1 [NP- 2 NP] (i), (iii) [NP- 1 ] [NP- 1 ].,. 4 -. - -. 3 NP-. NP-, NP-. 4 NP- NP. - -. -. (1) a.? b.! c.? d., - 112 -
(a) - X? -. (b),. (c) -, (d) -. NP- 2 NP(- ) NP- 1., (c) - 2., 2, 1. (d) 1.,. 5.2 - -. 5.3 - ( ). 4 -. 5.4 -. - 4, -. - 113 -
5.2 - 이나 접속구문의초점과척도해석 NP- NP- NP(- ).. - -. 3 -, -. -,.. (2) a. 70 7. b.. c.. d.. (2). (a) 70 X 7, (c) X. (b) X, (d) X. (a, b) (c, d) -. (a) (b) 7, (c) (d) - 114 -
- A B.,. - -,. 3 -. -. -, -. (a, b) - (c, d) -. (3) a.. b.! c.. d... (a) - X. 1, 2,... 12,...,...,,,.... (b) X! /.,,,...,. - 115 -
(c) (d). (c) X.. (d) X -.,,,,,....,, -,. - -,,, - -.. 5.3-4. -. -. / - ( / ). - 116 -
5.3.1, -. 66) 5.3.2 5.3.3,. (1995), (1997) - ( ) or,, - (anti-additive function) or and. 67) (2005) -, -. 68) (1999),. 69) Yun J. (2011),. Lee, Chung, and Nam (2000) -N- / /. (2002) -, - 66) - - -, Wh- N- -., -. 67). (i) A functor is anti-additive iff f(x Y) = f(x) f(y). (Ladusaw 1995: 325) - (2000). 68) Choi, Y. (2012) or. 69) Vendler(1967), Carlson(1981), (1999). - 117 -
. (1995), (1997), (1999), Lee, Chung, and Nam (2000)., /... (4) a.. b.. c.? d.. (4) ( ). 70) (a).?. (b)., (= ) 70),,,,. - 118 -
. (c)... (d),,. (b) (c) -. (d) -. 71) -. (5) a.. b.. c.. d.. (5) -.. (d) (b) (c) (d). Wh N- /., -. 71) ~. - 119 -
(6) a.. b.. c.. d.. e.. (6) - N. (a). (b), (c) (d). (e). (d). N-.,,. (7) a.. b. *. (7). (7a), (7b). -,. -, /. - 120 -
5.3.2 Wh N- 이나 와연접 / 전칭해석 Wh N- /. ( Wh N) - ( Wh N- ) /. 4 -. Wh N- ( ). Wh N-,,,,, 4 -,,,. (, ). (8) a.. b.. c.. d.! (8) - ( ). (a), (b), (c) (d) ( ) /. (d) -. - /. 4. ( ) Wh N-,, - 121 -
. (9) a.,. b.,. c.. (9) Wh N-,, ( ). (a) (b),,. (b) (c) ( ) - ( ) /.. / Wh N-. (10) a.. b.. c. (10). 2 (= ). 72) (a) -. (b) (8a) (plural reading). (c) ( ),, 72) 1. - 122 -
. - / Wh N- -. (, ) ( ) - 4 -.. / Wh N- 1 / / /, A 2 B( 1 ) / / / /, 표 13. / 5.3.3 아무 N- 이나 와양보접속 / 임의선택해석 -. 4 -. -,, -,,,, / - -. 73) N- -. (11) a.. b.? c.. 73) - - -. - 123 -
d.. e. ~. f.. (11) 4 -, -,, - -. (a) (b) ~ ~ - (c) -. (d), (e) (f) - -. ( ). -. (12) a.. b.? c.! d.! (12) -. (a). (b) (a) ( ) ( ). (c). (d) - 124 -
. /. N- /. (13) a.. b.! c.. d.. e.. f.. (13) N- -/ -. (a) -. (b). (c) - -. (d) (e) (c) -, /. (f) /. (13). -. (14) a. * / ( ). b. ( ) ( ). - 125 -
c. (*? ). d.. e. ( / ) ( ). (14) -. (a). (b), (c). (d) (, ). (e).,.., -.,, -, Neg, -,, /, ( ), -. - ( ).. N- 1 1,,,, / A 1 B( 1 ),,,,,, / 표 14. - 126 -
5.3.4 - -. 5.2 3 - -, 4 Wh N- /. - /. (15) / : : Wh N-, + (,, ) : A- B(- ) + (,, ) A- B- ( ) 74) (15) A- B(- ),,, Wh N-. A- B. B -. Wh N- -. /. 74) 4.3.1.1, 5.3.2. - 127 -
(16) : 2 75) : + [ (,, )] + 2. : A- B- ( ) + [ (,, )] + 2. (16). 4 A B (, ) 2. ( ) (, ) 2. (,... ) (,... ).. (17) : : N-, N- + [ - (, ), - ( ), - (,, 1, )] : A- B + [ - ( Neg, )] A- B-( ) + [ - (, ), - ( ), - (,, 1, )]. (17) N- -. 4 -, -,,,,. N- -, N- 75) 2 ( ),,. - 128 -
,,,. 76) 5.4 - : -. -, - ( Neg, - ) -..... -. 4.4 5.1, -. - A, B (C...) -. - / /. A- B- C-... - - 76) N- - -. - 129 -
. -. (18) a.. b.. (18) (a) A- B(- C- D...) -. (b). 3 4 A- B(- ) P X( ) P - - 77).,. (18') a.. 그림 20. X (,...) 77) ( ) ( ), ( ). (A and B) A, B, A or B, (A or e B) ( ).. - 130 -
b.. 그림 21. X ( / /...) (18') (18). (18'a) X. (18a) -, ( ). [ 21],.,.. (19) a.! b.. (19a). -, (= - ). (19b) -. - 131 -
(19') a.! 그림 22. X Y b.. 그림 23. X [ 22] [ 23]. [ 22],.. [ 23]. X. 78). 그림 24. 78) ( : AS, ) ( ),. - 132 -
,. A B... /. (20) a.. b.. c.. c'. ( ). c''. ( ). (20) X X /. (a) (b) Choi, J. (2008) (necessity modal) (discrepancy). (c). (c) (a) (b) (c') (c'')., (a) (c') -, (b) (c'') -. - 133 -
. 1. 2. 3.. (,, ) 1. 2. 3.. (,, ) 표 15..,,,,,. - X,,,..,. A B. - - X,,. 79) 79) - 134 -
,., -. - A B. ( : ) ( ) ( : ). - 135 -
6 - -. -, - - -. or -,, -, -. -. 1 -, - -., -. 2 -. -., -,,,,,,,,,,, 5.,,.,. - 136 -
3 - - (lower bound). -, 5 -, -. -,. 4 N- N(- ),.,,. 3. ( ).,,.. 5 - -., - - -. -, - ( ) ( / / ). 5-137 -
-, -.,,,, -, (= Wh N- ).. / 2(( ),, ).,,,,... -, [A- B](- ). (L( ) R( ) ) (boolean meet = A B).. NP- 2 NP - 2, - 1. -,, Neg -,,,, /, - -, (= N- ) -,, Neg -,,,, /, - -. - - -, [A- B(- (C- ))]. (boolean join = A B ) (L( ) R( ) ). NP- 1, NP- 1 NP- 1 -,., - 138 -
., ( )..,,, ( ),., -.. - - *(- ), - ( ), - ( ), - (- ).. - 139 -
. 1999. :,,.. :.. 1999.. 9, 49~80.. 2008. :.. 1999.. :.. 2003. 21... 2007. 21... 1979.. :.. 1992. : :.. 1978.... 1992.. :.. 1996.. :.. 2005. :.. 1995.... 1996.. 8 177-188.. 2005. 2. :.. 1991. -, -, -. 12.. 1987.... 1989.. :.. 2010.. 16, 23-39.. 2006.... 1985, 1993. :.. 1993.. :. - 140 -
. 1998.. 22, 217-244.. 2009a. - (- ). 29, 29-56.. 2009b. -. 25-3.. 2004.. 14, 223-254.. 2003. {( ) }. 260.. 2003.. :.. 2005.. 41... 1998.... 2010. -. 31, 51-75.. 1990.. :.. 1996. 1. 69.. 1988.. :.. 2009.. 14, 69-84.. 2001.. 73.. 1973. Semantics of Delimiters 9-2... 1978.. 3, 74-104.. 1996.. 3. :.. 1998.. 8-1.. 1961. 1. :.. 1996.. 8 369-376.. 2000. ANY. 25-3, 455-476.. 2000. -. 4-2... 2004.. 8-1. - 141 -
. 1981. The Meaning of the Postpositions in Korean. 6-2.. 1993. A Korean Grammar on Semantic-Pragmatic Principles. :.. 1998. : (Vol 2). :.. 2006.. 37, 171-195.. 1992... :.. 1999... 1983.. :.. 1996.... 2005.. 30, 173-193. 1993.,.. 1997.... 1986.. 70.. 1949.... 2007.. 49.. 2002. :. 6-2... 1992..,. :.. (2002). - - :. 38-1, 319-337... 1981.. :.. 1977.... 1993.. 82.. 2001.. 8, 109-123.. 1997.. 30.. 2002.. 19.. 1998. - : 3, - 142 -
41-65.. 1961.... 2004.... 1972. 15. 150.. 1983. :... 1995. 20... 1983.. 43... 2002.... 1995.,,,. 20, 5-43. Alcantara, J. et al.: 2005. A Well-Founded Semantics with Disjunction. In Logic Programming, M. Gabbrielli and G. Gupta (eds.): ICLP, LNCS 3668, 341-355. Aloni, M. & Robert van R.: 2002. The dynamics of question and Focus. In Proceedings of SALT 12, 20-39. Aloni, M. & Robert van R.: 2007. Free Choice Items and Alternatives. In Proceedings of the KNAW Academy Colloquium: Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, and J. Zwarts (eds.), 5-26. Edita KNAW. Alonso-Ovalle, L. and Paula M.-B.: 2002. Two types of weak quantifiers: evidence from Spanish. In: Proceedings of the 1 st North American Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, 11-19. Stanford, CA. Alonso-Ovalle, L.: 2006. Disjunction in Alternative Semantics. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Alonso-Ovalle, L.: 2009. Counterfactuals, correlatives, and disjunction. Linguistics and Philosophy 32, 207-244 Amritavalli, R.: 2003. Question and Negative Polarity in the Disjunction Phrase. Syntax 6-1, 1-18. - 143 -
An, Do-Ho.: 2007. On the distribution of NPIs in Korean, Natural Language Semantics 15, 317-350. Bach, E. and Barbara P.: 1984. Quantification, pronouns, and VP-anaphora. In: Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen and Martin Stokhof (eds.), Truth, Interpretation, and Information, 99-130. Dordrecht: Fortis. Beaver, D. and Condoravdi, C.: 2003. A uniform analysis of before and after, Proceedings of SALT 13, CLC Publications, Cornell, Ithaca, 37-54. Bell, D.: 1998. Cancellative Discourse Markers: A Core/Periphery Approach. Pragmatics 8-4, 515-541. Beaver, D. and Brady C.: 2003. Always and Only: Why not all focus-sensitive Operators are alike. Natural Language Semantics 11, 323-362. Carlson, L.: 1981. Aspect and Quantification. Syntax and Semantics 14. Chierchia, G.: 2003. Language, Thought and Reality after Chomsky. Manuscript, University of Milan. Chierchia, G.: 2004. Scalar Implicatures, Polarity Phenomena and the Syntax-Semantics Interface, in A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax 3), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 39-103. Chierchia, G.: 2006. Broaden Your Views: Implicatures of Domain Widening and the "Logicality" of Language. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 535-591. Choi, J.: 2008. Disjunction-based Free Choice in Korean. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. Choi, Y.: 2012. The Structure and the Interpretations of Free Choice Items and Negative Polarity Items in Korean. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Paris 7. Chomsky, N.: 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chung, S., Ladusaw, W. & McCloskey, J.: 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3, 339-282. - 144 -
Condoravdi, C.: 2008. Free Choice and Uncertainty. Workshop on Inferential Mechanisms and their Linguistic Manifestation, University of Kyoto. Cooper, R.: 1983, Quantification and syntactic theory, Reidel, Dordrecht. Dayal, V.: 1995. Quantification in correlatives, in E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer and B. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural language, Kluwer. Dayal, V.: 1997. Free Relatives and Ever: Identity and Free Choice Readings. Semantics and Linguistic Theory Ⅶ, 99-116. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University. Eckardt, R.: 2007. Licensing or. In U. Sauerland and P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, 34 70. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fauchonnier, G.: 1975. Pragmatics scales and logical structure. Linguistics Inquiry 6-3 353-375. Fox, D.: 2007. Free Choice Disjunction and the theory of Scalar Implicatures. In U. Sauerland and P. Stateva, (Eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, 71-120. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. von Fintel, K.: 2000. Whatever. Semantics and Linguistic Theory Ⅹ, 27-39. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University. Gazdar, G.: 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical form. New York: Academic Press. Geurts, B. and Nouwen, R.: 2007. At least et al.: the semantics of scalar modifiers. Language 83-3, 533-559. Giannakidou, A.: 2001. The Meaning of Free Choice. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 659-735. Grice, P.: 1975 [1967]. Logic and Conversation, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts, Academic Press, NY. 41-58 Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M.: 1984. Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph. D. dissertation. University of - 145 -
Amsterdam. Grosu, A. & Landman, F.: 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6-2, 125-170. Guerzoni, E. & Lim D.: 2007. Even if, factivity and focus. In Proceedings of SuB 11. 276-290. Hamblin. C. L.: 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language: International Journal of Language and Philosophy 10, 41-53. Haspelmath, M.: 1997, Indefinite Pronouns, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Horn, L. R.: 1989. A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Horn, L. R.: 2000, From if to iff: conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of pragmatics 32, 289-326. Horn, L. R.: 2004. Implicature. In: Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 3-28. Oxford: Blackwell. Kamp, H. & Rohrer, C.: 1983. Tense in texts. Meaning, use and interpretation of language. 250-269. Jespersen, O.: 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. [Reprinted in 1992]. Kiss, K. É.: 2009. Scalar adverbs in and out of focus. In: Katalin É. Kiss (ed.) Adverbs and Adverbial Adjuncts at the Interfaces. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Klinedinst, N.: 2006. Plurals, possibilities, and conjunctive disjunction. Ch.1-2 of Ph. D. dissertation(plurality and Possibility, UCLA, 2006). Kratzer, A. & J. Shimoyama: 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The View from Japanese, in Y. Otsu (ed.), The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Tokyo(Hituzi Syobo), 1-25. Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J.,Carlson G., ter Meulen A., Chierchia G., & Link, G.: 1995 Genericity: an introduction. In G. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, 1-124. University of Chicago Press. - 146 -
Krifka, M.: 2006. Association with Focus Phrases. in Valerie Molna & Susanne Winkler, The architecture of focus, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 105-136. Ladusaw, W.: 1995. Thetic and Categorical, Stage and Individual, Weak and Strong. In: Harvey, M. & L. Santelmann (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) Ⅳ, 220-229. Ithaca, NY. Landmann, F.: 1989. Groups Ⅰ and Ⅱ, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 559-606, 723-744. Larson, R. K.: 1985. On the Syntax of Disjunction Scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 217-264. Lee, C.: 1996. Generic Sentence Are Topic Constructions, in Fretheim & Gundel (eds.) Reference and Referent Accessibility, Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 38, John Benjamins Publishing Co. Lee, C.: 1997. Negative Polarity and Free Choice: Where Do They Come From?, Proceedings of the Eleventh Amsterdam Colloquium, Paul Dekker, Martin Stokhof, Yde Venema (eds.), ILLC/University of Amsterdam. Lee, C.: 1999. Types of NPIs and Nonverdicality in Korean and Other languages. In G. Storto (ed.), UCLA Working Papers Linguistics 3: Syntax at Sunset: 96-132. Department of Linguistics, UCLA. Lee, C.: 2003. Negative Polarity Items in Korean and Japanese: A contrastive study. Icwung enehak (Bilingualism) 22, 1-48. Lee, Chung, and Nam.: 2000. The Semantics of amu-n-to/-irato/-ina in Korean. Arbitrary Choice and Concession Language and Information 4-2, 107-123. Lee, Y. S.: 1995. Scales And Alternatives: Disjunction, Exhaustivity, And Emphatic particles, Ph. D. dissertation. University of Texas at Austin. Lee, Y. J.: 2004. The Syntax and Semantics of Focus Particles, Ph. D. dissertation. MIT. - 147 -
Lee, Y. J.: 2005. Exhaustivity as Agreement: The Case of Korean MAN 'Only'. Natural Language Semantics 13, 169-200. Link, G.: 1983, The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, de Gruyter, Berlin. Lyons, J.: 1977. Semantics vol 2. Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J.: 1978. Elémets de sémantique. Larousse. Menendez-Benito, P.: 2005. The grammar of choice, Ph. D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. to be published by the Graduate Linguistics Students Association (GLSA), University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Nam S.: 1994. Another Type of Negative Polarity Item in M, Kanazawa and C. Pinon (eds.) Dynamics, Polarity, and Quantification, CSLI, Stanford University. Nam, S.: 1997. The Semantics of 'before' and negative polarity. Paper presented at the Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca. Nam, S.: 2012. Notes on class operators: And the like, or the like, etc. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, Theories of Everything 17-33: 285-289 Palmer, F. R.: 2001. Mood and Modality. Second Edition. Cambridge university press. Partee, B. H. et al.: 1990. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Portner, P.: 2009. Modality. Oxford University Press (Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics). Rescher, N.: 1968. Truth and necessity in temporal perspective. The Philosophy of Time, New Jersey. 183-220. Restall, G.: 1996. Truthmakers, Entailment and Necessity. Australasian - 148 -
Journal of Philosophy 74-2. Rooth, M.: 1996. Focus in Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell. Rullmann, H.: 2003. Additive Particles and Polarity. Journal of Semantics 20, 329-401. Sauerland, U.: 1998. The meaning of chains. Ph. D. dissertation. MIT. Sauerland, U.: 2004. Scalar Implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 367-391. Schiffrin, D.: 1986. Functions of AND in Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 10, 41-66. Schulz, K. & von Rooil, R.: 2006. Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation, Linguistics and Philosophy 29, 205-250. Simons, M.: 2005. Semantics and Pragmatics in the Interpretation of "or". In Proceedings of SALT 15, 205-222. Spector, B.: 2003, Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning, in B. ten Cate (ed.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2003 Student Session, Vienna. Vendler, Z.: 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. 97-145. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. von Wright, G. H.: 1951. Deontic Logic. Mind, New Series 60-237, 1-15. Yun J.: 2011. On the Meaning of wh-(n)-ina and wh-(n)-itun in Korean. Language Research 47-2, 191-218. Zimmermann, T. E.: 2001. Free Choice Disjunction and Epistemic Possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8, 255-290. Zufferey, S. & Popescu-Belis, A.: 2004. Towards Automatic Identification of Discourse Markers in Dialogs: The Case of Like. In Proceedings of SIGdial 2004, 5th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. Cambrige, MA. 63-71. Zwarts, F.: 1995. Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25, 286-312. - 149 -
Abstract The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Delimiter -ina In Korean Ryu, Byung-Ryul Department of Linguistics The Graduate School Seoul National University This dissertation consists of three main proposals. First, this dissertation describes the meanings of -ina which have been explained in different standards and various terms without coherence, and introduces a pragmatic modal scale to define the meaning of -ina NPs as denoting a special element lower bound in the scale with a scalar implicature. Lee, et al (2000) and Chung, et al (2002) interpreted NP-(i)na/-to as denoting the lower bound (the least element) in a probability scale. To derive scalar interpretations from various modal contexts, this dissertation takes the lower bound in the probability scale as consisting of epistemic modality, and also makes use of deontic and optative/bouletic modality. Applying these works, we also uses partially ordered scales as well as totally ordered scales. This study comes to the conclusion that the scalar meaning of ina NPs is represented in diverse modal contexts. Thus, unlike previous research based on entailment, this work discusses extending the meaning of ina NPs to the pragmatic modal scale with a scalar implicature. What is more, extending this concept to connective constructions, this study accounts for correlation between A-ina B(-ina) and NP-ina. - 150 -
Second, this dissertation will be concerned with two types of syntactic distribution and three semantic interpretations of the disjunction -ina in Korean. The disjunction -ina in Korean is morphologically divided into a parallel construction A-ina B-ina and a series construction A-ina B. The disjunction -ina is basically interpreted as a Boolean disjunction, but when looking at uses of -ina in everyday life, it seems that the morpheme -ina rarely ever exhibits this pure meaning. There is more often an arbitrary choice interpretation which is more similar to a conjunction than a Boolean disjunction. This work gathers data by examining previous research and then searching for the Sejong Corpus. This search for logical operators which have yet to be studied in previous research may yield an explanation for the -ina conjunction construction. First of all, Unless a logical operator intervenes in the series construction, all interpretations; the Boolean disjunction, the conjunction and the arbitrary choice may appear. Likewise unless a logical operator intervenes in the parallel construction, interpretations of the conjunction and the arbitrary choice may appear. This results in pragmatical ambiguity. Next, as the paralleled construction lacking any logical operators produces only the interpretations of conjunction and arbitrary choice, We elucidate a discrepancy in the interpretation due to semantic structure, ant then, when an enumeration of NPs is clearly pronounced, We anticipate a pause in pronunciation according to the accent/intonation boundary. Therefore, We carry out a prosody structure experiment. The results of the prosody structure test lead to the following new proposals. Connective NP-ina NP(-ina): (-ina 2 is Connective, -ina 1 is a delimiter) (i) Series construction [NP-ina 2 NP], (ii) Parallel construction [NP-ina 2 NP]-ina 1 : inner bonding structure, (iii) Parallel construction [NP-ina 1 ] [NP-ina 1 ]: enumeration structure - 151 -
Third, this dissertation attempts to unite the conjunction -ina with the delimiter -ina by means of the focus and scale. According to proposal above, We divide the parallel construction into an enumeration structure in which each individual item is a delimiter and an inner bonding structure in which the delimiter takes combined unit. Therefore, in the parallel construction, the final -ina is considered a delimiter. This study represents the conjunction -ina as denoting the lower bound in the scale. As the relationship between the free choice and the universal interpretations of the delimiter corresponds with the arbitrary choice and the conjunction interpretations of the A-ina B(-ina) construction, We propose that these two constructions should be dealt with via the same scale. There are two directions on the course of unification and correlativity of two construction. First of all, as the delimiters, -to, -bakkae, -ina introduce components of scale in the discourse into focus interpretation, the second item -to, -bakkae, -ina of A-ina B construction also introduces components of scale in discourse into focus interpretation. Next, as the interpretation of arbitrary choice and conjunction in connective constructions are based on the logical operator used, that of free choice and universal of delimiters also identify the proposal to be true. ( Wh N-ina is used with the quantitative-operator, modou, da, hangsang, nul ; Amu N-ina co-occurs with the proposition-operator of negation, condition, the focus-operator, -to, -bakkae, and irun kind-operator of irun, kurun etc). Consequently, to show the unified scale, We analyze the sentence, John-ina Mary-na sekumul neya handa.(= John or/and Mary must pay taxes) to discover a discrepancy in the -ina parallel constructions, that is, an ambiguity in arbitrary choice and conjunction. The arbitrary choice interpretation represents each John, Mary, John Mary + -ina as denoting the lower bound in the deontic modality scale without order. The conjunction interpretation represents each John, Mary, John Mary + -ina as denoting the lower bound in the deontic modality scale without order. - 152 -
Finally, there are many other delimiters in Korean not dealt with in this thesis that must also be taken into account via scale in the future: such as the similar delimiter -to and -to *(-to) construction, the semantically similar delimiter -rato, and the formally similar conjunctions such as -tunji (-tunji), -hago (-hago), -rang (-rang) etc. As we have seen, there exist scales in a large parts of delimiters or conjunctions and We expect to carry out research based on this thesis and hope to do more research regarding the conception of a modal scale providing context. We shall make mention of remaining issue not to deal with regarding delimiters in further studies. keywords : Lower bound, Focus, Scale, Scalar implicature, Linear/Non-linear order, Epistemic/Deontic/Optative modality, Logical operator, Series/Parallel construction, Disjunction, Conjunction, Arbitrary choice, Enumeration/Inner bonding structure. Student Number : 2002-30039 - 153 -