한국어 텍스트 단위의 비명시적 인과 접속 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to select non-explicit markers that are used for the causality of text units in the Korean language and clarify their detailed causal meanings. That is, this study intends to suggest standards for the typology of relational meanings that can be applied to connections in text units, and to find out the detailed causal meanings of respective markers. Sentences, which are conjuncts in text units, have probability that the relational meaning between conjuncts rely on the hearer’s interpretation due to their syntactic independence. That is, the hearer should judge and connect the most feasible semantic relations fitting to the speaker’s intention, and uses explicit or non-explicit linguistic cues in the process. Therefore, the scope of conjunctive markers includes forms that premise associations with linguistic units other than conjoining propositions, as well as explicit conjunctions such as conjunctive adverbs and connective endings.
Causality is semantic relationship that secures the textuality of sentence chains, and shows the non-explicit property that relies on basic cognitive processing, as well as the explicit property that uses various conjunctions. This paper takes note of the necessity for research on non-explicit linguistic forms, which act on causality in text units, on the basis of characteristics of such conjunctive units and conjunctive characteristics.
In Chapter 2, the concepts and characteristics of textual connections, causality and explicitness, which are the basic premises of discussion, are examined, and non-explicit causal conjunctive markers are selected. Connection in text units can be judged from semantic relations formed between two conjuncts, and so it is probable that their relational meaning is interpreted in reliance on the hearer’s inference. Grounds for the categorization of specific linguistic forms into causal conjunctive markers in text units are as follows: first, causal meanings include those that have the status of ‘explicit meanings.’ Second, there should be a generalized context that is involved in causal meanings.
The selection of research objects was carried out in two stages. First, causality expressions were collected from dictionaries and previous studies, and markers capable of conjoining sentences or larger units were searched for. Next, selection was made from their list by applying the following: the existence of connections in text units and criteria for the judgment of explicitness. The explicitness of connection was defined as ‘directness that reveals semantic relations between conjuncts,’ and autonomy, syntax-function correlation, reference, and structural indication, which are criteria for judging explicitness from the viewpoint of speech-act theory proposed by Stadler (2011), were applied according to categories of conjunctive markers. If the criteria for judging explicitness are applied, non-explicit conjunctive markers are limited to those that do not fall under syntactic linguistic forms based on conjunctive functions, do not indicate conjunctive relations or conjuncts, and the causal meanings of which are formed by contexts. As such non-explicit causal markers, this paper selected ‘eojjeonji –deora(ni)’(어쩐지 –더라(니)), ’eochapi’(어차피), ’hagineun’(하기는), ‘-eun moyang-i-’(-ㄴ 모양이-), ‘-eun-ga/na bo-’(-ㄴ가/나 보-), ‘-eun ges-ita’(-ㄴ 것이다), ‘-janha’(-잖아), and ‘-geodeun’(-거든).
The textual connections may be defined from two aspects: relational meaning and textual structure. Consequently, typological criteria to analyze causality in text units can also be approached from the semantic aspect and text structural aspect of causality. From the semantic aspect of causality, classification was made into factual connection, opinion connection, and speech-act connection, in which sentences, which are conjuncts, indicate the status of situation, proposition, and speech act, respectively. In particular, it is difficult to distinguish between fact connection and opinion connection; in the causal structure, the speaker’s judgment process and inference process were distinguished, and it was assumed that factual connection is a process where the speaker judges the causality of and conjoins two situations, and that opinion conjunction is the process of inferring and deriving another proposition on the basis of one situation or proposition.
Causality at the layer of speech acts is a relation in which conjuncts include the speech act of order or inquiry. It is a relation that enables the hearer to accept the speaker’s speech act properly, and it was assumed that it is possible to distinguish between opinion conjunctive relation and speech-act conjunctive relation according to whether an act elicits physical action directly. Lastly, the existing relations that were analyzed as being paraphrases or connections at the text layer were not set as types equivalent to situation, proposition, or speech-act layer type, because they can be subsumed in characteristics of text-unit connections.
From the text structural aspect, types that can be viewed as causality were selected and a framework for the analysis of rhetorical relations were explained, by referring to the definition of semantic relations suggested by rhetorical structure theory. The existing arguments understood the cognitive layer causality as relations to derive the speaker’s judgment or argument on the basis of objective situation, and it was distinguished according to the direction of inference. In the text unit connection, it may be said that rhetorical relations between text units, rather than the direction of inference, work more significantly.
In Chapter 4, results of analyzing non-explicit causal conjunctive markers, which were selected in Chapter 2, according to standards for the typology of causality were presented. As to ‘eojjeonji –deora(ni)’(어쩐지 –더라(니)), ’eochapi’(어차피), ’hagineun’(하기는), ‘-eun moyang-i-’(-ㄴ 모양이-), ‘-eun-ga/na bo-’(-ㄴ가/나 보-), ‘-eun ges-ita’(-ㄴ 것이다), ‘-janha’(-잖아), ‘-geodeun’(-거든) the semantic characteristics of their respective conjuncts and rhetoric relations found in texts were described. Further, modality meanings emerging from the characteristics of markers themselves, besides cognitive meanings, were examined together.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 1. 서론 1
• 1.1. 연구 목적과 방법1
• 1.2. 선행 연구 검토 5
• 1.2.1. 텍스트언어학적 접속 연구6
• 1.2.2. 인과 관계 유형 연구 10
• 1.3. 용어의 문제14
• 2. 기본적 논의와 연구 대상 선정 17
• 2.1. 기본적 논의17
• 2.1.1 텍스트 단위 접속과 접속 대상17
• 2.1.2. 인과 관계26
• 2.1.3. 명시성32
• 2.2. 연구 대상 선정 35
• 2.2.1. 텍스트 단위 인과 접속 표지 선정37
• 2.2.2. 비명시적 인과 접속 표지 선정 44
• 3. 인과 관계 유형 분류 기제55
• 3.1. 의미 층위에 따른 접속 유형55
• 3.1.1. 사실 접속62
• 3.1.2. 의견 접속65
• 3.1.3. 화행 접속67
• 3.1.4. 문맥 접속과 환언71
• 3.2 수사 관계 유형75
• 3.2.1. 주제 내용 관계82
• 3.2.2. 제시적 관계84
• 4. 비명시적 인과 표지의 인과 접속90
• 4.1. 어쩐지 –더라(니) 90
• 4.1.1. 접속 유형93
• 4.1.2. 수사 관계96
• 4.2. 어차피98
• 4.2.1. 접속 유형100
• 4.2.2. 수사 관계 102
• 4.3. 하기는105
• 4.3.1. 접속 유형106
• 4.3.2. 수사 관계111
• 4.4. -ㄴ 모양이-, -ㄴ가/나 보-114
• 4.4.1. 접속 유형118
• 4.4.2. 수사 관계120
• 4.5. -ㄴ 것이다123
• 4.5.1. 접속 유형124
• 4.5.2. 수사 관계127
• 4.6. -잖아, -거든130
• 4.6.1. 접속 유형132
• 4.6.2. 수사 관계138
• 5. 결론 141
• 5.1. 요약141
• 5.2. 남은 문제144
• 참고 문헌146
• Abstract157

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 철학사전편찬위원회, "철학사전", 중원문화, 2009
• 2 한국 철학사상연구회, "철학대사전", 1990
• 3 박진호, "시제, 상, 양태", 「국어학」 60. 국어학회. 289-322., 2011
• 4 국립국어원, "표준국어대사전", http://stdweb2.korean.go.kr/main.jsp, 2015
• 5 국립국어원, "한국어기초사전", http://krdict.korean.go.kr, 2016
• 6 한국텍스트언어학회, "텍스트언어학의 이해", 박이정, 2004
• 7 고려대학교 민족문화연구원, "고려대 한국어 대사전", null
• 8 오승은, "한국어 양태 표현 연구", 서강대학교 박사학위논문, 2017
• 9 신지연, "접속부사 그러나의 의미", 「한국어 의미학」 18. 한국어의미학회. 23-48, 2005
• 10 타이라 카오리, "구어체 -거든의 화용적 기능", 「한국어학」 31. 한국어학회. 365-392, 2006
• 11 박재연, "현대국어 반말체 종결어미 연구", 서울대학교 석사학위논문, 1998
• 12 노지니, 이윤진, "한국어교육에서의 양태 표현 연구", 「한국어 교육」14-1. 국제한국어교육학 회. 173-209, 2003
• 13 명정희, "한국어 양태 구문의 의미 해석 연구", 서강대학교 박사학위논문, 2018
• 14 신지연, "단락 경계에서의 그러나의 의미 기능", 「텍스트언어학」 19. 한국텍스트언어학회. 83-107., 2005
• 15 전문이, "한국어 동적양태의 양태 정형성 연구", 인지언어학회 학숙대화 발표논문집 인지언어학회. 61-71, 2021
• 16 채영희, "담화에서 쓰이는 -거든의 화용적 기능", 「한국어 의미학」 3. 한국어의미학 회. 159-177, 1998
• 17 이은경, "한국어 연결 어미의 의미 기술에 대하여", 「한국학연구」 38. 인하대학교 한국학연구소. 333-359, 2015
• 18 박진희, "국어 절 접속의 의미관계 유형에 대한 연구", 서강대학교 박사학위논문, 2011
• 19 고영근, "“서법과 양태의 상관관계.” 유목상 외 공편", 「국어학신연구Ⅰ」. 탑출판사, 1986
• 20 서반석, "한국어 접속 부사에 대한 인지!텍스트적 연구", 서울대학교 박사학위논문, 2018
• 21 정인아, "한국어의 증거성(Evidentiality) 범주에 관한 연구", 상명대학교 박사학위논문, 2010
• 22 유연, "한국어 상태변화 구문 -어지다와 -게 되다 연구", 서울대학교 박사학위논문, 2017
• 23 한하림, "구어체 종결어미 거든 요 - ( )의 기능 분석 연구", 국제한국어교육학회 학술대회논문집 국제한국어교육학회. 693-707, 2015
• 24 이슬비, "한국어 학술 텍스트의 필자 태도 표현 교육 연구", 서울대학교 박사학위논문, 2016
• 25 조진수, "“텍스트 표지” 교육 내용에 대한 문법교육적 고찰.“", 「국어교육」 150. 한국 어교육학회. 1-31, 2015
• 26 Baker, Irwin, "사고중심 전략 중심 독서지도방법 / 한철우, 천경록 공역", 교학사, 1989
• 27 이한나, "정치 담화에 ㄴ나타난 명예훼손 발화의 명시성 비교 연구", 언어 43-2 한국언어 학회 353-371, 2018
• 28 전문이, "한국어 양태의 정형성 및 유형에 관한 인지언어학적 연구", 한국외국어대학교 박사 학위논문, 2020
• 29 이해윤, 전수은, "Constructing an ontology of coherence relations: an example of causal relations.", 「언어학」 54. 언어학회. 41-60, 2009
• 30 강범모, 논항의, "“ 의미 유형과 다의성 기술.” 「의미구조의 표상과 실현」", 소화출판사. 185-228, 2000
• 31 명정희, "인식양태 구성들ㅇ의 비교 연구-판단자와 판단증거를 중심으로-", 한국언어학회 학술대회지. 한국언어학회. 99-112., 2018
• 32 서반석, "결과의 비접속 부사 연구-결국, 끝내, 드디어, 마침내를 중심으로", 「국어학」 87. 국어학회. 237-265, 2018
• 33 van Dijk, T.A., "Textwissenschaft Eine inter disziplinare Einfuhrung /정시호 역 (1995). 텍스트학", 민음사, 1980
• 34 이선영, "수사구조이론(RST)을 활용한 학습자 텍스트 분석의 문제점과 해결 방안", 「화법연 구」39 한국화법학회. 65-88, 2018
• 35 Heinemann, W, Viehwegerm D, "Texlinguistik, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tubingen(백 설자 역 (2001). 텍스트 언어학 입문", 역락, 1991
• 36 오현아, "문법 교육에서의 인성 교육 내용 구성 가능성 탐색 –잖아(요), -거든(요)를 중심으로", 「새국어교육」 103. 한국국어교육학회. 79-111, 2015
• 37 Brinker. k., "Linguistiche textanalyse: eine einfufuhrung in grundbegriffe und metnoden. Berlin : Erich Schmidt(이성만 역(2004). 텍스트 언어학의 이해", 역락, 1985